ILNews

New provisions shine light on patent process

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Quietly on Sept. 16, more provisions of the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act took effect, opening the patent granting process that has operated in the dark for much of the past 176 years.

Now competitors, inventors and other third parties will be able to challenge the validity of a patent application through a pre-issuance procedure and challenge a standing patent through the post-grant review process.

These changes are why, in part, Mark Janis, director of the Center for Intellectual Property Research at the Indiana University Maurer School of Law, describes the new patent law as the most significant reform of the U.S. patent system since the 1836 Act which established the patent office and an application examination process.
 

patent-15col.jpg Mark Janis, director, Center for Intellectual Property Research; David Kappos, director, USPTO; Robert Armitage, senior V.P. and general counsel, Eli Lilly & Co; and Maurer School of Law Interim Dean Hannah L. Buxbaum attended the “America Invents Act: One Year Later” conference Sept. 14. (Photo submitted)

The AIA was signed into law in September 2011 after a six-year process that brought opposing groups together to collaborate on rewriting what some saw as a broken patent system.

Provisions in the AIA are being rolled out gradually over the course of a couple of years. The elements that became effective in 2012 include the challenge procedures and the inventor’s oath. Next March will bring the biggest shift as the U.S. patent system switches from a first-to-invent system to a first-to-file system.

Transparency and objectivity

To mark the first anniversary of the new patent law, the Center for Intellectual Property Research held a one-day symposium on Sept. 14 to discuss particular provisions in the new law and try to assess what the AIA accomplished and what it omitted.

Keynote speaker Robert Armitage, senior vice president and general counsel at Eli Lilly and Co., called the AIA a “giant step forward.” He is credited with being a driving force behind the bill’s passage and with keeping the Silicon Valley companies and the pharmaceutical and biotech companies at the negotiating table during the legislative process.

In a 2012 article for the American Intellectual Property Law Association Quarterly Journal, Armitage summarized how the new law will change the patent system.

“Through a 130-page bill over the six-year legislative process, Congress transformed the U.S. patent system from one of non-transparency, subjectivity, unpredictability, and excessive complexity, to one that will operate with near-complete transparency, objectiveness, predictability and simplicity in the principles that govern patentability and patent validity,” he wrote.

Speaking before the patent conference, Armitage acknowledged the AIA as passed by Congress contains errors that need to be corrected. Conference panelists highlighted the lack of caps on damages, no research exemption and the growing bureaucracy of the patent office as areas of concern.

However, Armitage advised the audience of legal scholars, U.S. Patent and Trademark Office representatives and practicing attorneys to “think more broadly” beyond their own interests as they tackle these errors.

A lot of compromise went into crafting the bill, he said, and it would be a shame if that spirit of cooperation was not continued in the work to correct the new law.

Challenge process

Until 1999, when the patent office began publishing many patent applications 18 months after they were filed, the granting process was conducted out of the public eye. In fact, the only notification that an inventor was applying for a patent often came on the day the exclusive rights were actually issued.patent-fbox.gif
Through the AIA provisions for pre-issuance procedure and post-grant review that took effect Sept. 16, the public’s ability to contribute to the examination process will be enhanced, Janis said.

In the pre-issuance process, challengers have a limited window to submit prior art or documents of other patents and inventions and offer explanations that raise questions about whether the patent application should be granted.

“I think most people are hopeful it’s going to provide a mechanism to increase the quality of patents issued by the U.S. patent office,” said Joshua Larsen, registered patent attorney and an associate in the intellectual property department at Barnes & Thornburg LLP. He explained the pre-issuance procedure is viewed as likely to decrease the frequency of invalid patents being granted.

Although he expects many will utilize the pre-issuance process, he expects others to hold back from challenging the application because the procedure is not as robust at litigation. The challenger can argue against the validity of the patent application but cannot respond once the applicant has answered the charges. A court proceeding, Larsen said, would provide the opportunity to get the last word.

The success of the pre-issuance procedure rests on how the patent office implements the provision, Janis said. There are concerns that large, well-funded companies could flood the patent office with a huge number of prior art and explanations that would essentially tie up the entire patent system for a small upstart company.

Anticipating this possible pitfall, Janis noted the patent office has been careful about not obligating itself to considering all documents and materials submitted.

The post-grant review process will provide an alternative to litigation in challenging patents that have already been approved. Competitors can file a petition with the patent office, and the government agency has up to 18 months to consider it before issuing a ruling. Afterwards, the losing party can appeal straight to the federal circuit. Larsen expects the post-grant review process to have credibility, in part, because any appeal after the process will likely not be able to raise arguments that were not presented to the patent office.

Armitage touts this provision as potentially saving time and money. In particular, he pointed to Ariad Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Eli Lilly and Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2010), which took nearly a decade and included a couple of summary judgments and one loss at a jury trial.

The post-grant review, he said, could resolve cases like Ariad in months rather than years and reduce costs from millions of dollars to thousands.

First to file

Perhaps one of the more controversial parts of the bill, the first-to-file provision does not become effective until March 2013. This will bring a fundamental shift in the U.S. patent system where the priority is based on the first inventor to file for a patent rather than the first to invent the product.

Detractors say the first-to-invent system is more just and the first-to-file process makes inventors more vulnerable to having their ideas stolen. Janis noted the situation is less dramatic than the rhetoric would indicate. Already, the U.S. system is a mix of first to invent and first to file with many large corporations operating in a first-to-file mode.

The central argument for the provision is that it will help the domestic patent system come closer to being in harmony with other patent systems in foreign countries.

Closer harmonization will reduce costs for companies that operate globally, Larsen said. U.S. patent applications will be more aligned with applications from other countries so companies will not have to spend as much time and resources filing the different applications.

The assessment of whether or not the post-grant review system is beneficial will be done in a relatively short period of time but, Janis said, determining if changing to a first-to-file system was good or bad will take decades. Still, at this point, he sees more potential for a positive impact.

“I would be surprised if anybody can make a plausible argument that we destroyed our patent system because we adopted the evil European system,” Janis said.•
ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. No second amendment, pro life, pro traditional marriage, reagan or trump tshirts will be sold either. And you cannot draw Mohammed even in your own notebook. And you must wear a helmet at all times while at the fair. And no lawyer jokes can be told except in the designated protest area. And next year no crucifixes, since they are uber offensive to all but Catholics. Have a nice bland day here in the Lego movie. Remember ... Everything is awesome comrades.

  2. Thank you for this post . I just bought a LG External DVD It came with Cyber pwr 2 go . It would not play on Lenovo Idea pad w/8.1 . Your recommended free VLC worked great .

  3. All these sites putting up all the crap they do making Brent Look like A Monster like he's not a good person . First off th fight actually started not because of Brent but because of one of his friends then when the fight popped off his friend ran like a coward which left Brent to fend for himself .It IS NOT a crime to defend yourself 3 of them and 1 of him . just so happened he was a better fighter. I'm Brent s wife so I know him personally and up close . He's a very caring kind loving man . He's not abusive in any way . He is a loving father and really shouldn't be where he is not for self defense . Now because of one of his stupid friends trying to show off and turning out to be nothing but a coward and leaving Brent to be jumped by 3 men not only is Brent suffering but Me his wife , his kids abd step kidshis mom and brother his family is left to live without him abd suffering in more ways then one . that man was and still is my smile ....he's the one real thing I've ever had in my life .....f@#@ You Lafayette court system . Learn to do your jobs right he maybe should have gotten that year for misdemeanor battery but that s it . not one person can stand to me and tell me if u we're in a fight facing 3 men and u just by yourself u wouldn't fight back that you wouldn't do everything u could to walk away to ur family ur kids That's what Brent is guilty of trying to defend himself against 3 men he wanted to go home tohisfamily worse then they did he just happened to be a better fighter and he got the best of th others . what would you do ? Stand there lay there and be stomped and beaten or would u give it everything u got and fight back ? I'd of done the same only I'm so smallid of probably shot or stabbed or picked up something to use as a weapon . if it was me or them I'd do everything I could to make sure I was going to live that I would make it hone to see my kids and husband . I Love You Brent Anthony Forever & Always .....Soul 1 baby

  4. Good points, although this man did have a dog in the legal fight as that it was his mother on trial ... and he a dependent. As for parking spaces, handicap spots for pregnant women sure makes sense to me ... er, I mean pregnant men or women. (Please, I meant to include pregnant men the first time, not Room 101 again, please not Room 101 again. I love BB)

  5. I have no doubt that the ADA and related laws provide that many disabilities must be addressed. The question, however, is "by whom?" Many people get dealt bad cards by life. Some are deaf. Some are blind. Some are crippled. Why is it the business of the state to "collectivize" these problems and to force those who are NOT so afflicted to pay for those who are? The fact that this litigant was a mere spectator and not a party is chilling. What happens when somebody who speaks only East Bazurkistanish wants a translator so that he can "understand" the proceedings in a case in which he has NO interest? Do I and all other taxpayers have to cough up? It would seem so. ADA should be amended to provide a simple rule: "Your handicap, YOUR problem". This would apply particularly to handicapped parking spaces, where it seems that if the "handicap" is an ingrown toenail, the government comes rushing in to assist the poor downtrodden victim. I would grant wounded vets (IED victims come to mind in particular) a pass on this.. but others? Nope.

ADVERTISEMENT