america invents act

57
America Invents Act Jordan Becker JBecker@PerkinsCoie. com Brian Coleman [email protected] Ken Halpern [email protected] Presented By:

Upload: jirair

Post on 19-Mar-2016

75 views

Category:

Documents


0 download

DESCRIPTION

America Invents Act. Presented By:. Jordan Becker [email protected]. Brian Coleman [email protected]. Ken Halpern [email protected]. AIA SEC. 3: First Inventor to File. Old Regime: First-to-Invent. - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

TRANSCRIPT

Page 2: America Invents Act

AIA SEC. 3: First Inventor to File

Page 3: America Invents Act

Old Regime: First-to-Invent

Conception and Diligent Reduction to Practice mattered, giving inventor a "priority date" of conception

One year grace period from any public disclosure

First to file had prima facie priority, but Swearing behind could eliminate certain references Interference proceeding determined first to invent facts, including

conception and reduction

Any application with an effective filing date prior to March 16, 2013 falls under first to invent -- first to invent remains with us for some time

Page 4: America Invents Act

New Regime: First-to-File

Filing determines priority (i.e., the inventor entitled to a patent is the first to file, NOT first to invent)

March 16, 2013 Applicable to any application with an effective filing date on or after March 16, 2013 – Note long tail for first to invent rules (e.g., March 15, 2033)

Personal grace period but no grace period as to independent third party disclosures

Derivation concept becomes important, interference proceedings eliminated

Complete rewrite of 102 prior art definitions and exceptions

Page 5: America Invents Act

Prior Art 102(a)

102(a)(1) patented described in a printed publication Public use On sale Otherwise available to the public – does this mean no "secret"

prior art??

102(a)(2) Described in a U.S. patent, or a published or deemed published

application Names another inventor Effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed

invention

Page 6: America Invents Act

Personal Grace Period 102(b)(1)

Grace period of one year preceding effective filing date

Inventor priority not extinguished by: Disclosures by or derived from the inventor, made within

one year

Disclosures made within one year by others but after an earlier disclosure by inventor

Page 7: America Invents Act

Overcoming Prior Art by Removal

Patent and Application Art is removed when: Subject matter was derived from inventor; or

Subject matter was publicly disclosed by inventor (or derivers) prior to effective filing date of art; or

Subject matter disclosed and claimed invention commonly owned or subject to common duty of assignment, not later than effective filing date of claimed invention

Page 8: America Invents Act

Derivation Proceeding Patent applicant files a petition for a derivation proceeding

A petition for a derivation proceeding "may be filed only within the 1-year period beginning on the date of the first publication of a claim to an invention that is the same or substantially the same as the earlier application's claim to the invention."

The petition must set forth with particularity the basis for finding that an inventor named in the earlier application derived the claimed invention from an inventor in the petitioner's application, and the petition must be supported by “substantial evidence” as decided by the new PTAB.

Director's determination whether to institute a derivation proceeding shall be final and nonappealable

PTAB determines whether derivation occurred

PTAB may correct inventorship of any patent or application at issue

Parties may settle issues themselves, subject to review of PTAB

Narrow discovery allowed during proceeding Deposition of anyone signing an affidavit or declaration What is otherwise necessary in the interest of justice

Page 9: America Invents Act

Take Away File with urgency – same as it always was

Good record keeping still important, but disclosure history now more important than proof of conception and reduction

Keep the March 16, 2013 date in mind, consider filing prior to

Disclosure to establish your own priority and create prior art for others – maybe

Disclosure not clearly defined by AIA

Monitor patents and published applications for derivation concerns

Page 10: America Invents Act

Post-Grant Proceedings

Page 11: America Invents Act

Patent Post-Grant Proceedings

"Post-grant review proceedings" as defined in AIA Sec. 6 includes: Post-grant review (New) Inter partes review (New) Citation of Prior Art and Written Statements (New)

Other post-grant proceedings: Ex parte reexamination (substantively unchanged, but cost

increasing from $2,250 to $17,750 (proposed)) Supplemental examination (New) Reissue ('lack of deceptive intent' no longer required)

Page 12: America Invents Act

High Level ComparisonProceeding Threshold Basis Estoppel

Post-Grant Review

More likely than not that at least one claim is unpatentable

Any ground(incl. product as prior art, prior use or sale)

Raised or reasonably could have raised

Current Inter Partes Reexam (to be phased out)

Reasonable likelihood petitioner will prevail on at least one claim (was SNQ prior to 9/16/2011)

Patents/printed publications only

Could have raised (but not for ITC)

Inter Partes Review Reasonable likelihood petitioner will prevail on at least one claim

Patents/printed publications only

Raised or reasonably could have raised (incl. ITC)

Ex Parte Reexamination

SNQ Patents/printed publications only

N/A

Supplemental Examination

SNQ Any information N/A

Page 13: America Invents Act

Post-Grant Review (PGR) (1) AIA Sec. 6, §§321-329, "effective" September 16, 2012,

but . . . Only applicable to patents having priority date on or

after March 16, 2013 (AIA § 3(n)(1)) Not practically usable until at least late 2014 or 2015

Exception: Covered business method patents -- any priority date, but only if have been charged with infringement Third parties only

Real-party in interest cannot remain anonymous Time limit to request PGR: 9 months after issuance of

patent Duration: PTO final determination within 1 year after

instituting PGR (+ up to 6-months extension for good cause)

Page 14: America Invents Act

Post-Grant Review (PGR) (2)

Grounds of invalidity Any ground of invalidity (not just patents or publications)

101, 102/103, 112 (except for best mode), double patenting, etc.

Yes for product as prior art, prior use or sale

A novel or unsettled legal question that is important to other patents or patent applications Opportunity to creatively raise issues

Page 15: America Invents Act

Post-Grant Review (PGR) (3) Threshold: More likely than not that at least one of the

challenged claims is unpatentable Higher threshold than former SNQ threshold and new inter

partes standard (reasonable likelihood petitioner will prevail)

but no "new" question of patentability is required

Expected USPTO filing fee: > $40,000 (anecdotal) Compare: Filing fee for EPO Opposition is about $1,000

Page 16: America Invents Act

Post-Grant Review (PGR) (4) PGR barred if:

(1) petitioner already filed a civil action challenging validity of the same patent

unless validity challenge was filed as counterclaim

(2) petition requests cancellation of a claim in a reissue patent that is identical to or narrower than a claim in the original patent and the deadline has passed for PGR of the original patent

Impact on civil actions Automatic stay of DJ action filed on/after the filing of petition for PGR

(not granted!) Lifted if patent owner sues for infringement or so requests

Preliminary injunction If a civil action alleging infringement is filed within 3 months after issuance of

the patent, court may not stay consideration of patent owner’s motion for preliminary injunction on the basis that a petition for PGR has been filed or PGR has been instituted

Page 17: America Invents Act

Post-Grant Review (PGR) (5) Estoppel (in absence of settlement):

Petitioner (or its privy) cannot re-assert any ground that petitioner raised or reasonably could have raised in PGR in:

Another PTO proceeding (e.g., subsequent inter partes review) District Court ITC (unlike inter partes reexam)

"Reasonably could have raised" v. "Could have raised" for Inter Partes Reexam:

slightly narrower scope of estoppel

Estoppel attaches upon final written decision by PTAB Sooner than in inter partes reexam ("all appeals exhausted")

Intervening rights apply (like reissue and current reexam)

Page 18: America Invents Act

Post-Grant Review (PGR) (6)

More litigation-like than prosecution Discovery available (e.g., depose witnesses) expensive! Protective order and sanctions

Evidentiary standard: preponderance

Settlement possible by joint request unlike current inter partes reexam No estoppel to petitioner if settled

Page 19: America Invents Act

Next: Transitional Inter Partes Reexam

Not available after September 15, 2012

Limited to patents issued on applications filed on or after 11/29/99 (like old inter partes reexam)

Only major change: Higher threshold: Reasonable likelihood that petitioner will prevail on at least one claim (no longer need SNQ) An "old" question or issue can be raised

New opportunity for challenging patents

Estoppel applicable to subsequent civil action only (not ITC) Any ground "raised or could have raised"

Page 20: America Invents Act

Next: New Inter Partes Review (IPR) (1) AIA §§ 311-319, effective Sept. 16, 2012

Who can request? Third party only: "a person who is not a owner of a patent"

Real party in interest must be identified

Applicable to all patents as of Sept. 16, 2012 Regardless of filing date, priority date or issue date

Compare to Inter Partes Reexam: only patents issued on applications filed on or after 11/29/1999

Compare to PGR: only patents with a priority date on or after 3/16/2013

Bad news for some patent owners

Page 21: America Invents Act

Inter Partes Review (IPR) (2) Time to file: After the later of:

(1) 9 months from issuance (or reissuance) of patent, or (2) Termination of a PGR (Note: AIA simply says "a" PGR, so any on-going PGR

of the patent (e.g., by others) will prevent IPR filing

IPR barred if: (1) petitioner already filed a civil action challenging validity of the same patent

unless validity challenge is counterclaim

(2) petition is > 1 year after petitioner is served with a complaint A critical bar date for patent litigation defendants to monitor Parties sued before 9/16/2012 should consider filing inter partes reexam request before

9/16/2012, to take advantage of transitional rules (e.g., no litigation bar, no estoppel in ITC)

Automatic stay of any DJ action filed on/after the filing of IPR petition (not granted!) Lifted if patent owner sues for infringement or so requests

Page 22: America Invents Act

Inter Partes Review (IPR) (3) Grounds of invalidity

Issues under Section 102 or 103 and Only on the basis of patents or printed publications

Cannot use product as prior art, prior use or sale

IPR Threshold -- Reasonable likelihood petitioner will prevail on at least one claim

Higher than previous inter partes threshold: SNQ Lower (?) than new PGR threshold: "more likely than not that at

least one of the challenged claims is unpatentable" No "new" question is required

Page 23: America Invents Act

Inter Partes Review (IPR) (4) Estoppel (if no settlement):

Petitioner (or its privy) cannot re-assert a ground (prior art) that petitioner raised or reasonably could have raised in PGR, in:

Applies in: Any other PTO proceeding District Court ITC (unlike inter partes reexam)

Estoppel attaches at final written decision by PTAB (sooner than in inter partes reexam: "all appeals exhausted")

Intervening rights apply

Page 24: America Invents Act

Inter Partes Review (IPR) (5) More litigation-like proceeding

Discovery available (e.g., can depose witnesses) Protective order and sanctions

Evidentiary standard: preponderance of the evidence

Settlement possible by joint request: Unlike inter partes reexam No estoppel to petitioner if settled

Page 25: America Invents Act

Inter Partes Review (IPR) (6) Process

Patentee may file a preliminary response before PTO review (new) PTO decides whether to institute IPR within 3 months from (1) filing of

patentee's preliminary response, or (2) last date for filing the preliminary response

No appeal permissible

PTO final determination within 1 year after instituting IPR (+ up to 6-months extension for good cause)

Patentee can amend/cancel claims and propose "a reasonable number of substitute claims" for each challenged claim 1 motion for amendment as matter of right Additional motions for amendments possible for (1) settlement when

jointly requested with petitioner, or (2) as permitted by regulations prescribed by the Director

Can't enlarge scope of claims, no new matter

Appeal directly to Federal Circuit (but estoppel already takes effect)

Page 26: America Invents Act

Inter Partes Reexam vs. Inter Partes Review (IPR)Inter Partes Reexam (Before 9/16/2012)

Inter Partes Review (From 9/16/2012)

Tribunal Central Reexamination Unit Patent Trial and Appeals Board

Timing for filing

Any time during patent term After the later of: 1) 9 months from grant, or 2) termination of PGR (barred if IPR requested > 1 year after being sued)

Threshold Reasonable likelihood petitioner will prevail on at least 1 claim (was SNQ until 9/16/2011)

Reasonable likelihood petitioner will prevail on at least 1 claim

Duration Open-ended 1 yr max (+ up to 6 mo. for cause)

Estoppel Could have raised (but not for ITC) Reasonably could have raised (including ITC)

Discovery N/A Allowed

Appeal To BPAI, then Fed Circuit Directly to Fed Circuit

Effect of D.Ct. proceedings

No bar Barred if already filed for DJ; barred if > 1yr after being sued for infringement

26

Page 27: America Invents Act

File now rather than wait for new IPR proceedings to become effective on 9/16/2012? After 9/16/2012, new IPR may be unavailable to some

parties for some patents, due to new IPR's DJ bar and 1-year infringement claim bar

Estoppel under current rules does not include ITC, whereas estoppel under new IPR will.

Inter Partes Proceedings

Page 28: America Invents Act

Next: Supplemental Examination (1)

AIA § 257, effective September 16, 2012

For patent owner only (like reissue & ex parte reexam)

Available to all patents

Timing: Anytime during patent term (like reissue & ex parte reexam)

Threshold: SNQ

Basis: Any information -- not limited to printed publications and patents

So what does that mean?

Page 29: America Invents Act

Supplemental Examination (2)Laundry time!

Patent cannot be held unenforceable based on conduct relating to information considered, reconsidered, or corrected during supplemental examination (note: AIA says 'unenforceable', not 'invalid')

But, only applies if reexam concluded before filing civil/ITC action Patent owner must act early

Page 30: America Invents Act

Supplemental Examination (3) Proposed USPTO fees:

$5,180 for Request + $16,120 for the ex parte reexam = $21,300 compared to $2,520 for current ex parte reexam

Procedures not nailed down -- Proposed rules just published Jan. 2012.

Page 31: America Invents Act

Supplemental Examination (4) Limitations

Can't cure existing allegations an allegation pled with particularity in a civil action, or set

forth with particularity in a notice received by the patent owner under section 505(j)(2)(B)(iv)(II) of the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 355(j)(2)(B)(iv)(II)), before the date of the supplemental examination

Fraud by patent owner USPTO can cancel claims based on reexam

USPTO shall report to Attorney General

Page 32: America Invents Act

Patent Owner Considerations Identify & fix errors early

Review (or have outside counsel review) pending patent applications for problems/errors before issuance – make sure prosecution counsel uses a pre-issuance checklist

Much cheaper/easier to fix major problems before issuance than after

Review issued patents for problems/errors well before contemplating filing a lawsuit, if possible.

If supplemental exam desired, request it early if contemplating enforcement

For major defects: Supplemental Examination (new)

To reap benefit, must wait until reexam concludes before suing Expensive ($21,300 proposed)

Ex Parte Reexamination (same) Limited to patents and printed publications Expensive ($17,750 proposed)

Page 33: America Invents Act

Post-grant review: Challenger's silver bullet? Short 9-month window -- Issues and disputes on legal front and market

activities may not sufficiently mature for parties to take action Estoppel attaches earlier than inter partes review Not effectively usable until probably 2014-2015 (except for business

method patents) Likely to be very expensive (> $40K in USPTO fees)

Inter partes review more likely to be useful

Consider filing inter partes reexam before 9/16/2012 to preserve inter partes option and/or to set up concurrent processing with a later-filed IPR/ex parte reexam

Consider active monitoring of patent related filings

Patent Challenger Considerations

Page 34: America Invents Act

AIA Joinder Provision(35 USC § 299)

Common Patent-in-Suit Cannot Alone Form Basis

for Joinder

Page 35: America Invents Act

Former Law (Rule 20): Same T-or-O AND Common Issue of Law or Fact

FRCP 20(a)(2) – Defendants may be joined in a single action if…

(A) right to relief asserted "jointly, severally, or in the alternative w/r/t or arising out of the same transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions of occurrences; AND"

(B) "any question of law or fact common to all defendants will arise in the action"

Seems adequate to bar common-patent joinder but wasn't, at least in E. D. Texas

Page 36: America Invents Act

35 USC § 299 "accused infringers may be joined in one action as defendants or counterclaim

defendants, or have their actions consolidated for trial, or counterclaim defendants only if--

(1) any right to relief is asserted against the parties jointly, severally, or in the alternative with respect to or arising out of the same transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions or occurrences relating to the making, using, importing into the United States, offering for sale, or selling of the same accused product or process; and

(2) questions of fact common to all defendants or counterclaim defendants will arise in the action

NOT "law or fact"

(b) ALLEGATIONS INSUFFICIENT FOR JOINDER.--For purposes of this subsection, accused infringers may not be joined in one action as defendants or counterclaim defendants, or have their actions consolidated for trial, based solely on allegations that they each have infringed the patent or patents in suit.

Page 37: America Invents Act

Expressly Passed to Overturn E.D. Texas Case Law

"Section 299 legislatively abrogates the construction of Rule 20(a) adopted in MyMail, Ltd. v. America Online, Inc., 223 F.R.D. 455 (E.D. Tex. 2004) [and other cited cases, all but one from Texas or La.] effectively conforming these courts' jurisprudence to that followed by a majority of jurisdictions. --112 H. Rpt. 98, at note 61 (June 1, 2011)

MyMail (Judge Davis, now Chief Judge!) had held that Rule 20's " same transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions of occurrences" requirement was met by a "logical relationship" among the different accused products which could be "substantial similarity"

This still ignores "jointly, severally, or in the alternative," but Judge Davis deemed the clear meaning of the statutory language "hypertechnical."

Page 38: America Invents Act

Effect of § 299 on Plaintiff Behavior

Trends before the AIA were similar to 2010, with the top 7 jurisdictions same, measured by defendants and cases

BUT big DE jump before AIA, almost catching Texas

DE outpaced ED Texas after AIA Texas drops off to 40% annualized rate of

defendants in last quarter of 2011 compared to 2010 but could be anchor-defendant strategy, TBD

Page 39: America Invents Act

2011 by Total Defendants (no FM)

Page 40: America Invents Act

January – September 15, 2011 By Total Cases (no FM)

District Cases Plaintiffs DefendantsDefendants

per CasePlaintiffs per Case

Defendants per Plaintiff

Eastern District of Texas 279 399 2785 10.0 1.4 7.0

District of Delaware 278 540 2014 7.2 1.9 3.7

Central District of California 213 346 820 3.8 1.6 2.4

Northern District of California 157 311 607 3.9 2.0 2.0

Northern District of Illinois 124 170 632 5.1 1.4 3.7

District of New Jersey 120 303 279 2.3 2.5 0.9

Southern District of New York 97 325 398 4.1 3.4 1.2

District of Minnesota 67 106 368 5.5 1.6 3.5

Eastern District of Virginia 58 71 199 3.4 1.2 2.8

Middle District of Florida 57 64 238 4.2 1.1 3.7

Page 41: America Invents Act

2011 by Total Cases (no FM)

District Cases Plaintiffs DefendantsDefendants

per CasePlaintiffs per Case

Defendants per Plaintiff

District of Delaware 484 911 2458 5.1 1.9 2.7

Eastern District of Texas 418 593 3163 7.6 1.4 5.3

Central District of California 324 510 1036 3.2 1.6 2.0

Northern District of California 225 403 771 3.4 1.8 1.9

Northern District of Illinois 214 293 790 3.7 1.4 2.7

District of New Jersey 180 458 384 2.1 2.5 0.8

Southern District of New York 151 425 640 4.2 2.8 1.5

District of Massachusetts 91 182 197 2.2 2.0 1.1

District of Minnesota 84 130 428 5.1 1.5 3.3

Middle District of Florida 82 99 275 3.4 1.2 2.8

Page 42: America Invents Act

September 16 – December 31, 2011 By Total Cases (no FM)

District Cases Plaintiffs DefendantsDefendants

per CasePlaintiffs per Case

Defendants per Plaintiff

District of Delaware 206 371 444 2.2 1.8 1.2

Eastern District of Texas 139 194 378 2.7 1.4 1.9

Central District of California 111 164 216 1.9 1.5 1.3

Northern District of Illinois 90 123 158 1.8 1.4 1.3

Northern District of California 68 92 164 2.4 1.4 1.8

District of New Jersey 60 155 105 1.8 2.6 0.7

Southern District of New York 54 100 242 4.5 1.9 2.4

District of Massachusetts 41 80 65 1.6 2.0 0.8

Southern District of California 28 34 43 1.5 1.2 1.3

Southern District of Florida 27 50 47 1.7 1.9 0.9

Page 43: America Invents Act
Page 44: America Invents Act

Delaware Goes Off the Charts Through 9/15, DE far ahead of 2010 annualized pace (278 cases, 2014 defs

in 2011, vs. 255/884 for all of 2010, i.e., triple the rate of defendants sued) Average 7.2 defendants per case, compared to 3.5 in 2010

Through 9/15, 8 plaintiffs, 4-5 firms, account for 52 cases, 1054 defendants Even without these cases, DE is well ahead of its 2010 rate, still 3/2 rate

of defendants sued to that point. Without these cases, average 4.2 defs per case

After 9/15, DE 206 cases, 444 defendants, annualized pace of 714 cases, 1539 defendants. Average 2.2 defendants per case.

After 9/15, TX has 139 cases filed, 378 defendants, annualized pace of 482 cases, 1310 defendants

Page 45: America Invents Act

E.D. Texas Steady Through 9/15, Large Decline in Defendants Sued After

Through 9/15, 279 cases, 2785 defendants (annualized pace 392/3914), a small increase over the 299/3879 in 2010 This was 11.5% of all 2011 cases filed to that point,

compared to 10% in 2010 // 24.4% of all defendants, compared to "more than 25%"

Average 10 defendants per case After 9/15, annualized pace of 482 cases, 1310

defendants, about exactly 1/3 the pace of defendants compared to before 9/15 Average of 2.7 defendants per case

Page 46: America Invents Act

Huge Spike Overall the Week of 9/8-9/15

175 cases, 1787 defendants sued that week

3660 cases, 14201 defendants in 2011

1/8 of all patent defendants sued last year were sued in one week, between passage and effective date of joinder provision

Page 47: America Invents Act

Why Delaware? Was already 2d-most popular jurisdiction, and per Lemley,

highest "claimant" win rate among busy districts, and highest trial rate by far (11.8%!) which suggests unwillingness to grant SJ, relatively speedy time to resolution of 1 year

Texas retirements (Ward, Everingham, Folsom from 9/10 to 6/11)

Judge Robinson signal on venue (6/11, reversed 12/11 in Link-A-Media)

9 mandamus reversals of EDTx transfer decisions from '08-'10

Page 48: America Invents Act

Is E.D. Texas Over? Defendants-sued rate dropped by 2/3 after the joinder provision

went into effect

BUT could be part of anchor-defendant strategy, publicly discussed at Texas plaintiffs' bar event. Sue a Texas defendant, wait six months, sue the other defendants, move to consolidate

35 USC § 299 prohibits joinder and consolidation for trial, but not consolidation for pretrial proceedings

If this is the strategy, not enough time has passed to know if this is occurring

At least some anecdotal evidence of this (Macrosolve)

Page 49: America Invents Act

Strategy

How would defendants nonetheless avoid ending up in a massive multi-defendant coordinated set of cases in the plaintiff's chosen forum?

Consider key Federal Circuit precedents assessing importance of forum's experience with patents-in-suit as a factor in a transfer analysis

Page 50: America Invents Act

In re Verizon Business Network Services, Inc. , 635 F.3d 559 (Fed. Cir. 2011)

Granted mandamus, ordered transfer from E. D. Texas

Texas court cited two efficiencies:

There had already been 2 years of litigation in the case at bar. The docket reveals there had been a case management conference and an order setting a trial date, an exchange of infringement and invalidity contentions, and even a joint claim construction statement (though the last was filed in March, 2011, after the mandamus petition had already been briefed).

E.D. Texas had already considered the same patent in a prior suit, but five years earlier.

Nonetheless, this could not overcome a “compelling showing of transfer” based on the conventional factors of the convenience of witnesses and location of evidence.

Page 51: America Invents Act

In re Vistaprint, 628 F3d 1342 (Fed. Cir., 2010)

Distinguished by In re Verizon Court construed patent-in-suit in a prior case Another co-pending action on the same patent No party located in transferee venue, some

witnesses there Convenience not necessarily favored over

considerations of judicial economy

Page 52: America Invents Act

In re Wyeth406 Fed. Appx. 475 (Fed. Cir. 2010)

Denied writ

Action was pending for 17 months before transfer was sought

Cited Vistaprint for notion that convenience factors do not necessarily outweigh judicial economy concerns

Page 53: America Invents Act

Key Considerations

Promptness of motion to transfer

Clear weight of convenience factors

Importance of substantive engagement with patents by the Court But can the plaintiffs afford to wait for this to happen?

Mandamus is extraordinary remedy, for which clear right to relief must be shown under abuse of discretion standard

Page 54: America Invents Act

Implications of AIA for Existing Case Law

Plaintiffs' workaround defeats the evident purpose of the joinder statute

Effort to end phenomenon of massive multidefendant suits whose only common thread is the asserted patent(s), abuse of permissive joinder

Treating "judicial economy" as established by a common patent seems contrary to premise of section 299

Page 55: America Invents Act

Possible Arguments Statute’s premise that a common patent-in-suit is not a sufficient

basis for joinder arguably implies that a common patent alone does not satisfy Rule 20’s requisite of a common issue of law or fact

Thus, a Markman hearing in one case should not be treated as presumptively relevant to the issues in another case

Even if statute's purpose is understood as “avoiding confusion,” that still implies a presumption that the issues from one defendant to the next are distinct

At a minimum, the joinder statute suggests that a common patent cannot alone (under the rubric of "judicial economy") outweigh all else on a transfer motion

Page 56: America Invents Act

Possible Arguments If the case is further along substantively, consider making a substantive, specific

argument as to why claim construction is likely to present different issues in the case sought to be transferred.

This might be difficult to assess when one has first been sued

The more extensive the docket in the anchor case, the stronger the "judicial economy" factor is likely to be

But the advanced docket also means there will be more material from which to argue that your case will be different, that claim construction will have to be conducted anew, and therefore that the real efficiencies are smaller than they appear

The Federal Circuit finds substantive patent issues irresistible, which may help

Statistics may also help on the "judicial economy" and "convenience" arguments, e.g., on docket congestion, time to trial, time to summary judgment, etc. Perkins Coie is gathering some of this data and plans to present it and to use it where appropriate in motions

Page 57: America Invents Act

Questions or Ideas?

Jordan [email protected]

(650) 838-4365

Brian Coleman [email protected]

(650) 838-4441

Ken [email protected]

(650) 838-4308