High Court to Decide if US Government Can Join the PTAB Party
The America Invents Act says any "person" can petition for review of patent validity. A patent owner backed by Covington & Burling says the government isn't a "person."
October 29, 2018 at 02:22 PM
4 minute read
Almost anybody can ask the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) to review the validity of a patent under the America Invents Act (AIA). Companies that have been sued for patent infringement are the most frequent petitioners, but trade associations, nonprofits, defensive patent aggregators and even hedge funds shorting patent owners' stock are welcome at the PTAB.
But now the Supreme Court looks poised to exclude one type of AIA petitioner: the U.S. government. On Oct. 26, the justices agreed to hear Return Mail v. United States Postal Service. The justices limited argument to a single question: “Whether the government is a 'person' who may petition to institute review proceedings under the AIA.”
The AIA states that a “a person who is not the owner of patent” may petition for inter partes review (IPR) of a patent, and any person sued for infringement may petition for covered business method (CBM) review. Both are administrative procedures for determining patent validity at the PTAB.
Corporations are generally understood to be “persons” under the law. Return Mail Inc., which owns a patent on a method for processing returned mail more efficiently, didn't even challenge the government's authority to petition before the PTAB or at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.
But Federal Circuit Judge Pauline Newman concluded in Return Mail v. USPS that the PTAB didn't have statutory jurisdiction to take up the case and invalidate Return Mail's patent. “The general statutory definition is that a 'person' does not include the United States and its agencies unless expressly provided,” Newman wrote.
Newman ended up in dissent, however. Chief Judge Sharon Prost, joined by Judge Evan Wallach, ruled that the overall context of the AIA suggested that Congress intended to include the government as possible petitioners.
Return Mail, which is represented by a Covington & Burling team led by partner Richard Rainey, ran with Newman's argument in his cert petition. He pointed to a 2000 Supreme Court decision that refers to the court's “longstanding interpretive presumption that 'person' does not include the sovereign.” Justice Antonin Scalia wrote in that case that the presumption may be disregarded “only upon some affirmative showing of statutory intent to the contrary.”
The solicitor general's office argues that Congress used “person” in other parts of the AIA in ways that were clearly intended to include the government. When the same words are used in different parts of the same statute, they're presumed to have the same meaning, the SG argues.
The solicitor general also raises a policy argument. When a weak patent is asserted against the government, “Congress's interest in providing an efficient non-judicial mechanism for reconsidering the patent's validity is no less implicated than when the patent is asserted against a private party,” the SG argues.
Ropes & Gray patent attorneys Scott McKeown and Matthew Rizzolo, who aren't involved in the case, note that Return Mail took a similar path to the court as another PTAB case from last term, SAS Institute v. Iancu. Newman dissented in each on a discrete issue of statutory interpretation, followed by a successful cert petition, they point out.
Rizzolo says the impact of this case is likely to be limited. Federal agencies have brought only a handful of AIA petitions over the six years the law's been in effect.
But, Rizzolo said, if the Supreme Court reads the term “person” to exclude any sovereign, that could theoretically extend to states or foreign countries, or entities affiliated with them.
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 AllJudge Approves 23andMe's $30M Data Breach Settlement - With Conditions
5 minute readNevada Supreme Court to Decide Fate of Groundbreaking Contingency Cap Ballot Measure
5 minute readOpenAI Tells Court It Will Seek to Consolidate Copyright Suits Under MDL
3 minute readTrending Stories
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