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. I have been on this program while on parole from 2011-2013. No person should be forced mentally to share private details of their personal life with total strangers. Also giving permission for a mental therapist to report to your parole agent that your not participating in group therapy because you don't have the financial mean to be in the group therapy. I was personally singled out and sent back three times for not having money and also sent back within the six month when you aren't to be sent according to state law. I will work to het this INSOMM's removed from this state. I also had twelve or thirteen parole agents with a fifteen month period. Thanks for your time.

  2. Our nation produces very few jurists of the caliber of Justice DOUGLAS and his peers these days. Here is that great civil libertarian, who recognized government as both a blessing and, when corrupted by ideological interests, a curse: "Once the investigator has only the conscience of government as a guide, the conscience can become ‘ravenous,’ as Cromwell, bent on destroying Thomas More, said in Bolt, A Man For All Seasons (1960), p. 120. The First Amendment mirrors many episodes where men, harried and harassed by government, sought refuge in their conscience, as these lines of Thomas More show: ‘MORE: And when we stand before God, and you are sent to Paradise for doing according to your conscience, *575 and I am damned for not doing according to mine, will you come with me, for fellowship? ‘CRANMER: So those of us whose names are there are damned, Sir Thomas? ‘MORE: I don't know, Your Grace. I have no window to look into another man's conscience. I condemn no one. ‘CRANMER: Then the matter is capable of question? ‘MORE: Certainly. ‘CRANMER: But that you owe obedience to your King is not capable of question. So weigh a doubt against a certainty—and sign. ‘MORE: Some men think the Earth is round, others think it flat; it is a matter capable of question. But if it is flat, will the King's command make it round? And if it is round, will the King's command flatten it? No, I will not sign.’ Id., pp. 132—133. DOUGLAS THEN WROTE: Where government is the Big Brother,11 privacy gives way to surveillance. **909 But our commitment is otherwise. *576 By the First Amendment we have staked our security on freedom to promote a multiplicity of ideas, to associate at will with kindred spirits, and to defy governmental intrusion into these precincts" Gibson v. Florida Legislative Investigation Comm., 372 U.S. 539, 574-76, 83 S. Ct. 889, 908-09, 9 L. Ed. 2d 929 (1963) Mr. Justice DOUGLAS, concurring. I write: Happy Memorial Day to all -- God please bless our fallen who lived and died to preserve constitutional governance in our wonderful series of Republics. And God open the eyes of those government officials who denounce the constitutions of these Republics by arbitrary actions arising out capricious motives.

  3. From back in the day before secularism got a stranglehold on Hoosier jurists comes this great excerpt via Indiana federal court judge Allan Sharp, dedicated to those many Indiana government attorneys (with whom I have dealt) who count the law as a mere tool, an optional tool that is not to be used when political correctness compels a more acceptable result than merely following the path that the law directs: ALLEN SHARP, District Judge. I. In a scene following a visit by Henry VIII to the home of Sir Thomas More, playwriter Robert Bolt puts the following words into the mouths of his characters: Margaret: Father, that man's bad. MORE: There is no law against that. ROPER: There is! God's law! MORE: Then God can arrest him. ROPER: Sophistication upon sophistication! MORE: No, sheer simplicity. The law, Roper, the law. I know what's legal not what's right. And I'll stick to what's legal. ROPER: Then you set man's law above God's! MORE: No, far below; but let me draw your attention to a fact I'm not God. The currents and eddies of right and wrong, which you find such plain sailing, I can't navigate. I'm no voyager. But in the thickets of law, oh, there I'm a forester. I doubt if there's a man alive who could follow me there, thank God... ALICE: (Exasperated, pointing after Rich) While you talk, he's gone! MORE: And go he should, if he was the Devil himself, until he broke the law! ROPER: So now you'd give the Devil benefit of law! MORE: Yes. What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil? ROPER: I'd cut down every law in England to do that! MORE: (Roused and excited) Oh? (Advances on Roper) And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned round on you where would you hide, Roper, the laws being flat? (He leaves *1257 him) This country's planted thick with laws from coast to coast man's laws, not God's and if you cut them down and you're just the man to do it d'you really think you would stand upright in the winds that would blow then? (Quietly) Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake. ROPER: I have long suspected this; this is the golden calf; the law's your god. MORE: (Wearily) Oh, Roper, you're a fool, God's my god... (Rather bitterly) But I find him rather too (Very bitterly) subtle... I don't know where he is nor what he wants. ROPER: My God wants service, to the end and unremitting; nothing else! MORE: (Dryly) Are you sure that's God! He sounds like Moloch. But indeed it may be God And whoever hunts for me, Roper, God or Devil, will find me hiding in the thickets of the law! And I'll hide my daughter with me! Not hoist her up the mainmast of your seagoing principles! They put about too nimbly! (Exit More. They all look after him). Pgs. 65-67, A MAN FOR ALL SEASONS A Play in Two Acts, Robert Bolt, Random House, New York, 1960. Linley E. Pearson, Atty. Gen. of Indiana, Indianapolis, for defendants. Childs v. Duckworth, 509 F. Supp. 1254, 1256 (N.D. Ind. 1981) aff'd, 705 F.2d 915 (7th Cir. 1983)

  4. "Meanwhile small- and mid-size firms are getting squeezed and likely will not survive unless they become a boutique firm." I've been a business attorney in small, and now mid-size firm for over 30 years, and for over 30 years legal consultants have been preaching this exact same mantra of impending doom for small and mid-sized firms -- verbatim. This claim apparently helps them gin up merger opportunities from smaller firms who become convinced that they need to become larger overnight. The claim that large corporations are interested in cost-saving and efficiency has likewise been preached for decades, and is likewise bunk. If large corporations had any real interest in saving money they wouldn't use large law firms whose rates are substantially higher than those of high-quality mid-sized firms.

  5. The family is the foundation of all human government. That is the Grand Design. Modern governments throw off this Design and make bureaucratic war against the family, as does Hollywood and cultural elitists such as third wave feminists. Since WWII we have been on a ship of fools that way, with both the elite and government and their social engineering hacks relentlessly attacking the very foundation of social order. And their success? See it in the streets of Fergusson, on the food stamp doles (mostly broken families)and in the above article. Reject the Grand Design for true social function, enter the Glorious State to manage social dysfunction. Our Brave New World will be a prison camp, and we will welcome it as the only way to manage given the anarchy without it.

ADVERTISEMENT