Source: https://www.betweentheparties.com/2017/01/examination-off-ramp-motions-amend-still-raises-hopes-questions/
Timestamp: 2018-11-12 23:15:39
Document Index: 742944477

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 316', '§ 42', '§ 42', '§ 42', '§ 102', '§ 101', '§ 305', '§ 305', '§ 1442', '§ 111', '§ 1', '§ 708']

An Examination “Off-Ramp” For Motions To Amend Still Raises Hopes and Questions | Between the Parties
Home » An Examination “Off-Ramp” For Motions To Amend Still Raises Hopes and Questions
While specific proposals varied, the concept of one approach was that a patent owner seeking to amend claims during a PTAB trial, could prosecute its proposed amendments like ordinary examination (or reexamination) in parallel with the underlying PTAB trial. This amendment examination process, termed an “off ramp” by some, has raised a number of policy and administrative issues. Many of these had solutions around which broad consensus might have been reached; for others, it was less clear. At the time, the legislative effort did not mature. Since then, however, conditions underlying the effort have not abated. In 2016, the en banc Federal Circuit heard argument in In re Aqua Prods. on whether the PTAB has been wrongly placing a burden on the patent owner regarding patentability of amended claims, underscoring potential problems with the current motion to amend practice. The possible outcomes in Aqua Products, either the status quo which motivated the earlier legislative activity, or a reversal potentially placing greater burdens on the PTAB, arguably make an alternative to the current motion to amend practice even more advantageous.
Congress provided in the AIA that a patentee may file a motion to amend the patent during an IPR or Post Grant Review (PGR), mandating that the Patent Office Director “prescribe regulations . . . setting forth standards and procedures for allowing the patent owner to move to amend the patent.” 35 U.S.C. §§ 316 and 326. As interpreted by the Board, the regulations require that the patentee meet a burden to show patentability of the amended claims. See Idle Free Sys., Inc. v. Bergstrom, IPR 2012-00027, 2013 WL 5947697, at *4 (PTAB June 11, 2013); see also 37 C.F.R. § § 42.121 and 42.221; § 42.20. In practice, however, the particulars became an evolving set of requirements announced in decisions denying a motion to amend.
As a patent owner was generally allowed only one motion to amend, if that motion was denied for procedural or other reasons that the patent owner might have addressed, PTAB practice fostered a perception that patent owners could not obtain or maintain patent rights via motion to amend to which their inventions were entitled. At the same time, it was unclear if reexamination or reissue proceedings provided a meaningful alternative. PTAB panels often would stay these during a trial, delaying a patent owner’s opportunity to pursue amended claims and potentially limiting the examining corps’ ability to allow claims via an estoppel that would not have been present earlier and with which an examiner might not agree. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.73(d)(3). At least for a period, there also appeared to be disagreement within the Office about the availability of these procedures for claims involved in a trial. The upshot of Patent Office practice, as it evolved, often was that patent quality was not being improved where it might have been by allowing the examining corps to evaluate amendments in light of evidence developed via inter partes trial.
Patent-owning stakeholders and the bar got the attention of Congress in early 2015 and draft legislation began to emerge. One bill would have required granting a first motion to amend (see S.632 — 114th Congress (2015-2016) (the “STRONG PATENTS ACT of 2015”), §§ 102(b)–(c) and 103(b)–(c)) and other draft language discussed with staffers pursued a middle ground “off-ramp” solution.
For patent owners, the “off-ramp” proposals could provide a number of benefits. One is a change of the burden of persuasion for entitlement to amended claims. Normally, an inventor may obtain patent claims for his or her invention unless the Director makes a specific rejection or objection to a claim after examination. 35 U.S.C. § 101, 131–32. That is, the Patent Office has the burden of production of an initial prima facie case of unpatentability of a claim. See, e.g., In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445 (Fed.Cir.1992). When the same claim is presented in a motion to amend during an IPR or PGR, the patent owner has a burden to convince the PTAB panel that the claim is patentable. See Nike, Inc. v. ADIDAS AG and 812 F. 3d 1326 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Idle Free Sys., Inc. v. Bergstrom, IPR 2012-00027, 2013 WL 5947697, at *4 (PTAB June 11, 2013).
Currently amendments during a PTAB trial “may not enlarge the scope of the claims of the patent,” consistent with ex parte reexamination. See 35 U.S.C. § 305. More generally, the statue omits this limit for reissues sought within two years of the patent grant. In the case of an ordinary post-grant review, i.e., one filed within nine months of issuance, normally this will be the case.
The Office currently treats the ex parte reexamination of patents as “special,” and reissue applications in non-stayed litigation with priority among “special” cases. See 35 U.S.C. § 305; M.P.E.P. § 1442.03. In ordinary prosecution, the Office aims to provide a final disposition within 12 months for prioritized examination under 35 U.S.C. § 111(a) and 37 CFR § 1.102(e)(1) (“Track One”) which are given special status. See M.P.E.P. § 708.02(b). Thus, the Office has practices and procedures in place for reexamination and reissue of patent claims within the default timeline of an AIA trial, if given special examination priority. As noted, the available period for examination of a proposed amendment during a trial depends on when the amendments are presented. It appears likely consensus could be reached for amendment examination to be prioritized to complete within the potential timeframe of AIA trials.
Another difficult policy question arising from an amendment examination option is deciding what, if any, estoppel should attach to amended claims upon completion of a trial. Petitioners can argue that no estoppel should attach for a claim they could not challenge or raise grounds against its patentability, as amended. This argument may have increased force because the current statute bars arguing a claim “is invalid on any ground that the petitioner raised or reasonably could have raised during” the proceeding. Currently, a petitioner may raise grounds in opposition to a patent owner’s motion to amend. If amendments are evaluated solely by the examining corps, the petitioner will not likely have any direct opportunity to raise such grounds. Relatedly, an extension of the current estoppel to grounds the petitioner “reasonably could have raised” may, in this context, be even less justified.
While early efforts to create an amendment examination process were legislative, depending on the contours of the process and its effects, legislative action may not be necessary. As noted above, Congress granted the Director substantial authority to “prescribe regulations . . . setting forth standards and procedures for allowing the patent owner to move to amend the patent.” Many of the changes to current practice to implement an amendment examination process may be possible through rulemaking. Whether that is the most desirable approach is a separate question. The Federal Circuit in Aqua Products may conclude that the current PTAB practice for deciding motions to amend wrongly placed a burden on the patent owner without a formal rulemaking, necessitating revisiting the issue in the Patent Office. However, the legislative process may be able to better promote uniformity and predictability through statutory mandate, and is an established vehicle for vetting and balancing stakeholder interests on a number of difficult policy issues. Whether legislative efforts can respond quickly enough to interest from stakeholders remains to be seen, however.