The process used by Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office PTO) to review patent disputes has become an issue yet again, thanks to a report by the Government Accountability Office (GAO). According to the GAO report, 75% of respondents to a survey of PTAB judges said that oversight practiced at PTO affected their independence in adjudicating cases, but that view was not universally held by these judges, leaving stakeholders with a vague picture as to the nature of the processes handled by the PTAB.
The process used by Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office PTO) to review patent disputes has become an issue yet again, thanks to a report by the Government Accountability Office (GAO). According to the GAO report, 75% of respondents to a survey of PTAB judges said that oversight practiced at PTO affected their independence in adjudicating cases, but that view was not universally held by these judges, leaving stakeholders with a vague picture as to the nature of the processes handled by the PTAB.
The America Invents Act (AIA) is barely 10 years old, but a bipartisan pair of U.S. senators have proposed patent reform legislation that would amplify the use of the inter partes review (IPR) process to challenge an existing patent. There are several critical features of the new legislation, but Sens. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) and John Cornyn (R-Texas) said the legislation would relieve the problem of poor-quality drug patents that “drive up the costs of prescription drugs.”
Patent subject matter eligibility often seems to overshadow the America Invents Act of 2011 of late despite the controversies over inter partes reviews, but patent attorney Robb Roby told BioWorld that the most important provision of the landmark patent reform legislation may be the provision for prioritized examination. In some instances, this fast-track program has led to a grant of patent in substantially less than a year, a feature Roby said provides a critical turn-around for small companies trying to sustain their appeal to venture capitalists.
The Supreme Court has declined to hear three cases that questioned the inter partes review (IPR) process for patent litigation, although the petition for cert for the Arthrex Inc. v. Smith & Nephew Inc.; Arthrocare Corp.; and the United States of America case is still pending. Should the Supreme Court pass on Arthrex, the remaining affected IPR cases will have to be relitigated at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), which may give those patent holders another chance to restore their patents.