Patent Lawsuits Up in 2019; PTAB Filings Down
PTAB's increasing reluctance to hold trials on patent validity challenges is one possible factor on why filings could be down, experts say. Yet, Unified Patents is doing its part to keep the PTAB busy. It filed 28 petitions during the first half of the year, tied with Google for second most, behind only Apple Inc.
July 03, 2019 at 05:26 PM
3 minute read
The original version of this story was published on National Law Journal
The first half of 2019 is in the books and Unified Patents has already crunched the numbers on patent litigation (you can view the full report here). Two notable findings: Suits by nonpracticing entities (NPEs) are on the comeback in district courts, while Patent Trial and Appeal Board filings are substantially down for the first time in years.
Some 660 administrative challenges to patent validity were filed at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office's PTAB in the first half of the year. That puts petitions on pace for 1,320 this year, which would be a 24% drop from the 1,748 average for the last five years. (Filings had been remarkably steady up till now, numbering 1,702, 1,793, 1,732, 1,796 and 1,717 over the previous five years.)
Nate Kelley, the former PTO solicitor and acting PTAB chief judge who's now a partner at Perkins Coie, said that new rules governing institution decisions may be coming into play. He notes the board is increasingly willing to invoke its Section 325(d) discretion to deny multiple petitions raising the same prior art or arguments (even from different petitioners). “There is a perception that we are inching towards a one-and-done regime,” Kelley said. “The fact that a first petition was denied can be the very reason why a second petition will be denied. As a result, there is probably a lot more care going into each and every petition.”
Former PTAB Judge Scott Kamholz, who now practices at Covington & Burling, said the declining institution rate in general could be discouraging petitioners. PTAB decisions not to institute proceedings don't stop accused infringers from putting on the same invalidity defense in district court. But in general, “district judges don't like it if you come into court with something that couldn't pass muster at the institution stage,” Kamholz said.
Kamholz thinks a lot of other factors could be in play too. A strong economy could have business leaders more focused on building their companies rather than fighting over patents; the Supreme Court's SAS Institute decision has arguably put more teeth into the estoppel rules; and, paradoxically, the PTAB's own success at cooling off district court litigation might be catching up with it. “Dampening demand for patent litigation dampens the need for PTAB proceedings,” he theorized.
By this time next year, it will become clear if that last theory holds true, now that NPE filings are back on the upswing in district courts. (NPEs are entities that acquire patents to assert them against others. The PTAB was established in part to deal with NPEs that were perceived by some as leveraging the cost of patent litigation for nuisance value settlements.)
Unified Patents counts 1,730 new district court filings overall during the first half, including almost 900 in Q2, which it says is the most in a single quarter since 2017. That number was fueled in part by 550 NPE suits, which Unified Patents says is the most in a single quarter since 2016.
Unified Patents, whose mission is to deter abusive NPE activity, is doing its part to keep the PTAB busy. It filed 28 petitions during the first half, tied with Google for second most, behind only Apple Inc.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllElon Musk Names Microsoft, Calif. AG to Amended OpenAI Suit
Federal Judge Rejects Teams' Challenge to NASCAR's 'Anticompetitive Terms' in Agreement
Trending Stories
- 1Elon Musk Names Microsoft, Calif. AG to Amended OpenAI Suit
- 2Trump’s Plan to Purge Democracy
- 3Baltimore City Govt., After Winning Opioid Jury Trial, Preparing to Demand an Additional $11B for Abatement Costs
- 4X Joins Legal Attack on California's New Deepfakes Law
- 5Monsanto Wins Latest Philadelphia Roundup Trial
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250