Source: http://patents.hdp.com/?cat=30
Timestamp: 2019-04-21 16:17:47+00:00

Document:
In Honeywell, Int’l Inc. v. Mexichem Amanco Holdings S.A., [16-1996] (August 1, 2017). the Federal Circuit vacated the USTPO’s reexamination decision invalidating claims 1–26, 31–37, 46–49, 58, 59, 61–68, 70–75, 80, and 81 of U.S. Patent 7,534,366 on a refrigerant and lubricant composition for air conditioning systems. The Federal Circuit found that the Board erred by improperly relying on inherency to find obviousness and in its analysis of motivation to combine the references.
First, the Board erred in relying on inherency to dismiss evidence showing unpredictability in the art. The use of inherency in the context of obviousness must be carefully circumscribed because that which may be inherent is not necessarily known and that which is unknown cannot be obvious. What is important regarding properties that may be inherent, but unknown, is whether they are unexpected. All properties of a composition are inherent in that composition, but unexpected properties may cause what may appear to be an obvious composition to be nonobvious. The Board, in dismissing properties of the claimed invention as merely inherent, without further consideration as to unpredictability and unexpectedness, erred as a matter of law.
Second, the Board erred in dismissing evidence of unpredictability in the art when it stated that one of ordinary skill would no more have expected failure than success in combining the references, and thus concluded that the person of ordinary skill would be led to routine testing, which would have eventually led to the claimed combination. The Federal Circuit found that this put the burden on the patent owner to show that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have expected failure. The Federal Circuit said that instead the the burden is on the Office to show that one of ordinary skill would have had a motivation to combine the references with a reasonable expectation of success.
The use of unexpected results to show non-obviousness is a curious aspect of patent law. If it truly is obvious to modify a reference, or combine two or more references, then the fact that the obvious modification or obvious combination results in something unexpected, should not change the determination of obviousness, While we might feel like rewarding someone who provides unexpected results, by giving them a patent for doing what is obvious is not what the patent laws prescribe. In Honeywell, however, the non-obviousness did not hinge on unexpected results, but on the unpredictability of the art.
The Federal Circuit also agreed that the Board improperly relied upon a new ground of rejection, resurrecting a reference cited by the requesters, but not relied upon by the Examiner.
The Bill does not fix the abstract idea issue under §101 created by Alice.
The Bill does not fix the ambiguity in the definition of patentable subject matter under §102 recently brought to light in Helsinn.
The Bill does not fix the requirement that a successful appellant still must reimburse the USPTO for unsuccessfully defending a rejection in district court, as recently explained in Nantkwest.
As shown in the summary below, what the bill primary does is bring balance to IPR/PGR proceedings.
Sections 102(a)/103(a) amend 35 USC 316(a)/326(a) to construe claims in an IPR/PGR according to their ordinary and customary meaning, and considering any prior construction by a court. The current application of “broadest reasonable interpretation” makes claims more vulnerable in an IPR/PGR.
Sections 102(b)/103(b) amends 35 USC 316(e)/326(e) to require proof of invalidity by clear and convincing evidence. The current burden of proof of “preponderance of evidence” makes claims more vulnerable in IPR/PGR than in a court where the burden is by clear and convincing evidence.
Sections 102(c)/103(c) amends 35 USC 311(d)/321(d) to require that a Petitioner have standing, i.e., have been charged with infringement. Currently anyone can bring an IPR/PGR, regardless of whether they have been charged with infringement; this section restricts who can initiate a proceeding.
Sections 102(d)/103(d) amend Amends 35 USC 314(a)/324(a) to add a subsection (2) that bars review of a claim if there has been a previously instituted IPR/PGR on that claim. This allows only one IPR or PGR on each claim. It is not limited to the same petitioner, and is triggered by institution, not a final written decision.
Sections 102(e)/103(3) amend 35 USC 314(d)/324(c) and add 314(e)/314(f) allowing certain appeals of institution decisions.
New sections 314(e)/324(f) would permit appeals of institution decisions in procedural grounds, but not as to the substantive patent law determination of unpatentability.
Section 102(f)/103(f) amend 35 USC 315/325 to prevent a petitioner from filing a second IPR/PGR unless the patent owner has charged petitioner with infringement of additional claims. This limitation together with the new limitation in 314(a) of one IPR per claim, restricts multiple IPRs on a single patent.
Section 102(f) amends 35 USC 315 to bar a petitioner after an institution decision from raising any 102 or 103 grounds in a court or ITC proceeding, unless based public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public. This substantially strengthens estoppel, but it still leaves a gap allowing the use of non-documentary prior art that corresponds to documentary prior art,. There is no parallel estoppel provision for PGRs.
Sections 102(g)/103(g) amend 35 USC 315(f).325(g) to define real party in interest as anyone who directly or indirectly makes a financial contributes to the petition. This expands definition of real party in interest to anyone who funds the proceedings.
Sections 102(g)/103(g) amends 35 USC 316(a)(5)/326(a)(5) to add subpart (B) providing for discovery about the real parties in interest.
Expands discovery relating to real party in interest.
Sections 102(h)/103(h) amend 35 USC 315/325 by adding new subpart (c)(1) that bars institution of an IPR after final judgment by the ITC or a court as to the validity of the claim under 102 or 103.
Once the ITC or a court has ruled on the validity of a claim, no one can challenge the claim in an IPR. However, (c)(1) only bars institution, not maintenance of the IPR/PGR, and (c)(2) only requires termination if a validity determination is affirmed on appeal. A losing litigant might be able to get a second shot at the patent by waiving appeal, and continuing an already instituted IPR.
Sections 102(h)/103(h) amend 35 USC 315/325 by adding new subpart (c)(2) which requires that the USPTO stay any IPR after the ITC or Court has entered a final judgment, while an appeal is possible or pending. During concurrent IPR and litigation, if the ITC or Court gets to final judgment first, the IPR must be stayed pending appeal.
Sections 102(i)/103(i) add a new 35 USC 316A/326A with a subpart (a)(3) that gives the patent owner the option to have a reasonable number of substitute claims examined in a new expedited IPR/PGR reexamination.
Sections 102(i)/103(i) add new 35 USC 316A(c)(1)/326A(c)(1) defining amendment practice before the PTAB, and provides that the patent owner need only show that the amendment addresses the unpatentability on an instituted ground, meets the written description requirement, and does not enlarge the scope of the claims. New sections 316A(c)/326A(c) would relieve patent owners of the some of the burdens imposed by the PTAB in Idle Free Sys. v. Berstrom, Inc.
Sections 102(i)/103(i) add new 35 USC 316A(c)(2)/316A(c)(2)/ allowing petitioners to present new evidence to respond to amendments proposed by the patent owner, and allowing patent owner an opportunity to respond to new evidence submitted by petitioner.
Sections 102(i)/103(i) add new 35 USC 316A(c)(3)/326A(c)(3) allowing the PTAB to obtain an expedited patentability report. Any party can respond to the report and the ordering of the report constitutes good cause for extending the proceeding beyond one year.
Sections 102(i)/103(i) also add new 35 USC 316A(c)(3) allowing the PTAB to order expedited reexamination on a claim in lieu of making a Final Written Decision on that claim.
Finally Sections 102(i)/103(i) also add new 35 USC 316A(d)/326A(d) allowing the patent owner to move for expedited reexamination in lieu of continuing the proceeding. If granted, the patent owner must replace all of the instituted claims. The petitioner has no right of appeal.
Section 104 amends 35 USC 6 to add subsection (c)(2) to provide that no board member who participates in an institution decision can also participate in hearing the review. This eliminates the potential for confirmation bias, where a Board member who decided to institute also decides whether that institution decision was correct.
Section 105 amends 35 USC 302(a) to require disclosure of the real party in interest in filing a request for reexamination. This eliminates anonymous reexaminations.
Section 105 amends 35 USC 302 to add a subsection (d) barring reexamination more than a year after the requester is served with a complaint alleging infringement of the patent.
Section 106 amends 35 USC 283 to provide a presumption that the patent owner is entitled to an injunction. Gives effect the Constitutional mandate of exclusive rights to authors and inventors.
Section 107 Eliminates the diversion of USPTO user fees from the Office.
Section 108 Amends 35 USC 271 to define inducement in subsection (b) as causing the actions that constitute infringement regardless of knowledge of the patent.
Section 108 amends 35 USC 271(f) to add subsection (3)(A) to make inducement by the provision of an infringing design an act of infringement.
Section 108 also amends 35 USC 271(f) to add subsection (3)(B) to make inducement by the provision of an infringing specification an act of infringement.
Section 108 also amends 35 USC 271 to add section (j) eliminating the requirement for inducement or contributory infringement that the steps be performed by a single entity.
Section 109 amends 35 USC 123(d) to clarify that institutions of higher learning and their related patent foundations and other entities are microentities. Nothing is done about their sovereign immunity in challenges to the patent.
Section 110 Creates a Patent Pilot program for expediting infringement cases involving small businesses.
Section 110 amends Section 41(i) to required that the USPTO make freely available the patent and trademark information available at its Public Search Facilities.
Sections 201-203 empower the FTC to take action against the bad faith assertion of patent rights.
In In Re: AT&T Intellectual Property II, L.P., [2016-1830] (May 10. 2017), the Federal Circuit affirmed the PTAB determination in inter partes reexamination, that the claims of U.S. Patent No. 7,454,071, directed to methods of compressing and transmitting digital video data, were invalid.
On appeal, AT&T argued that it was improper to institute inter partes reexamination, when the petitioner requested that its petition be denied. The Federal Circuit found that institution was proper. AT&T also argued that the claims were not anticipated, and the Federal Circuit concluded that the Board’s finding of anticipation is supported by substantial evidence. Finally AT&T argued that the Examiner improperly changed the basis for the anticipation rejection. The Federal Circuit found that AT&T had notice of the the second basis for finding anticipation, and still did not amend the claims to respond to this second basis.
In In re Affinity Labs of Texas, LLC, [2016-1173] (May 5, 2017), the Federal Circuit affirmed the Board’s decision that §317(b) did not bar the reexamination, and that the reexamined claims were in valid.
without prejudice did not meet section 317(b)’s required condition for terminating the reexamination. The reexamination resulted in invalidation of all of the claims, which was affirmed by the PTAB.
sending the second version of the piece of selectable content to the personal computer.
the “making . . . available” step, as Affinity argued. The Federal Circuit also found that while portions of specification were consistent with automatically downloading, they certain did not require it, and in fact some embodiments did not have automatic downloads. The Federal Circuit thus affirmed the broad claim construction by the Board, and the invalidation of those broad claims.
of the ’772 Patent’s claims, and the Board’s construction of the claims was consistent with the broadest reasonable interpretation, the Federal Circuit affirmed the Board’s decision.
decision in the underlying inter partes reexamination and issue a reexamination certificate.
Fairchild sued Power Integrations for infringement of U.S. Patent No. 7,259,972. The jury’s verdict rejected Power Integrations’s argument that the ’972 patent claims were invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 103, and found that the patent claims had been infringed. On appeal, the Federal Circuit affirmed the jury’s non-obviousness determination but reversed its findings on infringement, and remanded for further proceedings unrelated to the ’972 patent claims.
While the litigation was pending, Power Integrations requested inter partes reexamination of the ‘972 patent. The Examiner rejected all of the claims in the reexamination under §103(a), and the Board affirmed, resulting in the instant appeal.
Fairchild argued that the results of the reexamination proceeding should be vacated under §317(b) because the final decision in the litigation bars the maintenance of the reexamination. The Federal Circuit agreed, noting that the time for petitioning for certiorari had passed, and thus the district court’s holding that the patent was not invalid barred the maintenance of the reexamination as to the claims challenged in the litigation.

References: v. 
 §101
 §102
 v. 
 §317
 § 103
 §103
 §317