Source: http://www.usptotalk.com/encouraging-%C2%A7-101-ex-parte-reexamination-of-pre-alice-patents/
Timestamp: 2017-07-22 00:27:56
Document Index: 723800927

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 101', '§ 101', '§ 101', '§ 101', '§ 101', '§ 713', '§ 101', '§ 101']

Consensus of independent reviewers. Given the subjectivity of § 101, relegating this critical determination to a single reviewer may result in subjective results. An alternative process may involve assigning each patent to two or three examiners selected at random – withholding the names of the other examiners – and basing the review outcome on a consensus determination. Differences of opinion may indicate borderline cases that require higher-level attention by more experienced § 101 examiners. Patentee win = presumption of patent-eligibility. If the review results in a finding of patent-eligibility, the result of that determination should be given some deference by the PTAB and courts, such as a presumption of patent-eligibility – otherwise, this exercise is pointless.
Patentee loss = continuation-in-part option. The program must feature an opportunity to rehabilitate the patent. This is a key requirement: patentees are not likely to pay for a program that will invalidate their patents without recourse. If the patent is found to be ineligible, the patentee should be granted an opportunity to file a continuation-in-part that adds subject matter to “fill in the gaps” for the purpose of § 101. For example, if the patent is missing subject matter that recites a particular algorithm, the applicant should be permitted to insert it into the specification and claims. And if the patent already includes such subject matter but recites broad claims that were acceptable before Alice but not after, the patentee should be entitled to file narrower claims that do not suffer from overbreadth.
Notes:The “death of business method patents” conclusion is not only inconsistent with DDR Holdings – it is inconsistent with a consistent, clear, and explicit refusal of the Supreme Court to reach this result. The Court’s lengthy explanation in Bilski v. Kappos that “Section 101 precludes of reading of the term ‘process’ that would categorically exclude business methods” remains valid and consistent with Alice – the opinions were only four years apart, and written by eight of the same justices. ↩Legal questions persist about the jurisdiction of the PTAB as an Article 1 Court, and the extent to which the separation of powers doctrine prohibits the revocation of issued patent rights. ↩Initial projections of the “supplemental reexamination” process, as a potentially more appealing replacement for ex-parte reexamination, have not come to fruition. The USPTO’s 2014 Annual Report indicates 86 supplemental reexamination requests for 2014, v. 343 ex-parte reexamination requests. ↩In view of USPTO fee of $1,600 for the entire first round of examination – including two office actions covering § 101 and all issues in the case – a review solely of the issue of patent-eligibility should be achievable for a much lower cost to the USPTO.
Moreover, any costs to the USPTO that are not covered by the patentee’s fee should be subsidized by the federal government. The violent shifts in § 101 law that require this review are the result of 40+ years of vacillation by the courts over the interpretation of a vague patent act – patentees should not have to foot the bill for the government’s failings. ↩The USPTO has at times expressed concern about ebbing workloads and fees – such as a reduction in maintenance fees resulting from the wave of patent invalidations following Alice, and much-reduced filing rates in TC 3600. Of course, these problems are the USPTO’s own making: a 100% rejection rate reflects a blanket refusal to work with applicants to identify patent-eligible subject matter, and applicants cannot be expected to maintain filing rates in the face of futility. In repurposing such resources, the USPTO must take care to avoid contaminating other review processes with this reject-everything mindset, which could relegate this program to the scrap heap of poorly implemented USPTO initiatives, such as the First Action Interview Pilot Program, and the pre-first interview process provided in MPEP § 713.02 – which is so poorly designed that many practitioners don’t even know that it exists. ↩	Categories Patent Law and Reform	Post navigation
MikeComment by Mike published on February 2, 2016 @ 7:32 pmReply	An interesting read and an interesting proposal – thanks!
Michael CraigComment by Michael Craig published on December 4, 2015 @ 6:15 pmReply	This haunts me w/r/t the couple hundred pre-Alice patents I wrote in this space. While I know they were great at the time, now I often wonder about their fate.
David SteinComment by David Stein published on December 4, 2015 @ 8:26 pmReply	Right! This is exactly the problem when radically altered standards are retroactively applied to previously drafted cases, and even previously issued patents. One of the patents that was recently invalidated issued in something like 2005, survived several rounds of court challenges, and was enforced for an entire decade – before suddenly being declared invalid.
A Rational PersonComment by A Rational Person published on November 17, 2015 @ 11:02 pmReply	David, a key problem is that currently there is no “law of § 101”. The actual words of 35 USC 101 have become meaningless for 99.99% of patent applications and patents, i.e., any patent application that claims a “process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof”. These are the applications that used to be patent eligible.
David SteinComment by David Stein published on November 18, 2015 @ 12:59 amReply	Rational, I agree with you. The program I propose might actually circumvent the PTAB – i.e., if an examiner (or even better, a consensus of two or three examiners) validate a patent under § 101, the PTAB may be less inclined to institute an IPR request. Indeed, accused defendants may even be disinclined to request IPR or declaratory judgment if patent-eligibility is strong.
A Rational PersonComment by A Rational Person published on November 18, 2015 @ 3:44 pmReply	I would suggest that the real “easy out” for the courts, and, as a result, for everyone else, would be to interpret the holdings of Mayo, Myriad and Alice narrowly. Had the courts interpreted the cases narrowly, the worse that could have happened is that the cases would go back to the Supreme Court for clarification and possible reversal. The courts could have also pointed out in each of their decisions why they were interpreting the Supreme Court cases narrowly. For example, they could have pointed out that interpreting the cases broadly would do such things as: making any process potentially patent ineligible, the possibility of the judicial exception swallowing the rule (something the Supreme Court itself cautioned against), the effective eliminating of the word “discovers” out of 35 USC 101 which even the Supreme Court could not legally do, etc.