Source: http://www.patentdocs.org/2011/10/aia-overview-post-grant-review-provisions.html
Timestamp: 2013-06-19 00:13:42
Document Index: 85282768

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 321', '§ 321', '§ 282', '§ 321', '§ 321', '§ 322', '§ 322', '§ 322', '§ 322', '§ 322', '§ 322', '§ 323', '§ 324', '§ 324', '§ 324', '§ 324', '§ 324', '§ 325', '§ 325', '§ 325', '§ 325', '§ 325', '§ 325', '§ 325', '§ 325', '§ 282', '§ 325', '§325', '§282', '§325']

Patent Docs: AIA Overview: Post-grant Review Provisions
« AIA Overview: Prior User Rights Defense |
| BIO IPCC Fall Conference »
The new post-grant review provisions (codified at 35 U.S.C. §§ 321-329) are instituted by petition to the Director by any person "not the patent owner" (§ 321(a)). Post-grant review can be based on an allegation that at least one claim is invalid under any of the provisions of 35 U.S.C. § 282(b) ("Invalidity of the patent or any claim in suit on any ground specified in part II of [Title 35] as a condition for patentability, or . . . Invalidity of the patent or any claim in suit for failure to comply with any requirement of sections 112 or 251 of this title") and should be cancelled (§ 321(b)). A petition under the post-grant review provisions of the statute must be filed within 9 months of the patent grant or issuance of a reissue patent (§ 321(c)).
Post-grant review petitions cannot be filed anonymously, requiring identification of all real parties in interest (§ 322(a)(2)), and must identify "in writing and with particularity, each claim challenged, the grounds on which the challenge to each claim is based, and the evidence supporting the challenge to each claim" (§ 322(a)(3)). The petition must be accompanied by copies of all patents or printed publications and any affidavits containing supporting evidence or opinion (§ 322(a)(3)(A) and (3)(B)), as well as "any other information that the Director may require by regulation" (§ 322(a)(4)). The petition and all supporting evidence must be supplied to the patent owner or a designated representative (§ 322(a)(5)). As with other proceedings concerning granted patents, post-grant review is public and made available "[a]s soon as practicable after receipt of a petition" for review (§ 322(b)).
The patentee has the option of responding to the petition within a time period set by the Director, which response is limited to providing reasons why the petition fails to meet the requirements for its grant (§ 323). Petitions must put forth evidence (presumably in light of any evidence or argument in the patentee's response) that if unrebutted would make it "more likely than not" that at least one of the challenged claims is unpatentable (§ 324(a)). Alternatively, a grantable petition may contain a showing that there is a "novel or unsettled legal question that is important to other patents or patent applications (for example, the ACLU's challenge to the patent-eligibility of gene patents; § 324(b)). The Director must make the determination to institute post-grant review within three months after receiving the patentee's response or when the time for that response has expired (§ 324(c)), by notifying the petitioner and the patentee (and the public), wherein the notice contains the date on which the review will commence (§ 324(d)). As with current reexamination proceedings, the Director's decision regarding whether to institute post-grant review cannot be appealed and is final (§ 324(e)).
There are additional limits to when post-grant review petitions can be filed. The bill prohibits a petitioner from having filed a "civil action challenging the validity of a claim of the patent" (§ 325(a)(1)) (which includes a declaratory judgment actions but does not include counterclaims in patent infringement litigation; § 325(a)(3)). In addition, if the petitioner files a civil action challenging the validity of a claim of the patent "on or after the date on which the petitioner files a petition for post-grant review," the district court is compelled to issue a stay ("automatically") unless or until the patent owner moves that the stay be lifted, the patent owner files a lawsuit or counterclaim alleging infringement, or the petitioner moves that the civil action be dismissed (with or without prejudice; § 325(a)(1)(A), (B) or (C)). If a patent infringement suit is brought within three months of the patent grant date, a district court cannot stay its consideration of a motion for preliminary injunction based on the filing (by anyone) of a post-grant review petition (§ 325(b)), but there is nothing in the statute to prevent the court from considering the petition when assessing the likelihood of success on the merits prong of the preliminary injunction standard. The bill grants the Director the authority to consolidate petitions in the case of multiple filings by third parties (§ 325(c)), as well as determining whether to "stay, transfer, consolidate[e] or terminat[e]" ex parte or inter partes reexamination proceedings, interferences or (presumably) derivation proceedings (§ 325(d)). The bill also contains estoppel provisions, wherein a petitioner is estopped from "request[ing] or maintain[ing] a proceeding before the Office with respect to any claim on any ground that the petition raised or reasonable could have raised during post-grant review" (§ 325(e)(1)), and is also estopped from bringing a declaratory judgment action or an action before the International Trade Commission based on any ground that "was raised or reasonably could have been raised" during post-grant review (§ 325(e)(2)). The latter provision does not raise an estoppel against any defense under 35 U.S.C. § 282(b) in infringement litigation, however. For reissue patents, review is limited to broadened claims (§ 325(f)).
TrackBack URL for this entry:http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d83451ca1469e2015392790e7e970b
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference AIA Overview: Post-grant Review Provisions:
Interestingly, proof of fraud in obtaining a patent is not among the bases for post-grant review.
October 21, 2011 at 07:02 AM
I believe that your analysis of the scope of estoppel arising from post-grant review is incorrect. You state that §325(e)(2) "does not raise an estoppel against any defense under 35 U.S.C.§282(b) in infringement litigation, however." §325(e)(2) references "a civil action arising in whole or in part under section 1338 of title 28" which is not limited to declaratory judgment actions. Section 1338 of title 28 is the jurisdictional provision relating inter alia to patents and provides that "[t]he district courts shall have original jurisdiction of any civil action arising under any Act of Congress relating to patents, plant variety protection, copyrights and trademarks." I don't see how this limits post-grant review estoppel to declaratory judgment actions.
Marian Flattery |
Do you think this provision will have a chilling effect on venture funding for startups? Or, is it no worse than the current uncertainty of patent grant for early stage companies?
bgreen |