On Tuesday, a proposed Manager’s Amendment was released for the Senate’s pending PATENT Act bill. Following is a recap of the recent wave of patent legislation proposals this year.
Innovation Act. Since 2013, the House and the Senate have considered various forms of patent reform legislation that attempt to address perceived patent litigation abuse. See our Dec. 9, 2013 post. In February, the House Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.) reintroduced the Innovation Act, which is identical to the bill the House passed in December of 2013 by a vote of 325-91. A summary of the Innovation Act’s provision is in our Feb. 11, 2015 post.
TROL Act. In April, the House Subcommittee on Commerce, Manufacturing and Trade — a subcommittee of the House’s Energy and Commerce Committee — voted to send a separate proposed patent legislation bill to the full committee for a vote. This bill, known as the Targeting Rogue and Opaque Letters Act, or “TROL Act,” would expressly render misleading demand letters sent by patent holders to accused infringers a violation of Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act. Under the bill’s provisions, a demand letter that states or represents “that the recipients are or may be infringing” would be deemed unfair and deceptive under Section 5 if, among other things, the sender, “in bad faith,” misrepresents that
- it has the right to enforce the patent (when it does not);
- a patent infringement action has been filed against the recipient and/or other persons;
- legal action for infringement will be taken against the recipient; or
- other persons have purchased a license to the asserted patents.
The bill also prohibits sending a demand letter in bad faith seeking compensation for infringing a patent that has been held, in a final determination, to be invalid or unenforceable due to inequitable conduct. The FTC and states attorneys general would be granted authority to bring civil actions for penalties and other relief against persons that violate the Act, with the FTC retaining the right to intervene in any civil action brought by a state attorney general. A previous version of the TROL Act was introduced last year. After mark up by the House’s Subcommittee on Commerce, Manufacturing and Trade, the bill was forwarded, as amended, to the full Energy and Commerce Committee for consideration, but did not advance further.
STRONG Act. In May of this year, Senators Coons (D-DE), Durbin (D-IL) and Hirono (D-HI) introduced a proposed bill known as the Support Technology & Research for Our Nation’s Growth Act, or “STRONG Act.” If enacted into law, this bill would, inter alia:
- harmonize the claim-construction standard used in post-grant proceedings at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) with the standard used in District Court litigation;
- clarify that during post-grant proceedings, the patent-holder may propose amended, narrower claims for the patent(s) under consideration;
- maintain the presumption of validity for patent rights in post-grant proceedings, and clarifies that unpatentability may be proved for existing claims by the “clear and convincing evidence” standard used in District Court litigation;
- attempt to minimize abuse of post-grant proceedings by ensuring that a petitioner has a business or financial reason to bring a case before the PTAB, to reduce incentives for privateering or extortion of nuisance settlements; and
- permit evidence in post-grant discovery to determine the petition’s real party in interest.
PATENT Act. At the end of 2013, Senators Leahy (D-VT) and Lee (R-UT) introduced the Patent Transparency and Improvements Act of 2013 (see our Nov. 19, 2013 post), but the bill was pulled from debate apparently due to lack of bi-partisan support (May 23, 2014 post). In April of this year, Senator Leahy, along with several other Senators from both sides of the aisle, introduced a separate patent reform bill known as the Protecting American Talent and Entrepreneurship Act, or “PATENT Act.” Here is an overview of some of that version of the PATENT Act’s provisions.
- Pleading Requirements for Patent Infringement Complaint. The PATENT Act would expressly direct the Supreme Court to eliminate Form 18, “Complaint for Patent Infringement,” in the Appendix to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (as we previously reported, the Judicial Conference has already recommended the elimination of Form 18, and this rule change is expected to take effect later this year). Similar to the re-introduced Innovation Act by the House, the PATENT Act contains provisions that would increase the specificity and information required to plead patent infringement, requiring a patentee to identify the patents, the asserted patent claims, the accused infringing products or services, and an element-by-element description of how each accused product or service infringes the asserted patent claims. District courts would be directed to dismiss any complaint that does not include such factual information unless the plaintiff alleges that such information is inaccessible, the reason(s) why the information is inaccessible, and also generally pleads the factual information that is available.
- Patent Ownership and Financial Interest. The PATENT Act would require a patent plaintiff to disclose at the outset of an infringement case certain patent ownership and financial interest information to the court, other parties and the Patent Office, including the identity of the patent assignee, the assignee’s parent entity, any entity with a right to sublicense or enforce the patent, and any entity with a financial interest in the patent.
- Other Complaints Involving the Asserted Patents. The PATENT Act would also require a patent plaintiff to disclose at the outset of an infringement case all other complaints involving the asserted patents filed by the patentee or any of its affiliates within the preceding three (3) years.
- Standard Setting Obligations. The proposed PATENT Act would also require a patent plaintiff to disclose at the outset of an infringement case whether any of the asserted patents are subject to an assurance made “to a standards development organization to license others under such patent” if “the assurance specifically identifies such patent[s] or claims therein” and “the allegation of infringement relates to such standard.”
- Customer Stay. The PATENT Act also includes a customer stay provision, under which a District Court would be obligated to stay an infringement action against a “covered customer” (defined as a retailer or end user accused of infringement as a result of the sale, offer for sale or use of a patented product or process) where the manufacturer of the accused product or process is also a party to the action against the customer or a separate infringement action involving the same patent or patents, the covered customer agrees to be bound by the patent determinations that are made in the case against the manufacturer, and the motion to stay is filed no later than 120 days after service of the first pleading against the covered customer or the date on which the first scheduling order is entered. If the covered customer impleads the manufacturer of the accused product or process into the case, then a stay may only be granted if the covered customer and manufacturer agree in writing to a stay. If the manufacturer obtains or consents to entry of a consent judgment or fails to prosecute the patent issues to a final decision, the District Court may, upon motion, determine that the consent judgment or unappealed final decision is not binding on the customer if the customer shows that “such an outcome would unreasonably prejudice or be manifestly unjust to the covered customer in light of the circumstances of the case.”
- Stay of Discovery Pending Decision on Certain Initial Motions. The proposed PATENT Act would stay discovery in patent infringement actions during the pendency of a motion to dismiss, a motion to transfer venue and a motion to sever accused infringers if the motion or motions were filed prior to the first responsive pleading. The District Court would retain discretion to allow limited discovery that is “necessary to resolve” such motions.
- Discovery limitations. The Act would also require the Judicial Conference to develop rules that address the extent to which each party in an infringement action is “entitled to receive core documentary evidence and should be responsible for the costs of producing core documentary evidence within the possession or control of each such party, and to what extent each party to the action may seek noncore documentary evidence.”
- Fee Shifting. Under the proposed PATENT Act, a District Court would be required to award reasonable attorney fees to a prevailing party if the court determines that “the position of the non-prevailing party was not objectively reasonable in law or fact or that the conduct of the non-prevailing party was not objectively reasonable” unless “special circumstances would make an award unjust.”
- Pre-suit written notice. In an action alleging infringement “in which the plaintiff has provided written notice of the accusation of infringement to the party accused of infringement prior to filing the action,” the PATENT Act would require the “initial written notice” to: (1) identify each patent believed to be infringed and at least one claim of each patent that is believed to be infringed, (2) contain a “clear and detailed description of the reasons why the plaintiff believes each patent identified . . . is infringed,” (3) notify the recipient that they may have the right to a customer-suit stay, (4) identify any person that has the right to enforce the patent, and (5) if compensation is proposed, “a short and plain statement as to how the proposed compensation was determined.” If the initial written notice does not contain such information, the defendant’s time to respond to a complaint alleging patent infringement is extended by thirty (30) days. Additionally, a patent plaintiff seeking to establish willful infringement may not rely on evidence of pre-suit notification unless the notification includes such information.
- Regulation of “Abusive” Demand Letters. Similar to the proposed TROL Act, the PATENT Act would render the “widespread” sending of unfair and deceptive demand letters a violation of Section 5 of the FTC Act and expressly grant the FTC the authority to bring enforcement actions against alleged violators. A demand letter would be deemed to be unlawful if, among other things:
- it falsely represents that administrative or judicial relief has been sought against the recipient or others or threatens litigation if compensation is not paid, the infringement issue is not otherwise resolved, or the communication is not responded to and there is a pattern of false statements regarding administrative or judicial relief against the recipients or others having been made without litigation or other relief then having been pursued;
- the assertions contained in the communications lack a reasonable basis in fact or law (e.g., the sender does not have the right to enforce the patent, the sender seeks compensation for acts occurring after the patent has expired, the patent has been finally held to be invalid or unenforceable); or
- the content of the written communication is likely to materially mislead a reasonable recipient because the content fails to include facts reasonably necessary to inform the recipient (1) of the identity of the person asserting a right to license the patent to, or enforce the patent against, the intended recipient or any affiliated person, (2) of the patent allegedly infringed by the recipient, and (3) if infringement or the need to pay compensation for a license is alleged, of an identification of at least one product, service, or other activity of the recipient that is alleged to infringe the identified patent or patents and, unless the information is not readily accessible, an explanation of the basis for such allegation.
On Tuesday, the co-sponsors released the Committee Manager’s proposed amendments to the PATENT Act. Among other things, the amendments would add language that changes the procedures for inter partes review (IPR) and post grant review (PGR) at the Patent Office. Specifically, the amendments would:
- require IPR and PGR proceedings to apply the same claim construction standard used in District Court and consider District Court claim constructions;
- estop parties from eschewing in later court or Patent Office proceedings arguments made on claim construction to the Patent Office;
- presume that patents are valid in IPR and PGR proceedings, though retaining the current preponderance of the evidence burden to invalidate a patent in such proceedings;
- clarify that the Patent Office Director has discretion not to institute an IPR or PGR if doing so would not serve the interests of justice considering factors such as whether the same prior art or arguments were decided in a prior proceeding or the patent is the subject of a current Patent Office proceeding;
- allow patent owners to submit evidence in response to a petition to institute an IPR or PGR, and permit petitioners to file a reply to respond to new issues;
- direct the Patent Office to modify the IPR and PGR process so that institution and merits decisions are not made by the same panels;
- direct the Patent Office to hold a rulemaking on instituting a Fed. R. Civ. P. 11-type obligation in IPR and PGR proceedings;
- require PTAB decisions to be publicly available and searchable on the web; and
- remove the ability to join additional claims to a timely-filed IPR after the time for filing has elapsed, except for claims that are newly-served against the petitioner in an amended complaint (which get 1 year from amendment).
The Judiciary Committee is scheduled to mark-up the PATENT Act today.