Source: https://www.wolfgreenfield.com/publications/articles/2015/saving-patents-from-inter-partes-review-with-reissue-walsh-duncan-smith-bloomberg-bna
Timestamp: 2019-04-25 15:52:21+00:00

Document:
One of the quickest ways to derail a patent enforcement lawsuit is to petition the U.S. Patent & Trademark Office (PTO) for review of the asserted patent in a post-grant proceeding such as inter partes review (IPR). The PTO institutes IPR trials in response to more than three quarters of petitions1 and finds about 79 percent of claims reaching a final decision unpatentable.2 While the patent owner’s first line of defense is proving its patent protects truly inventive technology, sometimes the patent claims are written broadly, such that amendments focusing the claims on that inventive technology are necessary to save valuable patent rights.
While claim amendments are allowed in an IPR trial, the IPR process limits the type of amendments that can be made and requires patent owners to make a case for amendment under tight deadlines and page limits, such that in only a handful of IPR trials have claim-saving amendments been allowed.
Other PTO proceedings also allow amendments, including pursuing claims in a continuing application, ex parte reexamination, and reissue. A continuing application is likely to be the most flexible of all options, but often there is no continuing application pending. Reexamination allows more flexibility in making amendments than IPR, particularly in regards to adding claims that can be structured to cover a competitor’s product. Reissue affords patent owners even more flexibility, particularly if filed early in the life of a patent. But reissue historically took so long that its value was often diminished, particularly when a competitor was in the market, and time for getting enforceable patent rights was tight.
Reissue is changing, however, and its typical pendency times have fallen dramatically in recent years. With the threat of IPRs growing, it is time for a fresh look at reissue to consider whether it can assist a patent owner in avoiding what have so far been the harsh consequences of IPR. Reissue is not without its own tradeoffs, but properly employed, it can leave a patent owner in a stronger position down the line. It should be considered early on when setting strategy in response to an IPR challenge.
Reissue has changed since then, and the PTO has become better at processing and approving reissued patents. The average pendency time of reissue fell to just 3.5 years in 2014.
The median pendency times of reissued patents with many of these IPCs demonstrate substantial declines. For example, H04 (Electric Communication Technique) declined from 5.6 years in 2009 to 2.0 years in 2014, G11 (Information Storage) declined from 6.1 years in 2009 to 1.7 years in 2014, and C07 (Organic Chemistry) declined from 4.8 years in 2009 to 1.4 years in 2014. G01 (Measuring; Testing) lagged behind the other most common IPCs by declining from 3.9 years in 2009 only to 3.3 years in 2014.
As with all elements of a strategy when valuable patent rights are at stake, it is important to watch for changes. Despite the seemingly desirable trend, preliminary data for reissued patents in 2015 shows an increase in pendency time. It is possible that this increase is nothing more than a result of the limited snapshot of data available for 2015. However, one explanation that bears watching is that in the summer of 2014, the PTO assigned examiners who previously handled reexaminations to handle reissue applications.9 The longer times could just be delays associated with new examiners coming up to speed. However, if the longer times are the result of these examiners used to handling reexaminations rejecting more claims in reissue, the desirability of reissue as a strategic response to an IPR may need to be reevaluated. Though this data warrants further observation, the declining pendency times over the last few years highlight reissue as a viable option in some situations to amend patent claims subjected to IPR.
A patent owner considering reissue to defeat an IPR should be aware that reissue is not a panacea, and it comes with many trade-offs, which should be made in the context of an overall strategy for preserving valuable patent rights for assertion in litigation. Filing for reissue requires the patent owner to admit that the patent is at least partially invalid and surrender it to the PTO for reconsideration.10 Identifying an error can often be finessed, as failing to originally include claims to be added by reissue can often constitute an error adequate to justify reissue. However, submitting a patent to reissue exposes the entire patent, and the PTO could identify issues with the patent other than the identified error and possibly even beyond those already raised in the IPR.
A further trade-off is the degree of participation of the petitioner. Reissue is conducted without the IPR petitioner’s participation, providing the possibility of multiple one-on-one exchanges, in writing and sometimes in person, with an examiner who will decide which claims are patentable. The IPR petitioner can submit a protest during the reissue.16 However, the protest is limited to supplying information and a brief explanation of why it is relevant. Such protests are not perceived as effective, and are rare. The petitioner cannot otherwise participate in the reissue application. In contrast, the patent owner in an IPR has one chance to prove the amended claims are valid, and the petitioner can present counter-arguments and evidence to dissuade the judges presiding over the IPR trial from allowing amendments. The cost of this greater latitude to work with the decision maker in the reissue without interference from the petitioner is that the petitioner is not bound by the decision, and can challenge the claims again in a later IPR—an action that the petitioner would probably be estopped from taking if amended claims were allowed in an IPR.
Given the mix of advantages and disadvantages, why choose amendment in reissue over IPR? The answer for many is that the PTO rarely allows amendment during IPR, and when it does, amendment is limited to responding to the petitioner’s invalidity arguments.17 In contrast, reissue (like ex parte reexamination) allows a broader range of amendments, including those that target the competitor’s conduct.18 And, if the reissue is filed within two years of initial issuance of the patent, it is even more flexible than ex parte reexamination regarding the types of amendments that can be made.
With all of the trade-offs, reissue may not be the best solution in all situations. However, with its declining pendency times, it is now a viable solution in many more situations, and it is an option that patent owners cannot afford to overlook.
Understand the litigation goals: Where quickly protecting a market from competition is the patent owner’s primary interest, amending patent claims can break the patent out of an IPR and tailor the claims to the competitor’s conduct. A holistic and creative litigation strategy with an eye toward the ultimate goal can keep the enforcement effort on track.
Be realistic about the patent claims: Even a groundbreaking patent may have claims that are vulnerable to invalidation. Look at those vulnerabilities through the eyes of a post-grant specialist, a litigator, and a patent prosecutor. Recognizing a patent’s weaknesses and strengths before the patent owner’s options to fix the issues disappear allows the patent owner to proactively select the best route to foreclose infringers’ arguments.
Understand all the options: If amendment is to be attempted, the patent owner should consider all the options. Amending via IPR, reissue and ex parte reexamination all have trade-offs that can be critical to a case. A patent owner’s analysis should not stop at amendment via post-grant proceedings, because strategic prosecution of a pending continuation application may also be invaluable. Consequently, patent owners and their counsel need the technical savvy to assess the invention in light of the prior art as a whole, and to bring litigation, post-grant, and prosecution skills to the table. Understanding which route will best secure protection of valuable innovations is no small task, but necessary in the modern world of patent litigation.
4 35 U.S.C. § 252.
5 37 C.F.R. § 42.107; 35 U.S.C. § 314(b); 35 U.S.C. § 316(a)(11) (allowing a six-month extension for good cause).
6 35 U.S.C. § 305.
7 http://www.uspto.gov/patents/stats/ex_parte_historical_stats_roll_up_EOY2013.pdf (presenting data through Sept. 30, 2013).
8 http://www.uspto.gov/patents/stats/ex_parte_historical_stats_roll_up_EOY2013.pdf (presenting data through Sept. 30, 2013).
10 35 U.S.C. § 251.
11 35 U.S.C. § 316(a)(11).
12 37 C.F.R. § 42.73(b); IPR2013-00136, Paper 36 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 19, 2013) (granting requested termination following reissue application of the challenged claims), available at http://pub.bna.com/ptcj/IPR2013-00136Paper36.pdf.
13 37 C.F.R. § 42.73(d)(3)(i); IPR2014-00187, Paper 19 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 28, 2014) (granting requested adverse judgment and noting that the patent owner estoppel provisions apply), available at http://pub.bna.com/ptcj/IPR2014-00187Paper19.pdf.
14 35 U.S.C. § 315(d); 37 C.F.R. § 42.122(a); IPR2013-00217, Paper 8 (P.T.A.B. May 10, 2013) (ordering stay of pending reissue), available at http://pub.bna.com/ptcj/IPR2013-00217Paper8.pdf.
15 35 U.S.C. § 252.
16 37 C.F.R. § 1.291.
17 37 C.F.R. § 42.121; IPR2012-00027, Paper 26 (P.T.A.B. June 11, 2013), available at http://pub.bna.com/ptcj/IPR2012-00027Paper26.pdf.

References: § 252
 § 42
 § 314
 § 316
 § 305
 § 251
 § 316
 § 42
 § 42
 § 315
 § 42
 § 252
 § 1
 § 42