Opinion ID: 449779
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Purposes of Reexamination

Text: 33 Modern due process inquiry includes a determination of whether the legislature used a rational approach to achieve a legitimate end. Usery v. Turner Elkhorn, 428 U.S. at 18-19, 96 S.Ct. at 2893-2894. The reexamination statute enabled the PTO to recover administrative jurisdiction over an issued patent in order to remedy any defects in the examination which that agency had initially conducted and which led to the grant of the patent. Before its enactment, the methods of achieving administrative review of an issued patent were very limited. Gould emphasizes that such review could not be achieved other than at the initiative of the patentee. At the time Gordon Gould's patents were issued, there was no way the PTO or private persons could have forced these patents back into the examination phase against his will (except for their involvement in an interference). Issues fundamental to PTO reexamination, such as the raising of new questions of patentability and the cancellation of claims of issued patents, prior to Public Law 96-517 could be resolved only by action of an Article III court. See Iowa State University Research Foundation, Inc. v. Sperry Rand Corp., 444 F.2d 406, 409, 170 USPQ 374, 377 (4th Cir.1971). 34 Congress had an important public purpose in mind when it enacted the reexamination statute. The statute was part of a larger effort to revive United States industry's competitive vitality by restoring confidence in the validity of patents issued by the PTO. In 1979 President Carter in his Industrial Innovation Initiative Message to Congress announced his intention to seek reexamination legislation, stating that Patents can provide a vital incentive for innovation, but the patent process has become expensive, time-consuming, and unreliable. 15 Weekly Comp. of Pres.Doc. 2069, 2070 (Oct. 31, 1979). Senator Birch Bayh echoed this concern when he explained I introduced this legislation because of my conviction that a strong, dependable patent system is absolutely essential to our continued ability to innovate to meet the challenges of the future. Patent Reexamination: Hearings on S. 1679 Before the Comm. on the Judiciary, 96th Cong., 1st Sess. 1 (1979) (Senate Hearings ). Congressman Kastenmeier, who introduced the legislation in the House, described the bill as an effort to reverse the current decline in U.S. productivity by strengthening the patent and copyright systems to improve investor confidence in new technology. 126 Cong.Rec. 29,895 (1980). 35 The bill's proponents foresaw three principal benefits. First, the new procedure could settle validity disputes more quickly and less expensively than the often protracted litigation involved in such cases. Second, the procedure would allow courts to refer patent validity questions to the expertise of the Patent Office. See Senate Hearings at 1, wherein Senator Bayh said that reexamination would be an aid to the trial court in making an informed decision on the patent's validity. Third, reexamination would reinforce investor confidence in the certainty of patent rights by affording the PTO a broader opportunity to review doubtful patents. 126 Cong.Rec. 29,895 (1980) (statement of Rep. Kastenmeier). 36 When Congress voted the reexamination statute into law, it had before it a voluminous record to the effect that the procedure was an important step forward for the United States patent system and for the public interest that the system is charged to serve. Congress, without apparent objection, applied the legislation to all unexpired patents.