Supreme Court: Patent Office Retains IPR Authority, Loses Discretion to Streamline Proceedings

by Stoel Rives LLP
Contact

Stoel Rives LLP

Today (April 24, 2018), the U.S. Supreme Court released two important decisions regarding the authority of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (“PTO”) to conduct Inter Partes Review (“IPR”) proceedings. IPRs, an administrative process to challenge the validity of existing patent claims, originated with the America Invents Act of 2011 and have become a popular and successful avenue to challenge patent validity, as they can be lower in cost and faster than litigation. 
 
The decision in Oil States Energy v. Greene's Energy Group (No. 16-712) upheld the constitutionality of the IPR process, holding that a patent owner lacks a constitutional right to have patent validity decided exclusively in a federal court before a jury.  The decision in SAS Institute, Inc. v. Iancu (No. 16-969) invalidated the PTO's practice of selecting which arguments to address in an IPR petition.  Going forward, the PTO must address all arguments raised by the patent challenger if the PTO goes forward with the IPR challenge on any grounds. 
 
As a result of these decisions, the IPR process remains alive, but the requirements of SAS Institute may change certain aspects of the IPR process that currently make IPRs attractive to patent challengers.  
 
The IPR Process
 
The America Invents Act of 2011 created the IPR system to hear and decide disputes over patent validity.  The process begins with the filing of a petition challenging the validity of selected patent claims.  The PTO decides whether to deny the petition or to grant the petition and thereby institute an IPR proceeding.  IPR cases are heard by three-person panels of administrative law judges (“ALJs”), who are employees of the PTO.  When it went into effect in 2013, the IPR system quickly gained a reputation as a ‘death squad’ for invalidating 80% of the patent claims reviewed.  Although the statistics have evened out by some measures, IPR remains a powerful tool in the hands of a party accused of patent infringement.  Many federal courts have preferred to stay litigation during an IPR proceedings, effectively requiring the patent owner to defend the validity of its patent in an IPR before continuing in litigation against the alleged infringer.
 
In patent enforcement strategy, IPR has been a benefit for patent challengers and a detriment to patent owners, because the substantial burden on the challenger that comes with district court enforcement is at least delayed while the patent owner defends an IPR.  Thus, IPR is a powerful tool for patent defendants because it imposes significant upfront costs on the patent owner at the outset of the infringement dispute, and may invalidate the patent.
 
The Oil States Decision
 
In Oil States, the Supreme Court held that a patent can be granted and withdrawn at the pleasure of the PTO because patents are "public rights" ¾ not "private rights."  The decision to grant a patent in the first instance, reasoned the Court, involves taking rights from the public and bestowing them upon the patentee.  Similarly, when the PTO takes a second look in IPR at an already-issued patent, the PTO is deciding whether the subject matter of the patent claims was properly franchised to the patent owner or should have remained open to the public.  By way of analogy, the Court explained, a patent is like a franchise that permits a company to erect a toll bridge or railroads or telegraph lines—the government can reserve authority to revoke the franchise without giving the franchisee a constitutional right to be heard in court or before a jury in resisting the revocation. 
 
The SAS Institute Decision
 
In SAS Institute, the Supreme Court held that the plain text of the IPR statutes requires the PTO, if it institutes an IPR challenge, to decide the patentability of every claim challenged by the petitioner.  This left no room for the PTO's existing (now past) practice of selecting only some grounds raised in an IPR petition to go forward to decision, which the PTO had relied upon to streamline (and thus speed up) IPR proceedings.
 
Key Questions for the Future
 
1) The Supreme Court’s Decisions Today Do Not Resolve All Outstanding Areas of Uncertainty Around IPR Practice.  Oil States expressly calls out two open areas for future constitutional challenges to IPR proceedings by dissatisfied patentees: (A) whether IPR can permissibly be applied retroactively to patents granted before enactment of the 2011 America Invents Act and (B) potential due process challenges to specific aspects of the IPR procedural scheme. 
 
2)  Other Changes to the IPR Process Are PossibleOil States also highlights the power of Congress to modify the IPR scheme and other aspects of patent law.  At least some in Congress have expressed interest in changing the IPR process or adjusting the scope of patentable subject matter to provide greater rights to patent owners (e.g., Senate Bill S.1390, STRONGER Patents Act).  In addition, it remains to be seen if the Trump administration will alter any Obama-era procedural rules governing IPR proceedings in the wake of today’s Supreme Court decisions.
 
3)  SAS Institute May Impose New Stresses on the IPR System, Requiring Thoughtful Strategy in IPR Proceedings.  By requiring the PTO to decide all challenges raised in an IPR proceeding if it decides any of them, SAS Institute may ultimately weaken IPRs as a tool for patent challenges.  Compliance with this requirement will increases the burden, cost, and time required for an IPR proceeding, which may result in fewer IPR petitions and may increase backlog and delays in reaching a final decision.  Second, if the time to conclude an IPR proceeding increases significantly, or if IPR institution rates fall, federal courts may become less willing to stay litigation, thus removing some of the benefit to the accused infringer of preparing and filing an IPR in the first place. 
 
4)  SAS Institute Requires Greater Strategic Consideration of the Scope of IPR Petitions.  Because the PTO will now be required to decide all challenges raised in an IPR petition if it decides any, the estoppel effect of IPR proceedings on future litigation is likely to broaden.  Previously, estoppel arguably did not apply to issues raised but not decided in IPR proceedings.  The new rule of SAS Institute will require greater strategic analysis by patent challengers in deciding whether to prepare an IPR petition and on which grounds.  Accused infringers who are considering IPR must strike a balance between preparing a large petition (that could invalidate all relevant claims) and preparing a focused petition (that has a higher likelihood of being instituted and concluded before a final judgment in litigation, and may carry narrower estoppel risks).

 

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.

© Stoel Rives LLP | Attorney Advertising

Written by:

Stoel Rives LLP
Contact
more
less

Stoel Rives LLP on:

Readers' Choice 2017
Reporters on Deadline

"My best business intelligence, in one easy email…"

Your first step to building a free, personalized, morning email brief covering pertinent authors and topics on JD Supra:
Sign up using*

Already signed up? Log in here

*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.
Custom Email Digest
Privacy Policy (Updated: October 8, 2015):
hide

JD Supra provides users with access to its legal industry publishing services (the "Service") through its website (the "Website") as well as through other sources. Our policies with regard to data collection and use of personal information of users of the Service, regardless of the manner in which users access the Service, and visitors to the Website are set forth in this statement ("Policy"). By using the Service, you signify your acceptance of this Policy.

Information Collection and Use by JD Supra

JD Supra collects users' names, companies, titles, e-mail address and industry. JD Supra also tracks the pages that users visit, logs IP addresses and aggregates non-personally identifiable user data and browser type. This data is gathered using cookies and other technologies.

The information and data collected is used to authenticate users and to send notifications relating to the Service, including email alerts to which users have subscribed; to manage the Service and Website, to improve the Service and to customize the user's experience. This information is also provided to the authors of the content to give them insight into their readership and help them to improve their content, so that it is most useful for our users.

JD Supra does not sell, rent or otherwise provide your details to third parties, other than to the authors of the content on JD Supra.

If you prefer not to enable cookies, you may change your browser settings to disable cookies; however, please note that rejecting cookies while visiting the Website may result in certain parts of the Website not operating correctly or as efficiently as if cookies were allowed.

Email Choice/Opt-out

Users who opt in to receive emails may choose to no longer receive e-mail updates and newsletters by selecting the "opt-out of future email" option in the email they receive from JD Supra or in their JD Supra account management screen.

Security

JD Supra takes reasonable precautions to insure that user information is kept private. We restrict access to user information to those individuals who reasonably need access to perform their job functions, such as our third party email service, customer service personnel and technical staff. However, please note that no method of transmitting or storing data is completely secure and we cannot guarantee the security of user information. Unauthorized entry or use, hardware or software failure, and other factors may compromise the security of user information at any time.

If you have reason to believe that your interaction with us is no longer secure, you must immediately notify us of the problem by contacting us at info@jdsupra.com. In the unlikely event that we believe that the security of your user information in our possession or control may have been compromised, we may seek to notify you of that development and, if so, will endeavor to do so as promptly as practicable under the circumstances.

Sharing and Disclosure of Information JD Supra Collects

Except as otherwise described in this privacy statement, JD Supra will not disclose personal information to any third party unless we believe that disclosure is necessary to: (1) comply with applicable laws; (2) respond to governmental inquiries or requests; (3) comply with valid legal process; (4) protect the rights, privacy, safety or property of JD Supra, users of the Service, Website visitors or the public; (5) permit us to pursue available remedies or limit the damages that we may sustain; and (6) enforce our Terms & Conditions of Use.

In the event there is a change in the corporate structure of JD Supra such as, but not limited to, merger, consolidation, sale, liquidation or transfer of substantial assets, JD Supra may, in its sole discretion, transfer, sell or assign information collected on and through the Service to one or more affiliated or unaffiliated third parties.

Links to Other Websites

This Website and the Service may contain links to other websites. The operator of such other websites may collect information about you, including through cookies or other technologies. If you are using the Service through the Website and link to another site, you will leave the Website and this Policy will not apply to your use of and activity on those other sites. We encourage you to read the legal notices posted on those sites, including their privacy policies. We shall have no responsibility or liability for your visitation to, and the data collection and use practices of, such other sites. This Policy applies solely to the information collected in connection with your use of this Website and does not apply to any practices conducted offline or in connection with any other websites.

Changes in Our Privacy Policy

We reserve the right to change this Policy at any time. Please refer to the date at the top of this page to determine when this Policy was last revised. Any changes to our privacy policy will become effective upon posting of the revised policy on the Website. By continuing to use the Service or Website following such changes, you will be deemed to have agreed to such changes. If you do not agree with the terms of this Policy, as it may be amended from time to time, in whole or part, please do not continue using the Service or the Website.

Contacting JD Supra

If you have any questions about this privacy statement, the practices of this site, your dealings with this Web site, or if you would like to change any of the information you have provided to us, please contact us at: info@jdsupra.com.

- hide
*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. Or, sign up using your email address.