Securities Attorney for Going Public Transactions

Securities Lawyer Blog

knowledge itself is power

USTPO Regulations

In the complex and ever-evolving landscape of patent law, the recent Federal Circuit decision in SoftView v. Apple provides crucial insights into the application of estoppel in inter partes review (IPR) proceedings. This case, which scrutinizes the reach of the USPTO’s estoppel regulations, has significant implications for patent owners, particularly concerning the preservation and enforcement of patent rights post-IPR.

Understanding the Context: IPR Estoppel and USPTO Regulations

Inter partes review (IPR) has become a powerful tool for challenging the validity of patents. To regulate this process, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) has established specific rules under 37 C.F.R. § 42.73(d). These rules impose estoppel on both petitioners and patent owners, preventing them from taking actions inconsistent with an adverse judgment by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB).

Specifically, 37 C.F.R. § 42.73(d)(3) targets patent owners, precluding them from obtaining claims in any patent that are "not patentably distinct" from claims that were previously refused or canceled. This regulation is designed to prevent patent owners from reasserting or reintroducing claims that have effectively been invalidated through an IPR process.

The SoftView v. Apple Decision: Key Issues and Rulings

In SoftView v. Apple, the Federal Circuit tackled the scope and application of this estoppel regulation. The case stemmed from a PTAB decision that estopped SoftView from maintaining certain patent claims that were deemed "not patentably distinct" from claims previously canceled in an IPR proceeding. SoftView challenged the PTAB’s interpretation and application of the estoppel rule, leading to a multifaceted legal analysis.

  1. Regulatory Authority of the USPTO: The first issue addressed by the court was whether the USPTO had the authority to promulgate such a broad estoppel regulation. The Federal Circuit affirmed that the USPTO acted within its authority, particularly under the broad rulemaking powers granted by the America Invents Act (AIA). The court recognized that the regulation, which closely aligns with the principles of obviousness, is a valid exercise of the USPTO’s regulatory powers.

  2. Scope of Estoppel: "Patentably Distinct" vs. "Substantially the Same": SoftView argued that the estoppel should only apply to claims that are "substantially the same" as those canceled, aligning more closely with common law issue preclusion. However, the court rejected this narrower interpretation, affirming the established meaning of "patentably distinct." This ruling underscores the broader reach of IPR estoppel, potentially precluding patent owners from obtaining claims that are even slightly different from those invalidated.

  3. "Obtaining" vs. "Maintaining" Claims: A critical aspect of the decision revolved around the distinction between "obtaining" new claims and "maintaining" existing ones. The court found that the PTAB had overstepped its authority by applying estoppel to claims that were already issued at the time of the IPR. The regulation’s language specifically refers to "obtaining" claims, meaning the estoppel should only apply to new or amended claims, not to those that were already part of the patent.

Implications for Patent Owners: What This Means Moving Forward

The SoftView decision provides a nuanced clarification of the limits and application of IPR estoppel:

  • Protection for Existing Claims: Patent owners can breathe a sigh of relief knowing that existing claims in a patent are not automatically subject to cancellation under § 42.73(d)(3)(i) following an IPR. The PTAB cannot use estoppel as a blanket rule to invalidate already-issued claims without a separate analysis of patentability.

  • Caution with Amendments and Continuations: The estoppel still applies to new or amended claims in a continuation application, meaning that any attempts to revise claims must be carefully considered to avoid running afoul of this rule. Patent owners must be diligent in crafting amendments that are truly patentably distinct from any claims previously canceled in an IPR.

  • Strategic Considerations: Moving forward, patent owners and their legal teams must strategically assess the implications of IPR outcomes on their patent portfolios. This includes a thorough analysis of potential estoppel issues when considering amendments or filing continuation applications.

Conclusion: Navigating Post-IPR Patent Strategy

The SoftView case highlights the delicate balance between protecting patent rights and preventing the reassertion of invalidated claims. At Destiny Aigbe, we understand the complexities involved in post-IPR patent strategy and the importance of safeguarding your intellectual property rights.

Whether you are facing an IPR challenge or need guidance on how to proceed with your patent portfolio post-IPR, our experienced team of patent attorneys is here to help. We offer expert advice on navigating the estoppel landscape, ensuring that your patents remain strong and enforceable.

Contact us today to learn more about how we can support your intellectual property needs and help you navigate the intricate world of patent law.

Gayatri Gupta