About the Authors

  • The Authors and Contributors of "Patent Docs" are patent attorneys and agents, many of whom hold doctorates in a diverse array of disciplines.
Juristat_165
Juristat #8 Overall Rank

E-mail Newsletter

  • Enter your e-mail address below to receive the "Patent Docs" e-mail newsletter.

Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner

Contact the Docs

Docs on Twitter


Disclaimer

  • "Patent Docs" does not contain any legal advice whatsoever. This weblog is for informational purposes only, and its publication does not create an attorney-client relationship. In addition, nothing on "Patent Docs" constitutes a solicitation for business. This weblog is intended primarily for other attorneys. Moreover, "Patent Docs" is the personal weblog of the Authors; it is not edited by the Authors' employers or clients and, as such, no part of this weblog may be so attributed. All posts on "Patent Docs" should be double-checked for their accuracy and current applicability.

Pharma-50-transparent_216px_red

Become a Fan

« The PTAB Strikes Back -- Issues Order Prohibiting St. Regis Mohawk Tribe from Filing Any Additional Papers in IPR | Main | Top Four Stories of 2017 »

January 09, 2018

Comments

Hey Andrew,

I'm glad that Achates was overruled-how can an error by PTAB on a question of law (e.g., a time bar for filing IPRs) be deemed by Congress to be non-reviewable by an Article III court? Does "separation of powers" and 5th Amendment "due process" meaning anything today? What is truly shocking is that the 4 dissenting Federal Circuit judges don't seem to understand that.

I will take exception to your post EG and ask that you take the time to realize that the four dissenting were doing so based on understanding the separation of powers in that they were not engaging in re-drafting of the (admittedly) abysmally written AIA.

When all else fails, turn to the words of the statute.

It is the words of the statute (also admittedly, in a strict reading) that provide for NO review of the institution decision.

That this strict reading collides with the (thirdly admitted, desired proper working of the separation of powers) is a fault of the statute as written.

The proper action of the court is to EITHER a) rule as the law as written with a vociferous admonition of the Congress to do a better job, or b) declare the law - as written - to be invalid because the law - as written - violates Constitutional requirements of separation of powers.

Getting "used to" the court rewriting the law in the statutory law domain of patent law leaves me....

Hey Skeptical,

Fair enough response. And I completely agree that the AIA (Abominable Inane Act) is "abysmally written."

But can a question of law (i.e., when does a "time bar" occur?)be non-reviewable by an Article III court, and pass muster under the APA, much less 5th Amendment "due process." More significantly, the "time bar" provision goes the question of whether USPTO has subject matter jurisdiction to even entertain the IPR. Can such an issue really be deemed non-reviewable by Congress and again pass 5th Amendment "due process"?

EG,

Your questions (to return the compliment) are indeed fair enough of a response.

HOWEVER, as I posted, the proper response from the courts is to NOT engage in redrafting in order to save the abysmal effort of Congress.

If the words (strictly, but fairly) are read "straight up" and DO run into the problems that you mention, then the options to the court are to void the law or not void the law and note vociferously the unfortunate consequences of the law as written.

EITHER is better than not only greenlighting "legislating from the bench," but given the rampant failures in the AIA, sets a dangerous precedent (nigh - EXPECTATION) that such legislating from the bench will multiply in the future.

Hey Skeptical,

Fair enough points again and well said. We can only wish that the AIA (Abominable Inane Act) would sink into oblivion. A hatchet job all the way. A ruling in Oil States that IPRs are unconstitutional would do much to "pull the plug" on it.

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Working...
Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been saved. Comments are moderated and will not appear until approved by the author. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.

Working...

Post a comment

Comments are moderated, and will not appear until the author has approved them.

Your Information

(Name is required. Email address will not be displayed with the comment.)

January 2018

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
  1 2 3 4 5 6
7 8 9 10 11 12 13
14 15 16 17 18 19 20
21 22 23 24 25 26 27
28 29 30 31