Opinion ID: 449779
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Effect of Reexamination on Gould

Text: 24 The legislative history and extensive hearing record do not treat the enforceability of an issued patent during the period of reexamination, but Gould's experience, of which he complains, is instructive. 25 Gould asserts that he has been deprived in effect, if not in law, of the right to exclude, for whatever undefined period will be required by the PTO to complete its reexamination plus the period required by any appeals from an adverse PTO decision. Gould argues that he has already had extensive PTO examination, seventeen years' worth, and that at the time his patents issued he was free of the possibility of further administrative delay in enforcing the rights that accompanied the patent grant at the time he received it. The grant of Gould's patents in 1977 and 1979 triggered activities by Gould, such as the negotiation of licenses and the suing of accused infringers, in accordance with and in reliance on the patent statute then in existence. Relying on what he viewed as the bundle of rights and attributes encompassed by Title 35 as it stood in 1977 and 1979, Gould acted in accordance with the existing law. Gould asserts that the retroactive application of Public Law 96-517 deprived him of the rights that he was actively proceeding to enforce. Gould invokes the protection of the Constitution. 26 The rights and attributes that Gould asserts were affected by the retroactive force of the statute are: (1) the right to exclude during reexamination; (2) the right to a jury trial on issues being reexamined; (3) the right to judgment by an Article III court on those issues; (4) the presumption of validity during reexamination; (5) several years of patent life lost to reexamination; and (6) the right to earn economic benefits during reexamination. Gould notes that only after completion of reexamination including any subsequent appeals can he pick up where he was in the fall of 1982, reschedule the jury trial, and relitigate before an Article III court the identical issues before the PTO in reexamination. 27 In response, Control Laser and the PTO assert not only that there has been no constitutionally cognizable taking of Gould's patent rights but also, as noted ante, that no protectible property rights are involved. Appellees also argue that Congress acted rationally in making the reexamination statute retroactive, emphasizing the reasonableness of this governmental regulation of federally created property rights, and that Congress merely provided an additional forum for resolving the ever-present patentability issue. Appellees insist that Gould is not hindered from full enjoyment of his patents during reexamination. 28 The district court accepted, for purposes of summary judgment, inferences favorable to Gould on his assertions that reexamination caused loss of licensing and exploitation opportunities and delay 9 in enforcement opportunities; it is on this basis that we review whether the reexamination of Gould's preexisting patents caused a deprivation of property of constitutional dimension.