Standards of Review: Implications for Patent Challengers

more+
less-

Originally published in Life Sciences Law & Industry Report on 11/30/2012.

The standard of review is frequently cited but often overlooked as being outcome-determinative in patent cases. A recent trio of decisions by the Federal Circuit illustrates the differences in outcome that result from the standard of review for issued patents, challenged for validity in the Federal Courts, versus that for patent applications examined for patentability by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. A renewed consideration of these differences may motivate a patent challenger to proceed proactively under one of the postgrant reexamination procedures within the U.S. Patent Office (i.e., post-grant review (PGR) and inter partes review (IPR)) rather than reactively in the context of an invalidity defense or declaratory judgment action.

Patent applications are examined for patentability using a preponderance of the evidence standard. That is, claims will be allowed if the evidence in favor of patentability is more convincing than the evidence in opposition to it. In contrast, an issued patent enjoys a statutory presumption of validity, under which a challenger must establish invalidity by clear and convincing evidence in the federal courts. The new America Invents Act post-grant reexamination procedures, conducted within the U.S. Patent Office, do not afford the patentee with the same presumption of validity it enjoys within the federal court system. PGR and IPR are conducted under a lower preponderance of the evidence standard, although, unlike initial examination of a patent application, it is the challenger’s burden to prove invalidity. A spate of recent decisions indicates that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has its eye firmly on the standard of review issue, which may result in different outcomes based on similar facts.

Please see full alert below for more information.

LOADING PDF: If there are any problems, click here to download the file.

Written by:

Published In:

DISCLAIMER: Because of the generality of this update, the information provided herein may not be applicable in all situations and should not be acted upon without specific legal advice based on particular situations.

© Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP | Attorney Advertising

Don't miss a thing! Build a custom news brief:

Read fresh new writing on compliance, cybersecurity, Dodd-Frank, whistleblowers, social media, hiring & firing, patent reform, the NLRB, Obamacare, the SEC…

…or whatever matters the most to you. Follow authors, firms, and topics on JD Supra.

Create your news brief now - it's free and easy »

All the intelligence you need, in one easy email:

Great! Your first step to building an email digest of JD Supra authors and topics. Log in with LinkedIn so we can start sending your digest...

Sign up for your custom alerts now, using LinkedIn ›

* With LinkedIn, you don't need to create a separate login to manage your free JD Supra account, and we can make suggestions based on your needs and interests. We will not post anything on LinkedIn in your name.
×
Loading...
×