Access practice tools, as well as industry leading news, customizable alerts, dockets, and primary content, including a comprehensive collection of case law, dockets, and regulations. Leverage...
By Tony Dutra
Oct. 31 — The Patent and Trademark Office is fighting charges that it has exceeded its authority with tough patent-amendment rules in America Invents Act proceedings ( In re Aqua Prods., Inc., Fed. Cir., No. 2015-1177, PTO brief filed, 10/26/16 ).
Aqua Products Inc. is appealing the PTO's refusal to let it amend patent claims. The office countered those arguments with a detailed statutory interpretation, and also rejected practical suggestions offered in six friend-of-the-court briefs for changing the way it handles amendment requests. The brief characterized the alternatives as evidence that the AIA is ambiguous, giving the PTO the authority to set standards.
Stakeholders questioned the office's tough stance.
“With the brief's focus on agency power rather than on what the best policy ought to be, this case is likely to lead to a further hardening of positions,” said Hans Sauer, deputy general counsel for intellectual property for the Biotechnology Innovation Organization. “That’s unfortunate, because one can fairly ask whether the PTO and the stakeholder community are really that far apart.”
The full 12-member U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit is scheduled to hear arguments in the case Dec. 9.Source Material:
Case docket: No. 2015-1177 (Fed. Cir.)
PTO Solicitor Nathan K. Kelley submitted the brief, but another signatory, Joseph D. Matal, had a front-row seat when Congress was writing the AIA.
Matal was a counsel in the Senate Judiciary Committee during the law's drafting and subsequently wrote “ A Guide To The Legislative History of the America Invents Act,” which at least one Federal Circuit opinion has previously referenced. The PTO brief's detailed review of the drafting history supported its argument that 35 U.S.C. §316(a)(9) allows the office to set “standards and procedures” for amendments, including the burden of proof.
Aqua Products, instead, relied on Section 316(e), the only place where Congress spoke to the burden of proof. It states that “the petitioner shall have the burden of proving a proposition of unpatentability by a preponderance of the evidence.” The PTO contended that subsection only refers to original patent claims. In the case of amended claims, the burden is on the patent owner to show patentability, according to the PTO.
The amicus briefs made the same arguments, to some extent. But most said even if the PTO is correct that the burden of proof on amended claims rests with the patent owner, it could implement procedures that offer greater opportunity to make the case.
The briefs, said Sauer, tried to present ways to create a more balanced process for considering amended claims during inter partes review, the AIA-created proceeding where patents can be challenged as invalid based on prior art. “I’m sure many in the PTO are listening,” he said. “The PTO knows as well as anyone that the status quo is unworkable.”
In a footnote, the PTO said Aqua Products had alternatives to AIA procedures, including making a reissue request or maintaining a continuation application that claims priority to the original application.
Q. Todd Dickinson of Polsinelli P.C., Washington, a former PTO director, said the footnote was confusing because, “The remedy the Office says is available to Aqua is fact-specific and certainly not universally available.”
And, given that the PTO has bemoaned its backlog of such requests, “Why would they want to incent tactical, paper filing of more continuation applications?” he asked. “It's very strange.”
To contact the reporter on this story: Tony Dutra in Washington at email@example.com
To contact the editor responsible for this story: Mike Wilczek at firstname.lastname@example.org
Text of PTO brief available at http://src.bna.com/jHl.
Copyright © 2016 The Bureau of National Affairs, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
All Bloomberg BNA treatises are available on standing order, which ensures you will always receive the most current edition of the book or supplement of the title you have ordered from Bloomberg BNA’s book division. As soon as a new supplement or edition is published (usually annually) for a title you’ve previously purchased and requested to be placed on standing order, we’ll ship it to you to review for 30 days without any obligation. During this period, you can either (a) honor the invoice and receive a 5% discount (in addition to any other discounts you may qualify for) off the then-current price of the update, plus shipping and handling or (b) return the book(s), in which case, your invoice will be cancelled upon receipt of the book(s). Call us for a prepaid UPS label for your return. It’s as simple and easy as that. Most importantly, standing orders mean you will never have to worry about the timeliness of the information you’re relying on. And, you may discontinue standing orders at any time by contacting us at 1.800.960.1220 or by sending an email to email@example.com.
Put me on standing order at a 5% discount off list price of all future updates, in addition to any other discounts I may quality for. (Returnable within 30 days.)
Notify me when updates are available (No standing order will be created).
This Bloomberg BNA report is available on standing order, which ensures you will all receive the latest edition. This report is updated annually and we will send you the latest edition once it has been published. By signing up for standing order you will never have to worry about the timeliness of the information you need. And, you may discontinue standing orders at any time by contacting us at 1.800.372.1033, option 5, or by sending us an email to firstname.lastname@example.org.
Put me on standing order
Notify me when new releases are available (no standing order will be created)