Source: https://bitlaw.com/source/mpep/2686_04.html
Timestamp: 2019-04-25 04:07:42+00:00

Document:
37 C.F.R. 1.987 Suspension of inter partes reexamination proceeding due to litigation.
37 C.F.R. 1.907 Inter partes reexamination prohibited.
35 U.S.C. 311 permits a request for inter partes reexamination to be filed "at any time." Thus, requests for inter partes reexamination can be filed where the patent (for which reexamination is requested) is involved in concurrent litigation. The guidelines set forth below will generally govern Office handling of inter partes reexamination requests where there is concurrent litigation.
Where a request for reexamination indicates that litigation is stayed for the purpose of reexamination, all aspects of the proceeding will be expedited to the extent possible. Cases will be taken up for action at the earliest time possible, and Office actions in these reexamination proceedings will normally set a one-month shortened statutory period for response rather than the two months usually set in reexamination proceedings. Response periods may be extended only upon a strong showing of sufficient cause (see MPEP § 2665). The statutory requirement for "special dispatch" in reexamination often becomes important, and sometimes critical, in coordinating the concurrent litigation and reexamination proceedings.
- If the answer to all of questions (1)-(3) is "yes" for one or more (but not all) of the claims for which reexamination was requested in the proceeding; those claims will not be treated. The examiner’s action will point out the claims not treated and the reason why, i.e., a discussion of the above considerations (1)-(3). The guidelines set forth above in subsection II.(A) will be used for the claims remaining.
- If the answer to question (1) or to question (3) is "no" for all claims for which reexamination was requested, then the examination of the reexamination proceeding will proceed without any discussion on the record of considerations (1)-(3), using the guidelines set forth above in subsection II.(A).
- If, for any claim for which reexamination was requested, the answer to both of questions (1) and (3) is "yes", but the answer to question (2) is "no", then examination of the reexamination proceeding will proceed using the guidelines set forth above in subsection II.(A). The examiner’s action will contain a discussion of considerations (1)-(3).
If the examiner subsequently becomes aware that the federal court decision has become final or if the answer to each of questions (1)-(3) is "yes" for all claims for which reexamination was requested in the proceeding, then the examiner should notify his or her SPRS, who will contact OPLA for further guidance. See also subsection V. below.
"All reexamination proceedings under this section, including any appeal to the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences, will be conducted with special dispatch within the Office."
35 U.S.C. 314 provides for special dispatch in inter partes reexamination "[u]nless otherwise provided by the Director for good cause." Accordingly, where there is good cause for the Director of the USPTO to suspend (stay) reexamination proceedings pending the conclusion of litigation, a suspension will be effected. This matter will be approached on a case-by-case basis. See subsection V. below for an actual situation where there was pending litigation having the potential to terminate a reexamination prosecution under 35 U.S.C. 317(b), and a suspension was granted.
It should also be noted that if, pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 318, a court stays litigation as to the patent being reexamined, action in the reexamination proceeding would not be suspended. This is so because action in the reexamination proceeding would be needed to resolve the "issue of patentability of any claims of the patent which are the subject of the inter partes reexamination order" set forth in 35 U.S.C. 318.
The issuance of a final court decision after all appeals (in a civil action arising in whole or in part under 28 U.S.C. 1338) upholding validity during an inter partes reexamination, where the person who filed the request was a party to the litigation, will have the effect that the Office will discontinue examination of all claims affected by the validity holding if a grantable petition under 37 CFR 1.182 to terminate reexamination of those claims is filed in accordance with guidelines set forth in subsection V. If the provisions of 37 CFR 1.907(b) apply such that all of the claims in the reexamination proceeding cannot be maintained, reexamination is terminated. If the provisions of 37 CFR 1.907(b) apply to some of the claims, but not all of the claims in the proceeding; those claims to which 37 CFR 1.907(b) applies will not be treated. The examiner’s action will point out the claims not treated, and the reason why those claims cannot be maintained in the reexamination under 37 CFR 1.907(b). Action will be given on the remaining claims. Note that the provisions of 37 CFR 1.907(b) cannot be waived since they track the statute, pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 317. See subsection V. below.
The issuance of a final court decision upholding validity during an inter partes reexamination, where the person who filed the request was not a party to the litigation, will have no binding effect on the examination of the reexamination. This is because the court stated in Ethicon v. Quigg, 849 F.2d 1422, 1428, 7 USPQ2d 1152, 1157 (Fed. Cir. 1988) that the Office is not bound by a court’s decision upholding validity and should continue the reexamination. The court noted that district courts and the Office use different standards of proof in determining invalidity and unpatentability, and thus, on the same evidence, could quite correctly come to different conclusions. Specifically, invalidity in a district court must be shown by "clear and convincing" evidence, whereas in the Office it is sufficient to show non-patentability by a "preponderance" of the evidence. Since the "clear and convincing" standard is harder to satisfy than the "preponderance standard," a court’s decision upholding validity is not controlling. Deference will, however, ordinarily be accorded to the factual findings of the court, where the evidence before the Office and the court is the same. If sufficient reasons are present, claims upheld by the court may be rejected in reexamination.
Congress specifically provided estoppel provisions to shut down an inter partes reexamination of a patent claim when a "final decision" upholding the validity of that claim has been reached in a civil action or in a prior inter partes reexamination proceeding. See pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 317(b); pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 315(c). Thus, if a party’s challenge to the validity of certain patent claims has been finally resolved, either through civil litigation or the inter partes reexamination process, then (A) that party is barred from making a subsequent request for inter partes reexamination (or filing a new civil action) challenging the validity of those same claims, and (B) "an inter partes reexamination previously requested by that party or its privies on the basis of such issues may not thereafter be maintained by the Office." Id.
The statute and legislative history of the estoppel provisions make it clear that the inter partes reexamination of a claim (requested by a party) must be terminated once a final decision upholding the validity of that claim (challenged by the same party) has issued "after any appeals," and not simply after a district court decision which is still pending on appeal. If there remains any time for an appeal, or a request for reconsideration, from a court (e.g., district court or Federal Circuit) decision, or such action has already been taken, then the decision is not final, and the estoppel does not attach. While Congress desired that the creation of an inter partes reexamination option would lead to a reduction in expensive patent litigation, it nonetheless also provided in the statute that a court validity challenge and inter partes reexamination of a patent may occur simultaneously; but once one proceeding finally ends in a manner adverse to a third party, then the issues raised (or that could have been raised) with respect to the validity of a claim in that proceeding would have estoppel effect on the same issues in the other proceeding.
Regarding item no. 3 above, the evidence must show which claims were before the court at the time of the court’s decision. A "claim in suit" is a claim that was before the court at the time of the court’s decision, and not merely a claim that was asserted at some point in the litigation. If a claim under reexamination was not the subject of the court’s decision, then the estoppel provisions of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 317(b) do not apply to the final outcome of the litigation as to that patent claim, because there is no "final decision that the party has not sustained its burden of proving the invalidity" of that patent claim. Thus, prosecution of the non-litigated claims would not be "terminated" in the reexamination proceeding.
Pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 317(b) specifically requires a decision by the court that the requester "has not sustained its burden of providing the invalidity of any patent claim in suit" (emphasis added). The statute does not refer, for example, to any patent claim that "could have been" in suit. Pursuant to the statute, the patent claims that were before the court at the time of the court’s decision must initially be determined. Further, each claim that is determined to be "in suit," i.e., each claim that is determined to be before the court at the time of the court’s decision, must have a corresponding final decision of non-invalidity. Once the claims in suit have been identified and once the "final decision has been entered...," the statute then prohibits the Office from maintaining an inter partes reexamination "of any such patent claim" (i.e., the patent claim in suit), "on the basis of issues which... [the requester] raised or could have raised" in the litigation (emphasis added). Accordingly, the phrase "raised or could have raised" applies only to patent claims that were in suit and for which a final decision on non-invalidity has been entered. Thus, the issue is not whether the requester "could have raised" claims that were not in suit. Rather, once the claims that were actually before the court with respect to the issue of non-invalidity at the time of the court’s decision are determined, the issue is whether any issues raised in the reexamination proceeding with respect to those claims either were raised or could have been raised by the requester in the litigation.
Further, if a third-party requester asserts patent invalidity in a civil action and a final decision is entered that the party failed to prove the assertion of invalidity... after any appeals, that third-party requester cannot thereafter request inter partes reexamination on the basis of issues which were or which could have been raised. However, the third-party requester may assert invalidity based on newly discovered prior art unavailable at the time of the civil action or inter partes reexamination. Prior art was unavailable at the time if it was not known to the individuals who were involved in the civil action or inter partes reexamination proceeding on behalf of the third-party requester and the USPTO.
Thus, to show that a reference is "available", the patent owner must provide sufficient evidence that the reference was known to the requester (i.e., actual knowledge) at a time when it could have been raised in the civil action; such as, e.g., prior to any trial.
The statute thus authorizes the Director of the USPTO to suspend (stay) reexamination proceedings, where there is good cause to do so, pending the conclusion of litigation based on a potential for termination of a reexamination prosecution under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 317(b). Thus, a district court decision that is pending appeal on the validity of the same claims considered in an inter partes reexamination proceeding, where the requester of the reexamination proceeding (or its privies) is also a party to the litigation, may provide the requisite statutory "good cause" for suspension, due to the possibility that the pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 317(b) estoppel may attach in the near future to bar/terminate the reexamination proceeding. Any such fact situation is resolved on a case-by-case basis.
Congress, in creating the inter partes reexamination statutory framework in 2002, borrowed heavily from the existing ex parte reexamination regime. For example, inter partes reexamination proceedings, like ex parte reexaminations, must be conducted with "special dispatch." Pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 314(c). Unlike ex parte reexamination, however, Congress provided the Office with the statutory authority and discretion to suspend inter partes reexamination proceedings for "good cause." See pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 314(c).
2. The claims at issue in the litigation are identical to the claims under reexamination. The pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 317(b) estoppel applies only to patent claims that were litigated in the suit, i.e., claims that were before the court at the time of the court's decision (the litigated claims). If a claim under reexamination is not the subject of the litigation, then the estoppel provisions of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 317(b) would not apply to the final outcome of the litigation as to that patent claim. Indeed, there would be no "final decision that the party has not sustained its burden of proving the invalidity" of that patent claim. Thus, there is no "potential for termination" of this reexamination proceeding as to the non-litigated claims.
5. There is a concurrent ex parte reexamination proceeding for the patent. As stated in MPEP § 2286: "The issuance of a final federal court decision upholding validity during an ex parte reexamination also will have no binding effect on the examination of the reexamination. This is because the court states in Ethicon v. Quigg, 849 F.2d 1422, 1428, 7 USPQ2d 1152, 1157 (Fed. Cir. 1988) that the Office is not bound by a court’s holding of patent validity and should continue the reexamination." If there is a concurrent ex parte reexamination proceeding having overlapping issues with an inter partes reexamination proceeding where the estoppel has the potential to attach, but no final decision has been issued, then the Office may in some instances (depending on the individual facts and circumstances), go forward with statutorily required "special dispatch" as per Ethicon in a merged proceeding containing both the inter partes reexamination and the ex parte reexamination. This is a matter of administrative convenience to avoid rework and make the process more efficient. Again, OPLA should be consulted.
In reexamination control numbers 95/000,093 and 95/000,094 (the ‘093 and ‘094 proceedings), action was suspended based on ongoing litigation. After a district court decision adverse to requester, it was determined that "good cause" existed to wait for the outcome of the Federal Circuit appeal, because the reexamination proceedings were only at their beginning stages, while the concurrent litigation was potentially near its final resolution. Requester had chosen to permit the district court litigation to proceed for three years before filing its requests for reexamination, the filing taking place only after judgment was entered in patent owner’s favor in the litigation. Had requester filed its requests for reexamination earlier, the reexamination proceedings would have been much farther along in the process, and may likely have been completed at the Office before the district court issued its decision. Moreover, had requester filed its reexamination requests earlier in the litigation, the district court might have stayed the litigation to await the Office’s decisions in the two reexamination proceedings. After choosing to go years through the entire district court litigation proceeding without asking for the Office’s input, requester was not in a position to complain that a suspension of the ‘093 and ‘094 reexamination proceedings would deprive requester of a chance to obtain the Office’s decision, when there was a strong possibility that the Federal Circuit’s decision would estop the Office from issuing any decision at all. In short, requester could not have it both ways. Requester waited three years after the district court case began, and waited until after the district court issued a final decision, such that its district court litigation could in no way be affected by any decision on its reexamination requests. Requester’s delay was the reason that the ‘093 and ‘094 reexaminations could very well be mooted before any reexamination decision issued and the USPTO Director found "good cause" to suspend the proceedings. On May 22, 2006, the U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Virginia, in Sony Computer Entertainment America Inc. v. Dudas, 85 USPQ2d 1594 (E.D. Va 2006), issued a decision upholding the Office’s finding of "good cause" to suspend the ‘093 and ‘094 inter partes reexamination proceedings. Requester chose its route (litigation) and had to deal with the consequences of its decision, i.e., a suspension of the reexamination proceedings.

References: § 2665
 V. 
 V. 
 V. 
 V. 
 v. 
 § 2286
 v. 
 v.