Patent (reexamination): Inter partes review:
Art. III Court: Seventh Amendment:
The Leahy-Smith America Invents Act, 35 U. S. C.
§100 et seq., establishes a process called “inter partes review.” Under
that process, the United States Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) is authorized
to reconsider and to cancel an issued patent claim in limited circumstances. In
this case, we address whether inter partes review violates Article III or the Seventh
Amendment of the Constitution. We hold that it violates neither.
Over the last several decades, Congress has
created administrative processes that authorize the PTO to reconsider and
cancel patent claims that were wrongly issued. In 1980, Congress established “ex
parte reexamination,” which still exists today. See Act To Amend the Patent
and Trademark Laws, 35 U. S. C. §301 et seq. Ex parte re- examination
permits “any person at any time” to “file a request for reexamination.” §302.
If the Director determines that there is “a substantial new question of
patent-ability” for “any claim of the patent,” the PTO can reexamine the
patent. §§303(a), 304. The reexamination process follows the same procedures as
the initial exami-nation. §305.
In 1999, Congress added a procedure called
“inter partes reexamination.” See American Inventors Protection Act,
§§4601–4608, 113 Stat. 1501A–567 to 1501A–572. Under this procedure, any person
could file a request for reexamination. 35 U. S. C. §311(a) (2006 ed.). The
Director would determine if the request raised “a substantial new question of
patentability affecting any claim of the patent” and, if so, commence a
reexamination. §§312(a), 313 (2006 ed.). The reexamination would follow the
general procedures for initial examination, but would allow the third-party
requester and the patent owner to participate in a limited manner by filing
responses and replies. §§314(a), (b) (2006 ed.). Inter partes reexamination was
phased out when the America Invents Act went into effect in 2012. See §6, 125
Stat. 299–305.
The America Invents Act replaced inter partes
reexamination with inter partes review, the procedure at issue here. See id.,
at 299. Any person other than the patent owner can file a petition for
inter partes review. 35 U. S. C. §311(a) (2012 ed.). The petition can request
cancellation of “1 or more claims of a patent” on the grounds that the claim
fails the novelty or nonobviousness standards for patentability. §311(b). The
challenges must be made “only on the basis of prior art consisting of patents
or printed publications.” Ibid. If a petition is filed, the patent owner
has the right to file a preliminary response explaining why inter partes review
should not be instituted. §313.
Once inter partes review is instituted, the
Patent Trial and Appeal Board—an adjudicatory body within the PTO created to
conduct inter partes review—examines the patent’s validity. See 35 U. S. C.
§§6, 316(c).
A party dissatisfied with the Board’s decision
can seek judicial review in the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. §319.
Secondary authorities: Lemley, Why Do Juries
Decide If Patents Are Valid? 99 Va. L. Rev. 1673, 1682, 1685–1686, and n. 52
(2013).
(U.S.S.C., April
24, 2018, Oil States Energy Services, LLC v. Greene's Energy Group, LLC, Docket
No. 16-712, J. Thomas)
La procédure dite
"inter partes review" permet à un tiers, à des conditions limitées,
de saisir le PTO d'une requête en reconsidération des revendications et en
annulation partielle ou complète d'un brevet (35 U. S. C. §311(a) (2012 ed.)). Cette procédure n'est contraire ni à
l'Art. III ni au Septième Amendement de la Constitution fédérale. Le tiers
requérant peut invoquer que la solution technique n'est pas nouvelle, ou
qu'elle est évidente. La décision rendue par le PTO peut être déférée devant la
Cour d'appel pour le Circuit fédéral.
Une autre procédure, dite "ex parte
reexamination" (35 U. S.
C. §301 et seq.), permet également à
un tiers de saisir le PTO d'une requête en reconsidération des revendications
et en annulation partielle ou complète d'un brevet. La reconsidération suit les
mêmes règles de procédure que celles applicables à l'examen initial.
No comments:
Post a Comment