Supreme Court Says, Yes, The Patent Office Can Review Crappy Patents Using Broad Standards
from the good-news dept
Last week, the Supreme Court made life a little easier for patent trolls, and this week it made life a little harder. At issue was just how the Patent Office could review patents after they were granted. The last round of patent reform, the America Invents Act in 2010, included something called Inter Partes Review (IPR) that allows anyone to basically challenge a bad patent, presenting specific evidence that it shouldn't have been granted due to prior art. A special board at the Patent Office, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), can then decide to review the patent if it decides that there's a "reasonable likelihood" that it will invalidate some of the patent claims due to the submitted evidence.In the case that went to the Supreme Court, Cuozzo Speed Technologies was upset that the PTAB knocked out some patent claims on a patent it held after Garmin filed an IPR effort with the Patent Office, claiming that one of the claims in a Cuozzo patent was invalid thanks to prior art. The PTAB knocked out three claims from the patent, saying that two other claims were equally impacted from the prior art. Cuozzo appealed to the Federal Circuit (CAFC) on two points: first it was upset that the PTAB reviewed three claims when Garmin really focused on just one. And, second, it was upset that the PTAB used "the broadest reasonable construction" of the claims rather than the "ordinary meaning as understood by a person of skill in the art." CAFC sided with the PTAB, saying that the law says that you can't appeal what PTAB chooses to review, and that the standard it used was perfectly reasonable.
In a rare instance of the Supreme Court not slapping down the CAFC's ruling, it agreed with the appeals court.
Like the Court of Appeals, we believe that Cuozzo’s contention that the Patent Office unlawfully initiated its agency review is not appealable. For one thing, that is what §314(d) says. It states that the “determination by the [Patent Office] whether to institute an inter partes review under this section shall be final and nonappealable.” (Emphasis added.)On the question of what standard to use in reviewing the claims, again the Supreme Court sides with CAFC and the Patent Office and against Cuozzo -- once again pointing to the plain language of the law:
For another, the legal dispute at issue is an ordinary dispute about the application of certain relevant patent statutes concerning the Patent Office’s decision to institute inter partes review. Cuozzo points to a related statutory section, §312, which says that petitions must be pleaded “with particularity.” Those words, in its view, mean that the petition should have specifically said that claims 10 and 14 are also obvious in light of this same prior art. Garmin’s petition, the Government replies, need not have mentioned claims 10 and 14 separately, for claims 10, 14, and 17 are all logically linked; the claims “rise and fall together,” and a petition need not simply repeat the same argument expressly when it is so obviously implied.... In our view, the “No Appeal” provision’s language must, at the least, forbid an appeal that attacks a “determination . . . whether to institute” review by raising this kind of legal question and little more.
The statute, however, contains a provision that grants the Patent Office authority to issue “regulations . . . establishing and governing inter partes review under this chapter.”... The Court of Appeals held that this statute gives the Patent Office the legal authority to issue its broadest reasonable construction regulation. We agree.The court notes that the "ordinary meaning" to those "skilled in the art" standard is what's used in court, but this is about the Patent Office re-examining the patent itself, at which point it gets to set the rules for what is patent eligible. And, further, it finds that the standard the PTAB uses is perfectly reasonable under its authority -- in part because of the public's "paramount interest in seeing that patent monopolies are kept within their legitimate scope." That's quoting a 1945 case, but it's always nice to see the Supreme Court properly noting that a patent is a form of a monopoly.
To some extent, this ruling doesn't change anything, as it is just accepting the standard that the Patent Office has been using for a few years now. So whatever whining and complaints you'll see from patent trolls and their supporters is overblown. But this is a good ruling just in creating more certainty and clarity in the fact that the Patent Office can and should continue to use this process as it has been to reject overly broad patents.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: cafc, inter partes review, ipr, patent office, patents, ptab, supreme court, uspto
Companies: cuozzo speed technologies, garmin
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I'm pleased to see it, though.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It is painfully obvious that the commenters here know dangerously little about patent law or the patent system, just that they don't like patents. In my experience, lots of tech folks think that IP is worthless until they have an idea that they think is worth protecting. . .
In the meantime, great job doing the work of your new Asian overlords. The ideas that you are trying to commoditize are your own.
Oh, and as an IP opponent itself, I suppose that TechDirt will not mind if I start lifting its articles and posting them on my competing website? All the words were already known and used previously. . .
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
People here might know more than you think, but it's hard to tell since you've not actually said what the errors are.
"TechDirt will not mind if I start lifting its articles"
Techdirt has repeatedly, over a period of years, overtly said they don't mind when people do this. And they walk that talk as well.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
I always get a laugh when a commentor tries that particular trick. 'So you're anti-IP in all it's forms huh, well what if I post/use your stuff without permission? Bet you'd be in favor of all things IP then!'
And then what they thought was a nice dig and/or attempt to expose a little bit of imaginary property-related hypocrisy is completely undercut when someone points out that nope, they can do that all they want and the TD people don't care.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
I always wonder about the reasoning that leads to such statements, because they so often completely wrong. Take patents for example, I don't patent my own inventions because I don't see the value in doing so in my own situation. But I know a lot of people who have patents, and almost all of them think that the patent system is doing active damage to society as a whole.
I suspect that it's another example of the strong tendency of people to think that their own viewpoint of something is automatically representative of the majority view.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]