Don't become a raider like Rader

Summary: It nowadays seems as though the value of PTAB inter partes reviews (IPRs) has been widely realised and acknowledged by companies that actually make things (not just legal papers); but the litigation 'industry' fights back and PTAB staff (mostly technical people) should remember to defend science and technology, not those striving to 'monetise' as many lawsuits as possible

LEADING scholars in the area of patents recently finalised a scholarly study on pertinent actions at the USPTO, showing the impact of 35 U.S.C. ۤ 101, based on massive amounts of data rather than some biased (financial agenda-driven) claims from the patent microcosm, unhinged from any facts or hard evidence.

"If invited by the likes of IPO or AIPLA, they should tell them where they can go..."Unified Patents has just caught up with this other new paper titled "Maintaining the Balance: An Empirical Study on Inter Partes Review Outcomes of Orange Book Patents and its Effect on Hatch-Waxman Litigation" (we wrote about it a few times before).

"A recent study of PTAB and district court litigation involving Orange Book patents," Unified Patents wrote, "examined how these FDA-approved pharmaceutical patents fare in inter partes review as compared to other patents in the same tech center. The study also evaluated IPR outcomes based on the petitioner type and the drug type."

It is worrying to see PTAB disdain, however, at the top of the USPTO. Director Iancu does to PTAB judges what corrupt Battistelli did to BoA judges (a sort of equivalent of PTAB at the EPO). According to yesterday's article from a patent maximalists' publication:

The PTAB acting chief judge and vice-chief judge advised to inform them if there has been a final claim construction determination in another forum, and revealed another update to the Trial Practice Guide will be coming in the next few months

PTAB judges provided tips for petitioners and patent owners during at session at the AIPLA Annual Meeting last week.

As we said yesterday, it's not exactly appropriate for judges to attend these events of patent maximalists such as AIPLA (or their "Annual Meeting" that's essentially a lobbying event that's preaching to the choir). It gives the impression that they may be open to influence in those corridors.

PTAB judges are kindly advised to remember that the patent office exists to advance science, not to line the pockets of greedy law firms. If invited by the likes of IPO or AIPLA, they should tell them where they can go... ⬆