On Monday, the PTABPatent Trial and Appeal Board. Reviews adverse decisions of examiners on written appeals of applicants and appeals of reexaminations, and conducts inter partes reviews and post-grant reviews. The Board also continues to decide patent interferences, as it was known as the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences (BPAI) before the AIA. made clear that the ultimate outcome of the Fintiv rule championed by Director Iancu is the elimination of inter partes review (IPRIntellectual Property Rights. Usually associated with formal legal rights such as patent, trademark, and copyright. Intellectual property is a broader term that encompasses knowledge, information, and data considered proprietary whether or not it is formally protected.) as a viable alternative to challenging patents in litigation. RAI sued Philip Morris on April 9th, 2020. Less than a month later, on May 8th, 2020, Philip Morris filed a petition for IPRIntellectual Property Rights. Usually associated with formal legal rights such as patent, trademark, and copyright. Intellectual property is a broader term that encompasses knowledge, information, and data considered proprietary whether or not it is formally protected. against three of the asserted patents. (When I was in practice, I worked on a number of IPRs. Filing a petition in less than a month is an impressively diligent feat—typically it takes six to nine months to file a petition.)
Monday, the PTABPatent Trial and Appeal Board. Reviews adverse decisions of examiners on written appeals of applicants and appeals of reexaminations, and conducts inter partes reviews and post-grant reviews. The Board also continues to decide patent interferences, as it was known as the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences (BPAI) before the AIA. denied two of the three petitions for IPRIntellectual Property Rights. Usually associated with formal legal rights such as patent, trademark, and copyright. Intellectual property is a broader term that encompasses knowledge, information, and data considered proprietary whether or not it is formally protected.. (The third petition was instituted, despite being in the exact same procedural posture, without any discussion of these issues.)
Here’s what the PTABPatent Trial and Appeal Board. Reviews adverse decisions of examiners on written appeals of applicants and appeals of reexaminations, and conducts inter partes reviews and post-grant reviews. The Board also continues to decide patent interferences, as it was known as the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences (BPAI) before the AIA. judges said about the petition as they denied it:
“Petitioner has demonstrated that the Office erred in a manner material to the patentability of challenged claims.”
“The merits of Petitioner’s three grounds are particularly strong on the preliminary record.”
But at the end of the day?
“… the anticipated EDVA trial between the same parties eight to nine months before the projected statutory deadline outweighs slightly the factors that favor institution, including Petitioner’s diligence in filing the Petition, the strength of the Petition on the merits, the relatively modest investment in the district court action to date, and the lack of exact overlap based on Petitioner’s narrow stipulation.”
Initial trial dates are often delayed (even when there isn’t a pandemic.) And Congress intended the PTABPatent Trial and Appeal Board. Reviews adverse decisions of examiners on written appeals of applicants and appeals of reexaminations, and conducts inter partes reviews and post-grant reviews. The Board also continues to decide patent interferences, as it was known as the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences (BPAI) before the AIA. to serve as an alternative to litigation over validity, not to only be available if there was no co-pending litigation.
Despite this, the PTABPatent Trial and Appeal Board. Reviews adverse decisions of examiners on written appeals of applicants and appeals of reexaminations, and conducts inter partes reviews and post-grant reviews. The Board also continues to decide patent interferences, as it was known as the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences (BPAI) before the AIA. decided that an early trial date outweighs all other considerations. That includes a petition being filed within a month of being sued, 11 months before the statutory bar date. That includes a petition which the PTABPatent Trial and Appeal Board. Reviews adverse decisions of examiners on written appeals of applicants and appeals of reexaminations, and conducts inter partes reviews and post-grant reviews. The Board also continues to decide patent interferences, as it was known as the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences (BPAI) before the AIA. panel explicitly found to be “particularly strong on the merits.” And that includes the fact that the district court hasn’t made any significant effort or investment into the case to date. The PTABPatent Trial and Appeal Board. Reviews adverse decisions of examiners on written appeals of applicants and appeals of reexaminations, and conducts inter partes reviews and post-grant reviews. The Board also continues to decide patent interferences, as it was known as the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences (BPAI) before the AIA. is elevating the presence of a trial date—a date that is often delayed—over all other considerations, including the critical fact that the PTABPatent Trial and Appeal Board. Reviews adverse decisions of examiners on written appeals of applicants and appeals of reexaminations, and conducts inter partes reviews and post-grant reviews. The Board also continues to decide patent interferences, as it was known as the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences (BPAI) before the AIA. thinks that the patent is likely invalid.
What that means is that any plaintiff filing in a district which sets an aggressive time to trial—districts like the Eastern and Western Districts of Texas, home of NPEsNon-Practicing Entity. A broad term associated with trolls but now disfavored because it includes universities and legitimate technology developers that seek to license technology in advance rather than after a producing company has independently developed it. More, and the Eastern District of Virginia, home to this case—can ensure that no matter how quickly a defendant gets its petition together, no matter how invalid the patent appears to be, the PTABPatent Trial and Appeal Board. Reviews adverse decisions of examiners on written appeals of applicants and appeals of reexaminations, and conducts inter partes reviews and post-grant reviews. The Board also continues to decide patent interferences, as it was known as the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences (BPAI) before the AIA. will refuse to hear the case. That’s not what Congress intended, and that’s not good for the patent system.
This decision makes clear what the underlying goal of the Fintiv rule is—eliminating meaningful access to IPRIntellectual Property Rights. Usually associated with formal legal rights such as patent, trademark, and copyright. Intellectual property is a broader term that encompasses knowledge, information, and data considered proprietary whether or not it is formally protected.. So why is the USPTOUnited States Patent and Trademark Office. See also PTO. Director trying to force through an eleventh-hour rule that would enshrine Fintiv into regulation?