Updated Guidance on Section 101 Subject Matter Eligibility

Photo of John P. Isacson
John P. Isacson

On October 17, 2019, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office issued a 22-page updated guidance document on subject matter eligibility under 35 USC §101.  Subject matter eligibility is becoming increasingly important in the computer and life sciences areas.

Continue reading “Updated Guidance on Section 101 Subject Matter Eligibility”

What Belongs to the Director Stays With the Director

Honeywell Int’l v. Arkema, Inc., Appeal No. 2018-1151, -1153 (Fed. Cir., October 1, 2019)

Photo of John P. Isacson

John P. Isacson

Arkema filed two petitions for post-grant review of a Honeywell patent pertaining to fluoroalkene compounds used in refrigerator systems.  During the proceedings, Honeywell discovered that it had an error in its priority claim and sought authorization from the Board to file a motion for leave to petition the Director for a Certificate of Correction.  The Board denied authorization to file a motion on the grounds that Honeywell had not satisfied 35 USC §255.

The Federal Circuit vacated the Board’s decision and stated as follows:

On the merits of Honeywell’s appeal, we conclude that the Board abused its discretion by assuming the authority that 35 U.S.C. § 255 expressly delegates to the Director: to determine when a Certificate of Correction is appropriate.

Slip op. at 6.

Section 255 does not grant the Board authority to determine whether a mistake in an issued patent is of “minor character” or “occurred in good faith.” 35 U.S.C. § 255. That authority is expressly granted to the Director. Id. The Director has not delegated its Section 255 authority to the Board, but has instead promulgated procedures by which patentees may seek the Board’s leave to petition the Director for a Certificate of Correction.  37 C.F.R. § 1.323; MPEP § 1485.

Slip op. at 7.

In past practice, the Board had reviewed motions for leave to seek a Certificate of Correction to determine whether the Patent Owner established a sufficient basis to seek correction, which the court approved of.  Here, the Federal Circuit faulted the Board for not even allowing Honeywell to file the motion.  Slip op. at 8.  The Federal Circuit considered the refusal of authorization to be an abuse of discretion. Slip op. at 9.  The Federal Circuit vacated and remanded the decision, and instructed the Board that it “should authorize Honeywell to file a motion….”   Slip op. at 10-11.

PTAB Identifies Two Prior Decisions as Precedential

Edwin V. (Ted) Merkel

The PTAB designated its termination decision in Infiltrator Water Technologies, LLC v. Presby Patent Trust, IPR2018-00224 (Paper 18)(entered October 1, 2018) as precedential on September 9, 2019, and its decision denying institution in Cisco Systems, Inc. v. Chrimar Systems, Inc., IPR2018-01511 (Paper 11)(entered January 31, 2019) as precedential on August 29, 2019.  These cases illustrate application of the Federal Circuit’s decision in Click-to-Call Technologies, LP v. Ingenio, Inc., 899 F.3d 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2018), which held that 35 U.S.C. § 315(b) “unambiguously precludes the Director from instituting an IPR if the petition seeking institution is filed more than one year after the petitioner, real party in interest, or privy of the petitioner ‘is served with a complaint’ alleging patent infringement,” and that § 315(b) “does not contain any exceptions or exemptions for complaints . . . that are subsequently dismissed, with or without prejudice.”  Click-to-Call, 899 F.3d at 1330.

Continue reading “PTAB Identifies Two Prior Decisions as Precedential”