Post-Grant Proceedings Under The America Invents Act Angeles Intellectual Property Law Associatio “Washington in the West” Conference January 29, 2013, Los Angeles, California Panelists: Jeffrey Robertson – Administrative Patent Judge Brent Babcock – Knobbe Martens Mehrand Arjomand – Morrison Foerster
13
Embed
Post-Grant Proceedings Under The America Invents Act
Post-Grant Proceedings Under The America Invents Act. Los Angeles Intellectual Property Law Association “Washington in the West” Conference January 29, 2013, Los Angeles, California. Panelists: Jeffrey Robertson – Administrative Patent Judge Brent Babcock – Knobbe Martens - PowerPoint PPT Presentation
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
Post-Grant ProceedingsUnder The America Invents
ActLos Angeles Intellectual Property Law Association “Washington in the West” Conference
• Number of Petitions by Technology• Electrical/Computer 89• Mechanical 6• Chemical 19• Bio/Pharma 9• Design 1
5
Inter Partes Reexam v. Inter Partes Review• Two important differences between an inter
partes reexamination proceeding and an inter partes review proceeding: – No examination– Statutory deadline for final decision
Examination by CRUFiling Appeal to CAFC
Review by PTABFiling Appeal to CAFC
Appeal to PTAB
6
Post-Grant Proceedings – Procedure • Threshold “Reasonable Likelihood” that petitioner will
prevail on at least one claim• Potentially more limited discovery in IPR than Post Grant
Review– Deposition of witnesses submitting affidavits (declarations)– What is “otherwise necessary in the interests of justice”
• Patent owner may file response rebutting petition• One motion by right to cancel or propose substitute claims• Right to oral hearing• Petitioner may submit supplemental information/ comment
7
Post-Grant Proceedings – Procedure
8
Post-Grant Proceedings – Procedure
• Petitioner or Director may request joinder of additional parties
• Final determination within 12 months, up to 18 months if “good cause”
• Estoppel: “raised or reasonably could have raised”• Appeal: directly to Federal Circuit
9
• Representative Orders, Decisions, and Notices http://www.uspto.gov/ip/boards/bpai/representative_orders_and_opinions.jsp
• Pro Hac Vice Requests• Defective Petitions• Relationship with Co-pending Proceedings• Definition of Covered Business Method Patent
Post-Grant Proceedings – Developments
10
IPR Strategic Issues• What is the anticipated fees/cost of an IPR?• How long will an IPR last?• Are the fees/costs spread out evenly?• Why should I use IPR rather than traditional litigation?• What is the likelihood that a district court action will be
stayed during an IPR?• Should I change my practices of monitoring competitors’
IP?• Is there anything I can do to prevent an IPR of my client’s
patents?
11
Advantages of IPR vs. Litigation• Lower Burden of Proof (preponderance of the evidence)• Broadest Reasonable Interpretation of patent claims• Lower Cost (FRCP do not apply)
Advantages of Litigation vs. IPR• Infringement can be adjudicated• Full scope of claims and defenses• Full discovery opportunities• Estoppel effect of USPTO Inter Partes proceedings• More expensive to opponent• Jury presents potentially more risk to opponent