Books CBM Guest Contributors inter partes review IP News IPR Proceedings IPWatchdog Articles Articles Patent Litigation Patent Trial and Appeal Board Patents Plight of the Patentee PTAB RPX Unified Patents US Patent No. 7356482 US Patent No. 8484111 USPTO Writ of Certiorari

The PTAB Promotes Petitioner Promiscuity

The PTAB Promotes Petitioner Promiscuity

IPWatchdog lately revealed an article coping with the federal authorities’s writ of certiorari by which it claims that it’s a “individual” entitled to file petitions to invalidate patents earlier than the Patent Trial and Attraction Board. IPWatchdog additionally just lately revealed an article highlighting the inequity of repeated and concerted patent assaults.

These points, and some others, are mentioned within the dialog between Inocencia Erfinder, the heroine in my forthcoming ebook Plight of the Patentee,  and her lawyer.[1]

Inocencia:  Can a collection of attackers file inter partes evaluation petitions and, to the extent these petitions are granted, keep patent litigation for years on finish?

Lawyer:  Sure. That may occur. Let me inform you a real story.

On November eight, 2013, Purposes in Web Time sued for alleged infringement of the plaintiff’s patents (7,356,482 and eight,484,111). tried to invalidate these patents by submitting a petition for the Patent Trial and Attraction Board to evaluate the patents in-suit beneath its Coated Enterprise Strategies program. The events agreed to a keep their litigation on the time of this submitting however that keep was lifted after the PTAB denied the CBM petitions.

A short time after the CBM petition was denied, RPX Company filed an inter partes evaluation petition with the PTAB. filed a brand new movement for a keep which the district courtroom decide granted after the PTAB granted RPX’s inter partes evaluation petition. The district courtroom decide’s reasoning for granting the keep was that was not a celebration of curiosity within the RPX petition which in unfathomable given the factors mentioned under.

Inocencia:  Okay. I see how a number of gamers might elongate stays by submitting consecutive inter partes evaluation petitions. However, only for my schooling, did Purposes in Web Time additionally provoke patent infringement litigation towards RPX?

Lawyer:  No. Purposes in Web Time by no means accused PRX of infringing its patents.

Inocencia:  I’m confused. If PRX was not a defendant, why did that firm transfer to invalidate Purposes in Web Time’s patents?

Lawyer:  Nicely, you might need to pose that query to RPX. However right here is my take. RPX is within the enterprise of extricating the businesses that pay it giant sums of cash from paying damages ensuing from such shoppers’ (allegedly) infringing actions. Whereas was busy with its CBM petition, it misplaced its one-year window (subsequent to the initiation of patent litigation) to file a petition for inter partes evaluation. So, a couple of months later, RPX swooped in and filed its personal inter partes assessment petition in efforts to invalidate the patents that have been asserted towards

Inocencia:  Aren’t there standing necessities to maneuver to invalidate somebody’s patents by way of inter partes evaluation proceedings? Can anybody at any time use inter partes evaluate to hunt to invalidate somebody’s patents?

Lawyer:   Let me reply your second query first. Anybody can try and invalidate any patent at any time for any motive (or for no motive). The one exception is that defendants in patent litigation who select to go the inter partes assessment route should file a petition for inter partes assessment inside one yr of the start of the patent litigation. I suppose I inadvertently answered your first query; there are not any standing necessities to file an IPR. Nevertheless, Part 312 states that inter partes assessment petitioners should disclose all actual events in curiosity.

Inocencia:   So was it simply coincidental that RPX’s inter partes evaluate petition dovetailed with’s efforts to invalidate the identical patents?

Lawyer:  In its inter partes evaluation petition, RPX said that it was the one get together of curiosity, the one celebration concerned in getting ready and presenting its inter partes evaluation petition, and that PRX was not representing anybody else in its petition. Nonetheless, there’s fairly a little bit of proof that RPX was motivated to rescue from its embroilment as an accused infringer. To wit:

  • com was the one entity that Purposes in Web Time accused of infringing its patent in-suit; no different firm had any speedy stakes in seeing the topic patents invalidated.
  • com was an RPX shopper; made substantial and more and more giant funds to RPX.
  • RPX’s promoting supplies said that its pursuits have been “100% aligned” with these of its shoppers, that it offered patent infringement “insurance coverage” providers to its shoppers, and that it served as an adjunct to its shoppers’ in-house authorized departments.
  • RPX was conscious of the Purposes in Web Time lawsuit and the denied CBM petitions as evidenced by quite a few communications between RPX and main as much as the submitting of its inter partes evaluate
  • The 2 corporations had a mutual director on their boards.
  • RPX and have been situated in the identical constructing.

Regardless of the diploma of coordination or water carrying on RPX’s half for the good thing about, Purposes in Web Time should have felt that it was on the epicenter of a full-on pincer motion. Within the district courtroom, argued that the claims it was accused of infringing ought to be construed very narrowly, so narrowly that couldn’t probably be infringing them. When RPX took a whack at Purposes in Web Time’s patents, that San Francisco-based firm argued the claims of Purposes in Web Time’s patents have been extraordinarily broad, making the mission of manufacturing patent invalidating prior artwork a lot simpler. (To be truthful to RPX, Unified Patents has additionally been accused of serving to infringers circumvent the one-year state of limitations that kicks in after an alleged infringer has been sued in district courtroom.)

Inocencia:  So, what you’re telling me is that anybody can transfer to invalidate any patent at any time for any cause by way of a authorities tribunal that former Federal Circuit Chief Decide Randall Rader depicted as “dying squads killing property rights” so long as the attackers disclose who is absolutely behind the invalidity try; however even when a patent attacker fails to satisfy that minimal requirement, the assault continues to be allowed to proceed?

Lawyer:  That isn’t how the system is meant to work. Judges and Administrative Patent Judges have days the place they make dangerous selections. It will possibly occur to one of the best of them.

Inocencia:  For each day that a decide or Administrative Patent Decide makes a nasty choice, there’s an inventor who simply realizes that he had a nasty decade when it comes to investing in patent worthy innovations. Only for readability, so long as an individual has cash, he can try and invalidate any patent at any time?

Lawyer:  In response to the U.S. authorities, the petitioner doesn’t even have to be an individual within the sense that you simply and I consider the time period “individual.” On October 26, 2018, the U.S. Supreme Courtroom granted a writ of certiorari to take up Return Mail Inc. v. United States Postal Service. On this case, the federal authorities is arguing that it’s a individual who might petition the Patent Trial and Attraction Board to institute patent validity evaluation proceedings.

Inocencia:  Why on the planet would the federal authorities need to be an lively participant in invalidating patents that the USPTO grants? Does the federal authorities consider that an inadequate variety of patents are challenged by way of inter partes critiques, that there’s inadequate gang tackling (which happens when one other petitioner requests joinder utilizing a near-photocopy of the unique petition), or that there are inadequate serial assaults on the identical patents? To place the final challenge in different phrases, does the federal authorities actually consider that 9 assaults towards some patents are wanted? Anyway, a minimum of there’s nonetheless the requirement to pony up some cash to launch inter partes evaluate.

Lawyer:  That’s true however a little bit of qualification is perhaps so as. First, assuming that the U.S. authorities wins the Return Mail case, I don’t know if the federal authorities must pay charges to the PTAB. Second, petitioners for inter partes evaluation are eligible to obtain a partial refund of their submitting charges in the event that they elect to halt their IPR proceedings earlier than a choice is reached. Third, Unified Patents has supported the coaching of regulation college students in “figuring out prior artwork and correctly making arguments which might be used on the PTAB to invalidate such patents.” In supporting such coaching along side the College of Detroit – Mercy Faculty of Regulation and Berkeley Regulation, Unified Patents can scale back the price of placing IPR petitions collectively.

Inocencia:  As to your second qualification, does the patent workplace refund patentees for any of the bills they bear in defending their patents in IPR proceedings? Does the patent workplace refund patentees for the upkeep charges they’ve paid when their patents are invalidated? Do patentees obtain prolonged phrases on their patents to compensate for the time their instances are stayed whereas going by means of IPR proceedings?

Lawyer:  In fact not. Quite the opposite, the USPTO’s place has lengthy been that patentees ought to pay the bills the patent workplace incurs when the patentee appeals a PTAB determination earlier than the Federal Circuit Courtroom.

Let me say one thing earlier than you ask me about Unified Patents supporting the coaching of regulation college students in trying to invalidate patents. Coaching regulation college students is an effective factor. Purging dangerous patents additionally has benefit. So, I don’t have an issue with Unified Patents supporting the coaching of latest cadres within the strategies of invalidating patents.

Inocencia:  Then, there shouldn’t be an issue with somebody sponsoring scholarships directed to coaching aspiring actual property legal professionals in the most effective methods of dispossessing individuals of their houses as a result of chains of title issues exist or due to misrepresentations on mortgage purposes. Perhaps regulation college students learning employment regulation ought to obtain comparable help in studying methods to conduct rigorous employment regulation compliance audits. It will be incongruent for the principals of Unified Patents to object if such sponsored scrutiny have been directed to their residences or enterprise.

Lawyer:  I haven’t considered that. However I can’t argue with the logic.


[1] Did you catch the double entendre? The heroine’s identify means “harmless inventor” in Spanish and German, respectively.


David Wanetick

David Wanetick

is the Managing Director of IncreMental Benefit, LLC. He has greater than 20 years of expertise in Firm and Mental Property Valuation, Monetary Modeling, Strategic Planning, and Negotiations. He’s acknowledged worldwide for his experience in valuing rising applied sciences and intangible belongings comparable to patents, logos, copyrights, contracts, earn-outs and non-compete agreements. His shoppers embrace regulation companies; rising, mid- and large-sized corporations; know-how switch workplaces; inventors; enterprise capitalists and personal fairness companies. Valuations are primarily carried out within the context of negotiating licensing agreements, mergers and acquisitions, patent gross sales, capital raises and litigation help. He developed the Licensed Patent Valuation Analyst Designation.

For extra info or to contact David, please go to his Firm Profile Web page.

About the author