Supreme Court Holds That AIA On-Sale Bar Applied to Secret Sales

By Reza Mollaaghababa
In an inter-partes review proceeding (IPR), a challenger can rely only on patents and printed publications to challenge the validity of a patent claim. In contrast, in a post grant review (PGR) proceeding, a challenger can rely on any ground related to patentability, including prior sale, to challenge a patent claim.  In particular, 35 U.S.C. §102(a)(1) bars a person from receiving a patent on an invention that was “in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.” Continue reading “Supreme Court Holds That AIA On-Sale Bar Applied to Secret Sales”

PTAB Abandons its Practice of Broadly Interpreting Claims of Challenged Patents in favor of Phillips Standard of “Ordinary and Customary Meaning”

By Tom Engellenner
In a final rule published in the Federal Register on October 11, 2018, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) took a remarkable step of acknowledging unfairness in the way its Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) has been conducting trials for the past six years. The rule change will apply to all of the new administrative patent challenge proceedings (inter partes reviews, covered business method patent reviews, and post-grant reviews) established by the 2011 America Invents Act (AIA).  The new claim construction rule will be applied to all AIA petitions filed on or after November 13, 2018.

The comments accompanying the USPTO’s Federal Register notice of rule change state:

[R]ecent studies . . . support the concerns expressed by stakeholders regarding the unfairness of using a different claim construction standard in AIA proceedings than that used by the district courts.

At issue is how claims are interpreted when new prior art references are cited by petitioners seeking to invalidate issued U.S. Patents. If a claim term is broadly interpreted, it is more likely that the prior art will be considered anticipatory or render the claim obvious.  (Novelty and non-obviousness are fundamental requirements for patent validity.)

From the very beginning, when inter partes review (IPR) proceedings under the AIA began in 2012, the USPTO adopted a claim construction rule known as broadest reasonable interpretation, i.e., claim terms are given their broadest reasonable interpretation in view of the specification to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention without importing limitations into the claims from the specification. This so-called BRI standard had long been the standard applied by the USPTO during pre-issuance examination of patent applications.

While BRI standard may be appropriate when patent applications are undergoing examination – where the applicant can amend the claims if the examiner adopt too broad an interpretation – getting the PTAB judges to consider claim amendments in AIA proceedings has proven to be extraordinarily difficult.

The new standard to be applied going forward (for petitions filed on or after November 13, 2018) is the “Phillips standard,” named for the the Federal Circuit’s 2005 ruling in Phillips v. AWH Corp. 415 F.3d 1303, 1313 (Fed. Cir. 2005). Under the Phillips standard, claims are to be given their “ordinary and customary meaning” – not their broadest meaning.  This is the standard applied by all federal district courts and the International Trade Commission when hearing patent cases.  The rule-making comments note  that “the scope of an issued patent should not depend on the happenstance of which court or governmental agency interprets it, at least as far as the objective rules go ” and further notes:

Employing the same standard for AIA proceedings and district courts improves uniformity and predictability as it allows the different fora to use the same standards in interpreting claims.

The new rule further states that any prior claim construction decision in a civil action “will be considered if that determination is timely filed in the record” at the PTAB.

While the PTAB judges are not explicitly required to accept prior claim constructions from federal district courts, the new rule certainly does appear to encourage conformity in interpreting patent claims.

Once The Federal Circuit Affirms A PTAB Finding Of Invalidity, Collateral Estoppel Prevents Patent Owner From Asserting The Claims In Any Further Proceeding

By Reza Mollaaghababa
On May 23, 2018, in XY, LLC v. Trans Ova Genetics, L.C., CAFC held that its affirmance of PTAB’s invalidity decision regarding certain claims of a patent owned by XY in a separate appeal involving a different defendant must be given “immediate issue preclusive effect” with respect to the same claims in the present case even though XY and Trans Ova had not raised the collateral estoppel issue.

XY owns patents that relate to methods of sorting mammalian sperms into X- and Y-chromosome-bearing populations based on their DNA content. In 2004, Trans Ova, which provides services related to embryo transfer and in-vitro fertilization for cattle, entered into a five-year licensing agreement with XY for the use of the technology embodied in the XY’s patents. The licensing agreement was subject to automatic renewal in 2009. In 2007, XY sent a letter to Trans Ova to terminate the licensing agreement alleging certain breaches by Trans Ova.  Although the parties negotiated over the next several years, they failed to resolve their dispute.  In 2012, XY sued Trans Ova for patent infringement of a number of its patents, one of which (U.S. Patent No. 7,820,425) relates to a method of freezing separated sperm cells.

The jury found that none of the asserted patent claims was invalid and that Trans Ova willfully infringed those claims. CAFC held that as a threshold matter, it did not need to address Trans Ova’s invalidity arguments as to the ‘425 patent in view of its affirmance in a separate appeal invalidating those same claims, “which collaterally estops XY from asserting the patent in any further proceedings.”  CAFC indicated that “in this separate case appealed to us and argued on the same day as the instant appeal, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (Board) held that these claims are unpatentable in a final written decision from an inter partes review proceeding … [and] [i]n a separate order issued today, we affirm the Board’s decision.”

In support of its decision, the CAFC reasoned that a patentee, having been afforded the opportunity to exhaust his remedy of appeal from a holding of invalidity has had his “day in court,” and a defendant should not have to continue defending a suit for infringement of an adjudged invalid patent.

Judge Newman dissented and indicated that this holding of “estoppel is based on a PTAB ruling in a separate case involving non-mutual parties, and contravenes not only the America Invents Act’s estoppel provision, but also the general law of collateral estoppel.” Judge Newman emphasized that “collateral estoppel was not pleaded and was not argued, yet is imposed on appeal without opportunity for response – contrary to precedent requiring that the precluded party ‘had a full and fair opportunity to present its arguments’ concerning estoppel.”

The majority responded that “[a]s to the Dissent’s concern of applying estoppel without briefing, both precedent and the parties’ positions allow application of collateral estoppel sua sponte here.  A remand for briefing is not a requirement to applying estoppel when there is no indication from the Patent Owner that ‘it did not have a full and fair opportunity to litigate the validity’ of its patent in the parallel case.”