Case: 14-1194 CASE PARTICIPANTS ONLY Document: 58 Page: Fi ed: 05/01/2014Case: 14-1194 Document: 61 Page: 1 Filed: 05/01/2014
`2014-1194
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
`FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT
`
`
`
`VERSATA DEVELOPMENT GROUP, INC.,
`
`
`Appellant,
`
`v.
`
`SAP AMERICA, INC. and SAP AG,
`
`
`Appellees,
`
`and
`
`UNDER SECRETARY OF COMMERCE FOR INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY and
`DIRECTOR OF THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE,
`
`Intervenor.
`
`
`
`APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE,
`PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD IN NO. CBM2012-00001.
`
`
`
`BRIEF FOR THE INTERVENOR – DIRECTOR
`OF THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`STUART F. DELERY
`Assistant Attorney General
`MARK R. FREEMAN
`MELISSA N. PATTERSON
`(202) 514-1201
`Attorneys, Appellate Staff
`Civil Division, Room 7230
`U.S. Department of Justice
`950 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W.
`Washington, D.C. 20530
`
`
`
`
`
`NATHAN K. KELLEY
` Solicitor
`
`SCOTT C. WEIDENFELLER
`WILLIAM LAMARCA
` Associate Solicitors
` Office of the Solicitor – Mail Stop 8
` U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
` P.O. Box 1450
` Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Page 1 of 69
`
`
`
`TRADING TECH EXHIBIT 2015
`IBG ET AL. v. TRADING TECH
`CBM2016-00009
`
`

`
`
`
`Case: 14-1194 CASE PARTICIPANTS ONLY Document: 58 Page: 2 Fi ed: 05/01/2014Case: 14-1194 Document: 61 Page: 2 Filed: 05/01/2014
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`
`Page
`
`
`STATEMENT OF RELATED CASES
`
`STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION ................................................................................. 1
`
`STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES ....................................................................................... 1
`
`STATEMENT OF THE CASE .......................................................................................... 2
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................... 2
`
`STATUTORY AND REGULATORY BACKGROUND .................................. 2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`Administrative Review Of Issued Patents .................................................... 2
`
`Post-Grant Review Procedures Under The AIA ........................................ 3
`
`PTO Rules For Post-Grant Review .............................................................. 5
`
`FACTUAL BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY .................... 7
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`The ’350 Patent ................................................................................................ 7
`
`The Institution Decision ................................................................................ 7
`
`3.
`
`The Final Decision With Respect To Patentability ..................................... 9
`
`THIS COURT LACKS JURISDICTION TO REVIEW THE
`DIRECTOR’S DECISION TO INSTITUTE A POST-GRANT
`REVIEW OF THE ’350 PATENT ....................................................................... 13
`
`
`SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT ......................................................................................... 10
`
`STANDARD OF REVIEW ............................................................................................... 12
`
`ARGUMENT ....................................................................................................................... 13
`
`I.
`
`
`
`
`C.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`i
`
`Page 2 of 69
`
`

`
`
`
`Case: 14-1194 CASE PARTICIPANTS ONLY Document: 58 Page: 3 Fi ed: 05/01/2014Case: 14-1194 Document: 61 Page: 3 Filed: 05/01/2014
`
`A.
`
`
`
`B.
`
`
`Congress Expressly Barred Judicial Review Of
`PTO’s Decision Whether To Institute A Transitional
`Post-Grant Review ........................................................................................ 13
`
`Versata Identifies No Error In PTO’s Interpretation
`Of “Covered Business Method Patent.” .................................................... 25
`
`THE BOARD PROPERLY REVIEWED THE
`PATENTABILITY OF THE ’350 PATENT ...................................................... 29
`
`A.
`
`
`B.
`
`
`The Board May Consider Subject-Matter Eligibility
`Under Section 101 In A Post-Grant Review ............................................. 29
`
`The Board Properly Conducts Post-Grant Review
`Without Regard To Prior Infringement Litigation .................................... 33
`
`C.
`
`
`
`The Board Properly Applies PTO’s Longstanding
`“Broadest Reasonable Interpretation” Standard In
`Post-Grant Review Proceedings .................................................................. 39
`
`
`
`
`III. THE BOARD CORRECTLY CONCLUDED THAT THE ’350
`
`PATENT IS INVALID UNDER THE ABSTRACT IDEA
`
`EXCEPTION TO SECTION 101 ........................................................................ 45
`
`CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................... 55
`
`CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE WITH
`FEDERAL RULE OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 32(A)
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ii
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`II.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Page 3 of 69
`
`

`
`
`
`Case: 14-1194 CASE PARTICIPANTS ONLY Document: 58 Page: 4 Fi ed: 05/01/2014Case: 14-1194 Document: 61 Page: 4 Filed: 05/01/2014
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`
`Cases:
`
`Accenture Global Servs. v. Guidewire Software, Inc.,
`728 F.3d 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2013) ....................................................................................... 52
`
`Page
`
`
`Arent v. Shalala,
`70 F.3d 610 (D.C. Cir. 1995) .......................................................................................... 25
`
`
`Aristocrat Technologies Australia PTY Ltd. v. Int'l Game,
`Tech., 543 F.3d 657 (Fed. Cir. 2008) ............................................................................. 31
`
`
`Auer v. Robbins,
`519 U.S. 452 (1997) .................................................................................................... 12, 28
`
`
`Bancorp Servs., LLC v. Sun Life Assurance Co.,
`687 F.3d 1266 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ................................................................................. 48, 51
`
`
`Bennett v. Spear,
`520 U.S. 154 (1997) .......................................................................................................... 21
`
`
`Bilski v. Kappos,
`130 S. Ct. 3225 (2010) .................................................................................. 32, 48, 50, 52
`
`
`Chevron, U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc.,
`467 U.S. 837 (1984) .......................................................................................................... 12
`
`
`City of Arlington, Tex. v. FCC,
`133 S. Ct. 1863 (2013) ..................................................................................................... 24
`
`
`Cooper Technologies Co. v. Dudas,
`536 F.3d 1330 (Fed. Cir. 2008) ................................................................................... 3, 44
`
`
`CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc.,
`654 F.3d 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2011) ................................................................................. 50, 51
`
`
`Dealertrack, Inc. v. Huber,
`674 F.3d 1315 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ........................................................................... 32, 50, 51
`
`
`
`iii
`
`Page 4 of 69
`
`

`
`
`
`Case: 14-1194 CASE PARTICIPANTS ONLY Document: 58 Page: 5 Fi ed: 05/01/2014Case: 14-1194 Document: 61 Page: 5 Filed: 05/01/2014
`
`Diamond v. Diehr,
`450 U.S. 175 (1981) .......................................................................................................... 48
`
`
`Dickinson v. Zurko,
`527 U.S. 150 (1999) .............................................................................................. 12, 25, 53
`
`
`Ethicon, Inc. v. Quigg,
`849 F.2d 1422 (Fed. Cir. 1988) ....................................................................................... 34
`
`
`Flo Healthcare Solutions, LLC v. Kappos,
`697 F.3d 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ....................................................................................... 12
`
`
`Fort Properties, Inc. v. American Master Lease LLC,
`671 F.3d 1317 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ....................................................................................... 50
`
`
`Foster v. Hallco Mfg. Co.,
`947 F.2d 469 (Fed. Cir. 1991) ......................................................................................... 36
`
`
`FTC v. Standard Oil,
`449 U.S. 232 (1980) .......................................................................................................... 21
`
`
`Gottschalk v. Benson,
`409 U.S. 63 (1972) ...................................................................................................... 46, 50
`
`
`Graham v. John Deere Co.,
`383 U.S. 1 (1966) .............................................................................................................. 31
`
`
`In re Baxter Int'l, Inc.,
`678 F.3d 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2012) .................................................................... 34, 35, 36, 37
`
`
`In re Carr,
`297 F. 542 (D.C. Cir. 1924)............................................................................................. 40
`
`
`In re Etter,
`756 F.2d 852 (Fed. Cir. 1985) ................................................................................... 35, 41
`
`
`In re Hiniker Co.,
`150 F.3d 1362 (Fed. Cir. 1998) ................................................................................. 18, 20
`
`
`In re Morris,
`127 F.3d 1048 (Fed. Cir. 1997) ....................................................................................... 12
`
`
`
`iv
`
`Page 5 of 69
`
`

`
`
`
`Case: 14-1194 CASE PARTICIPANTS ONLY Document: 58 Page: 6 Fi ed: 05/01/2014Case: 14-1194 Document: 61 Page: 6 Filed: 05/01/2014
`
`
`In re Prater,
`415 F.2d 1393 (C.C.P.A. 1969) ....................................................................................... 40
`
`
`In re Skvorecz,
`580 F.3d at 1267 ......................................................................................................... 41, 44
`
`
`In re Swanson,
`540 F.3d 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2008) ................................................................................. 34, 35
`
`
`In re Translogic,
`504 F.3d 1249 (Fed. Cir. 2007) ....................................................................................... 36
`
`
`In re Yamamoto,
`740 F.2d 1569 (Fed. Cir. 1984) .............................................................. 40, 41, 42, 44, 46
`
`
`Leo Pharm. Products, Ltd. v. Rea,
`726 F.3d 1346 (Fed. Cir. 2013) ................................................................................. 40, 41
`
`
`Lighting Ballast Control LLC v. Philips Electronics N. Am. Corp.,
`744 F.3d 1272 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ....................................................................................... 12
`
`
`Litecubes, LLC v. N. Light Products, Inc.,
`523 F.3d 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2008) ....................................................................................... 12
`
`
`Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc.,
`132 S. Ct. 1289 (2012) ......................................................................................... 32, 46, 48
`
`
`Microsoft Corp. v. i4i Ltd.,
`131 S. Ct. 2238 (2011) ..................................................................................................... 35
`
`
`Morgan v. Principi,
`327 F.3d 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2003) ....................................................................................... 21
`
`
`New Hampshire v. Maine,
`532 U.S. 742 (2001) .......................................................................................................... 22
`
`
`O'Reilly v. Morse,
`56 U.S. 62 (1853) .............................................................................................................. 53
`
`
`
`
`
`v
`
`Page 6 of 69
`
`

`
`
`
`Case: 14-1194 CASE PARTICIPANTS ONLY Document: 58 Page: 7 Fi ed: 05/01/2014Case: 14-1194 Document: 61 Page: 7 Filed: 05/01/2014
`
`Parker v. Flook,
`437 U.S. 584 (1978) .......................................................................................................... 50
`
`
`Prometheus Labs. v. Mayo Collaborative Servs.,
`628 F.3d 1347 (Fed. Cir. 2010), rev'd, 132 S. Ct. 1289 (2012) ..................................... 53
`
`
`Research Corp. Technologies, Inc. v. Microsoft Corp.,
`627 F.3d 859 (Fed. Cir. 2010) ................................................................................... 32, 50
`
`
`SiRF Tech., Inc. v. Int'l Trade Comm'n,
`601 F.3d 1319 (Fed. Cir. 2010) ....................................................................................... 51
`
`
`St. Jude Med., Cardiology Div., Inc. v. Volcano Corp.,
`___ F.3d ___, 2014 WL 1623676 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 24, 2014) ................... 13, 15, 18, 23
`
`
`Taylor v. Sturgill,
`553 U.S. 880 (2008) .......................................................................................................... 36
`
`
`Tempo Lighting, Inc. v. Tivoli, LLC,
`742 F.3d 973 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ......................................................................................... 41
`
`
`Ultramercial, LLC v. Hulu, LLC,
`722 F.3d 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2013) ....................................................................................... 49
`
`
`United States v. Mead Corp.,
`533 U.S. 218 (2001) .......................................................................................................... 40
`
`
`Woodford v. Ngo,
`548 U.S. 81 (2006) ............................................................................................................ 30
`
`
`Statutes:
`
` 5
`
` 5
`
` U.S.C. § 704 ........................................................................................................................ 21
`
` U.S.C. § 706(2)(A) ....................................................................................................... 12, 25
`
`
`28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(4)(A) ....................................................................................................... 1
`
`35 U.S.C. § 2(b) ..................................................................................................................... 44
`
`
`
`
`vi
`
`Page 7 of 69
`
`

`
`
`
`Case: 14-1194 CASE PARTICIPANTS ONLY Document: 58 Page: 8 Fi ed: 05/01/2014Case: 14-1194 Document: 61 Page: 8 Filed: 05/01/2014
`
`35 U.S.C. ch. 30 ...................................................................................................................... 2
`
`35 U.S.C. § 101............................................................................................................... passim
`
`35 U.S.C. § 102........................................................................................................................ 8
`
`35 U.S.C. § 112...................................................................................................................... 30
`
`35 U.S.C. § 141...................................................................................................................... 24
`
`35 U.S.C. § 141(c) ................................................................................................................. 14
`
`35 U.S.C. § 143........................................................................................................................ 2
`
`35 U.S.C. § 282(a) ................................................................................................................. 34
`
`35 U.S.C. § 282(b)(2) ............................................................................................................ 31
`
`35 U.S.C. § 301(a)(2) ............................................................................................................ 42
`
`35 U.S.C. § 301(d) ................................................................................................................. 42
`
`35 U.S.C. § 303........................................................................................................................ 2
`
`35 U.S.C. § 303(a) ................................................................................................................. 18
`
`35 U.S.C. § 303(c) ............................................................................................................. 3, 18
`
`35 U.S.C. § 304........................................................................................................................ 2
`
`35 U.S.C. § 311.................................................................................................................... 3, 4
`
`35 U.S.C. § 311(b) ................................................................................................................. 32
`
`35 U.S.C. § 312 (2000) ........................................................................................................... 3
`
`35 U.S.C. § 312(a) (2000) ................................................................................................. 3, 19
`
`35 U.S.C. § 312(c) (2000) ................................................................................................. 3, 19
`
`35 U.S.C. § 314(d) ................................................................................................................. 23
`
`
`
`vii
`
`Page 8 of 69
`
`

`
`
`
`Case: 14-1194 CASE PARTICIPANTS ONLY Document: 58 Page: 9 Fi ed: 05/01/2014Case: 14-1194 Document: 61 Page: 9 Filed: 05/01/2014
`
`
`35 U.S.C. § 315(b) ................................................................................................................. 23
`
`35 U.S.C. § 316........................................................................................................................ 4
`
`35 U.S.C. § 316(a) ................................................................................................................... 5
`
`35 U.S.C. § 316(a)(4) .............................................................................................................. 6
`
`35 U.S.C. § 317 (2000) ......................................................................................................... 19
`
`35 U.S.C. § 317(b) (2000) .................................................................................................... 38
`
`35 U.S.C. § 319........................................................................................................................ 4
`
`35 U.S.C. § 321(b) ....................................................................................................... 4, 23, 31
`
`35 U.S.C. § 321(c) ............................................................................................................. 4, 23
`
`35 U.S.C. § 323...................................................................................................................... 17
`
`35 U.S.C. § 324(a) ........................................................................................................... 14, 16
`
`35 U.S.C. § 324(b) ................................................................................................................. 16
`
`35 U.S.C. § 324(d) ................................................................................................................. 23
`
`35 U.S.C. § 324(e) ...................................................... 1, 5, 13, 14, 15, 17, 19, 20, 21, 24, 31
`
`35 U.S.C. § 325(a)(1) ......................................................................................... 16, 20, 23, 39
`
`35 U.S.C. § 325(d) ........................................................................................................... 42, 43
`
`35 U.S.C. § 325(e)(1) ............................................................................................................ 34
`
`35 U.S.C. § 326........................................................................................................................ 4
`
`35 U.S.C. § 326(a) ................................................................................................................... 5
`
`35 U.S.C. § 326(a)(4) ........................................................................................... 6, 26, 39, 43
`
`
`
`
`viii
`
`Page 9 of 69
`
`

`
`
`
`Case: 14-1194 CASE PARTICIPANTS ONLY Document: 58 Page: 10 Fi ed: 05/01/2014Case: 14-1194 Document: 61 Page: 10 Filed: 05/01/2014
`
`35 U.S.C. § 326(a)(9) ............................................................................................................ 41
`
`35 U.S.C. § 326(b) ................................................................................................................. 43
`
`35 U.S.C. § 326(c) ................................................................................................................. 14
`
`35 U.S.C. § 326(d) ................................................................................................................. 54
`
`35 U.S.C. § 326(d)(1)(B) ................................................................................................. 41, 42
`
`35 U.S.C. § 326(e) ........................................................................................................... 35, 41
`
`35 U.S.C. § 328(a) ......................................................................... 5, 9, 13, 14, 15, 18, 20, 24
`
`35 U.S.C. § 329........................................................................ 4, 5, 13, 14, 15, 18, 20, 22, 24
`
`American Inventors Protection Act,
` Pub. L. No. 106-113, 113 Stat. 1501, Sec. 4601-4604 (1999) ................................. 3, 38
`
`Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (AIA),
` Pub. L. No. 112-29, 125 Stat. 284 (2011) ............................................................... passim
`
`Pub. L. No. 96-517, 94 Stat. 3015 (1980) ............................................................................ 2
`
`Regulations:
`
`37 C.F.R., part 42 .................................................................................................................... 6
`
`37 C.F.R. § 90.3(a)(1) ............................................................................................................. 1
`
`37 C.F.R. § 90.3(b)(1) ............................................................................................................. 1
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b) ....................................................................................................... 6, 40
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.108 .................................................................................................................. 6
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.200(b) ....................................................................................................... 6, 40
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.208 .................................................................................................................. 6
`
`
`
`
`ix
`
`Page 10 of 69
`
`

`
`
`
`Case: 14-1194 CASE PARTICIPANTS ONLY Document: 58 Page: 1 Fi ed: 05/01/2014Case: 14-1194 Document: 61 Page: 11 Filed: 05/01/2014
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.220 ................................................................................................................ 30
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.300(a) .............................................................................................................. 6
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.300(b) ................................................................................................. 6, 36, 40
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.301(a) .............................................................................................................. 6
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.301(b) ....................................................................................................... 7, 27
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.302 ................................................................................................................ 34
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.302(b) ........................................................................................................... 34
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.4....................................................................................................................... 6
`
`77 Fed. Reg. 48,680 (Aug. 14, 2012) ...................................................................... 34, 43, 44
`
`77 Fed. Reg. 48,734 (Aug. 14, 2012) .................................................................................. 26
`
`Office Patent Trial Practice Guide,
`77 Fed. Reg. 48,756 (Aug. 14, 2012) .............................................................................. 28
`
`
`Legislative Materials:
`
`157 Cong. Rec. S5432 (daily ed. Sept. 8, 2011) ................................................................. 27
`
`157 Cong. Rec. S1367 (daily ed. Mar. 8, 2011) ................................................................. 33
`
`H. Rep. No. 112-98 (2011) ................................................................................................ 4, 5
`
`Other Authorities:
`
` A
`
` Guide to the Legislative History of the America Invents Act: Part II of II,
`21 Fed. Cir. B.J. 539 (2012) ............................................................................................... 4
`
`
`Random House Dictionary of the English Language 719 (2d ed. 1987) ................................... 25
`
`
`
`
`
`
`x
`
`Page 11 of 69
`
`

`
`
`
`Case: 14-1194 CASE PARTICIPANTS ONLY Document: 58 Page: 12 Fi ed: 05/01/2014Case: 14-1194 Document: 61 Page: 12 Filed: 05/01/2014
`
`STATEMENT OF RELATED CASES
`
`This Court has ordered that this case and Versata Development Group v. Lee et al.,
`
`No. 2014-1145, shall be assigned to the same merits panel for argument. The patent
`
`at issue in the decision challenged in this appeal was also the subject of litigation in
`
`Versata Software, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 717 F.3d 1255 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (Chief Judge
`
`Rader, Circuit Judges Prost and Moore), cert. denied, 134 S. Ct. 1013 (S. Ct.) (Jan. 21,
`
`2014).
`
`
`
`
`
`Page 12 of 69
`
`

`
`
`
`Case: 14-1194 CASE PARTICIPANTS ONLY Document: 58 Page: 13 Fi ed: 05/01/2014Case: 14-1194 Document: 61 Page: 13 Filed: 05/01/2014
`
`STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION
`
`This appeal arises from a final decision of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board in
`
`a transitional post-grant review proceeding. The Board entered its final written
`
`decision on June 11, 2013, JA45, and denied Versata’s request for rehearing on
`
`September 13, 2013, JA83. Versata filed a notice of appeal of the final Board decision
`
`on November 13, 2013, JA92, within the time limits specified by 37 C.F.R.
`
`§ 90.3(a)(1), (b)(1). This Court lacks jurisdiction to review PTO’s decision to institute
`
`the post-grant review, which is “final and nonappealable.” 35 U.S.C. § 324(e). See
`
`infra. This Court otherwise has appellate jurisdiction over Versata’s appeal of the
`
`Board’s final written decision under 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(4)(A).
`
`STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES
`
`After PTO instituted a transitional post-grant review of U.S. Patent No.
`
`6,553,350 (the ’350 patent), the Board entered a final written decision concluding that
`
`the challenged claims are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 101. This appeal presents
`
`the following questions:
`
`1. Whether this Court lacks jurisdiction to review PTO’s decision to institute
`
`the post-grant review.
`
`2. Whether the Board correctly concluded that the challenged claims of the
`
`’350 patent, which claim a method and apparatus for determining a price for a
`
`product, is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
`
`
`
`Page 13 of 69
`
`

`
`
`
`Case: 14-1194 CASE PARTICIPANTS ONLY Document: 58 Page: 14 Fi ed: 05/01/2014Case: 14-1194 Document: 61 Page: 14 Filed: 05/01/2014
`
`STATEMENT OF THE CASE
`
`A.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Versata Development Group, Inc. (Versata) owns the ’350 patent, which claims
`
`methods of pricing products and services. SAP America, Inc. and SAP AG
`
`(collectively, SAP) filed a petition with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (PTO)
`
`to institute a transitional post-grant review for covered business method patents
`
`(CBM review) to reconsider the validity of the ’350 patent. PTO granted SAP’s
`
`petition and instituted the CBM review. The Board ultimately issued a final written
`
`decision invalidating several claims of the ’350 patent under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Versata
`
`here challenges this Board decision. The Director of PTO intervened to defend the
`
`Board’s decision. See 35 U.S.C. § 143.
`
`B.
`
`STATUTORY AND REGULATORY BACKGROUND
`
`1.
`
`Administrative Review Of Issued Patents
`
`Congress has long provided administrative mechanisms for third parties to ask
`
`PTO to reconsider the validity of an issued patent. In 1980, Congress enacted the
`
`first statute authorizing ex parte reexamination. See Pub. L. No. 96-517, 94 Stat. 3015
`
`(1980) (codified at 35 U.S.C. ch. 30 (1980)). Congress specified that PTO could grant
`
`a request for reexamination only if it raised “a substantial new question of
`
`patentability.” 35 U.S.C. §§ 303, 304. From the outset, Congress insulated some
`
`aspects of this administrative reconsideration process from judicial review. See 35
`
`
`
`2
`
`Page 14 of 69
`
`

`
`
`
`Case: 14-1194 CASE PARTICIPANTS ONLY Document: 58 Page: 15 Fi ed: 05/01/2014Case: 14-1194 Document: 61 Page: 15 Filed: 05/01/2014
`
`U.S.C. § 303(c) (providing that PTO’s determination “that no substantial new
`
`question of patentability has been raised will be final and nonappealable”).
`
`In 1999, Congress added an option for “inter partes” reexamination, which
`
`allowed the third-party requester to participate in the reexamination and, after 2002,
`
`any subsequent appeal. See Cooper Technologies Co. v. Dudas, 536 F.3d 1330, 1332 (Fed.
`
`Cir. 2008); American Inventors Protection Act, Pub. L. No. 106-113, 113 Stat. 1501,
`
`Sec. 4601-4604 (1999) (codified as amended at 35 U.S.C. §§ 311-318 (2000)).
`
`Congress authorized PTO to institute an inter partes reexamination, like an ex parte
`
`reexamination, only if the request raised “a substantial new question of patentability.”
`
`35 U.S.C. §§ 311, 312 (2000). And Congress again barred appeals of aspects of PTO’s
`
`decision to institute a reexamination, specifying that any determination regarding the
`
`existence of a “substantial new question of patentability” would be “final and non-
`
`appealable.” 35 U.S.C. § 312(a), (c) (2000).
`
`2.
`
`Post-Grant Review Procedures Under The AIA
`
`In the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (AIA), Pub. L. No. 112-29, 125 Stat.
`
`284 (2011), Congress substantially expanded PTO’s procedures for reconsidering the
`
`validity of issued patents. The AIA replaced inter partes reexamination with inter
`
`partes review, an adversarial proceeding before the new Patent Trial and Appeal
`
`Board. See 35 U.S.C. § 311. The AIA also changed the threshold showing necessary
`
`for PTO to institute an inter partes proceeding, made all patents subject to such
`
`review regardless of the date on which they were issued, broadened the estoppel
`
`
`
`3
`
`Page 15 of 69
`
`

`
`
`
`Case: 14-1194 CASE PARTICIPANTS ONLY Document: 58 Page: 16 Fi ed: 05/01/2014Case: 14-1194 Document: 61 Page: 16 Filed: 05/01/2014
`
`provisions to which petitioning parties would be subject, imposed strict timelines for
`
`completion of the review, and permitted an appeal to this Court only from the
`
`Board’s final decision as to patentability. See H. Rep. No. 112-98, at 46-47 (2011); Joe
`
`Matal, A Guide to the Legislative History of the America Invents Act: Part II of II, 21 Fed. Cir.
`
`B.J. 539, 598 (2012).
`
`The AIA also introduced an entirely new procedure: “post-grant review.” A
`
`petition for such review must be filed within nine months after a patent is issued, 35
`
`U.S.C. § 321(c), but “[u]nlike reexamination proceedings, . . . the post-grant review
`
`proceeding permits a challenge on any ground related to invalidity under section 282.”
`
`H. Rep. No. 112-98, at 47-48; see 35 U.S.C. § 321(b). As in an inter partes review, any
`
`person other than the patent owner may petition to institute a post-grant review, and
`
`the petitioner may participate in the proceedings and any ensuing appeal. See 35
`
`U.S.C. §§ 311, 316, 319, 326, 329.
`
`In an uncodified portion of the AIA, furthermore, Congress created a special
`
`“transitional post-grant review proceeding for review of the validity of covered
`
`business method patents.” AIA § 18. Although this CBM procedure is to “be
`
`regarded as, and shall employ the standards and procedures of, a post-grant review,”
`
`AIA § 18(a)(1), it authorizes the Director to institute a post-grant review of any
`
`“covered business method patent” at any time during the term of the patent—i.e.,
`
`without regard to the normal nine-month window for post-