On September 29, 2021, Senators Patrick Leahy (D-VT) and John Cornyn (R-TX) introduced a bipartisan bill, “Restoring the America Invents Act.” The bill would roll back changes introduced by the courts and former USPTO Director Andrei Iancu. Specifically, the bill would “restore” aspects of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) and the inter partes review (IPR) and post-grant review (PGR) programs.
The purpose of the bill is “to address problems for small businesses and ordinary Americans caused by poor-quality patents” according to the Senators’ joint statement on the legislation. However, critics believe that the bill in its current form leans too much in favor of petitioners. The following elements of the proposed bill may be of particular concern to patent owners:
- Reduction of the Director’s discretion to deny IPRs. Currently, the Director must consider six factors, outlined in Apple Inc. v. Fintiv, Inc., when deciding whether to deny institution of an IPR petition challenging patent claims that are also being litigated in a parallel proceeding. The proposed bill would overrule the Fintiv, decision and limit the Director’s discretion to deny IPRs to instances where “the same or substantially the same prior art or arguments previously were presented to the Office.” This would restore a Petitioner’s ability to attack the same patent claims twice.
- IPR Filing Deadline. 35 U.S.C. § 315(b), provides that an IPR “may not be instituted if the petition requesting the proceeding is filed more than one year after the date on which the petitioner…is served with a complaint alleging infringement of the patent.” In Click-To-Call Tech. v. Ingenio, Inc., the Federal Circuit found that a voluntary dismissal without prejudice of a district court litigation does not reset the one-year time bar. The proposed bill directly contradicts the Click-To-Call decision and states that lawsuits that are dismissed without prejudice will no longer start the clock on filing an IPR petition.
- Authorization for U.S. governmental entities to file an IPR. In Return Mail Inc. v. United States Postal Service, the Supreme Court held that a government agency does not constitute a “person” in the context of the AIA statute. The proposed bill would overturn Return Mail, stating that “a governmental entity” may file an IPR petition.
- Promotion of Litigation Stays. The proposed bill lists factors a court should consider if a party seeks a stay of litigation regarding infringement of a patent that is also subject to an IPR. The factors include whether (1) the outcome of the IPR would simplify the issues in question in the civil action; (2) as of the date on which the stay if requested, discovery in the civil action is complete; (3) a stay would unduly prejudice the non-moving party or present a clear advantage for the moving party; and (4) a stay would reduce the burden of litigation on the parties and the court. These factors strongly encourage stays of the litigation. The provision further permits immediate interlocutory appeal of stay decisions. The factors and the ability to appeal may limit a patent owner’s ability to pursue litigation in court.
- Expansion of the Scope of IPRs. Currently, IPRs may only attack patentability on the grounds “raised under section 102 and 103 and only on the basis of prior art consisting of patents or printed publications.” The proposed bill would expand the basis to include “admissions in the patent specification, drawings, or claims” and “statutory or obviousness-type double patenting.” This would provide a petitioner with additional avenues to invalidate a patent.
Although these provisions may be concerning to patent owners, the overall consensus in the patent community is that the bill is unlikely to pass in its current form. It will be important to continue monitoring this bill and its future iterations, as it is likely to add more ways to challenge U.S. patents, thereby impacting patent owners’ rights.
Subscribe
Recent Posts
- The Expiration of the After Final Consideration Pilot Program 2.0 (AFCP 2.0)
- Patently Unclear: Why Result-Oriented Claims Don’t Make the Cut Under 35 U.S.C. § 101
- Make Your Invention The Priority, What Track-1 Can Do For You!
- Navigating Final Rejections in Patent Prosecution: AFCP 2.0 vs. 37 CFR § 1.116
- A Clear POV on Patent Eligibility Under 35 U.S.C. 101: Contour’s Claims Zoom Back Into Focus in Contour v. GoPro
- Understanding the Recent Federal Circuit Decision in Broadband iTV, Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc. on Patent Ineligibility
- Federal Circuit Clarifies Obviousness-Type Double Patenting in Allergan v. MSN Laboratories: The Impact of Patent Term Adjustments on First-Filed Patents
- The Risks and Rewards of Using Open Source Software
- Don't Let Your Trade Secrets Walk Out the Door With Your Employees: Patent Them!
- Federal Circuit’s New Test For Design Patent Obviousness Will Change Everything
Archives
- September 2024
- August 2024
- June 2024
- May 2024
- April 2024
- February 2024
- January 2024
- December 2023
- November 2023
- October 2023
- September 2023
- August 2023
- July 2023
- May 2023
- April 2023
- March 2023
- February 2023
- January 2023
- October 2022
- August 2022
- June 2022
- May 2022
- April 2022
- March 2022
- February 2022
- January 2022
- December 2021
- November 2021
- October 2021
- September 2021
- August 2021
- July 2021
- June 2021
- May 2021
- April 2021
- March 2021
- February 2021
- January 2021
- December 2020
- November 2020
- October 2020
- August 2020
- July 2020
- June 2020
- May 2020
- April 2020
- March 2020
- February 2020
- January 2020
- November 2019
- October 2019
- September 2019
- June 2019
- April 2019
- February 2019
- January 2019
- October 2018
- July 2018
- June 2018
- May 2018
- April 2018
- March 2018
- February 2018
- January 2018
- December 2017
- November 2017
- October 2017
- August 2017
- July 2017
- May 2017
- April 2017
- March 2017
- February 2017
- January 2017