`of the America lnvents Act: Part II of II
`
`Joe Matal*
`
`Introduction
`
`This is the second Article in a two—part series about the legislative history
`of the recently enacted Leahy—Smith America lnvents Act (“AlA”).l The first
`Article addressed those sections of the AIA that apply to an application be-
`fore a patent has issued———principally, the bill’s amendments to §§ 102, 103,
`115, 122, and 135 of title 35, and several of the AIA’s uncodified provisions.’
`This second Article addresses those changes made by the AIA that apply only
`after a patent has been granted. It examines the legislative history of the AIA’s
`provisions concerning post—grant review of patents; inter partes proceedings;
`supplemental examination; the section 18 business—method—patent—revieW
`program; the new defense of prior commercial use; the partial repeal of the
`best~mode requirement; and other changes regarding virtual and false mark~
`ing, advice of counsel, courtjurisdiction, USPTO funding, and the deadline
`for seeking a patent term extension. This second Article consists oftwo parts:
`Part I addresses sections of the U.S. Code that were amended by the AIA,
`and Part II addresses sections of the AIA that are uncodified.
`
`I. Sections of the U.S. Code That Are Amended by the AIA
`
`A. 28 U.S.C. §§ 1295(a) (1), 1338(a), and 1454: The Holmes
`Group v. Vornado Fix
`
`Section 19 of the AIA, at subsections (a) through (c), enacts the so—called
`H0/mes Group’ fix.‘ These provisions: (1) amend title 28 to clarify that state
`
`* ]oe Matal has served as a]udiciary Committee Counsel to Senator]on Kyl since 2002,
`except for when he served as the Minority General Counsel of the Judiciary Committee
`from May 2009 to January 201 1 while Senator JeffSessions was the ranking member of the
`committee. The author thanks his Wife, Maren, for her assistance and support during the
`drafting of these Articles.
`1 Pub. L. No. 112—29, 125 Stat. 284 (2011). The first Article appeared in volume 21,
`page 435, of the Federal Circuit Bar Journal. Joe Matal, A Guide to the Legislative Hisztoijz of
`the America Invent: Act: Part] ofII, 21 F131). CIR B.]. 435 (2012).
`2 Matal, supra note 1, at 436.
`3 Holmes Grp., Inc. v. Vornado Air Circulation Sys., Inc., 535 U.S. 826 (2002).
`4 H.R.R13r>.No. 112—98, at 81 (2011).
`
`1
`
`USAA 1007
`
`
`
`540 THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT BAR JOURNAL VOL. 21, No. 4
`
`courts lackjurisdiction over legal claims arising under patent, copyright, and
`plant~variety~protection statutes, and deem the various overseas territories to
`be States for this purpose; (2) extend the Federal Circuit’s appellate jurisdiction
`to compulsory patent and plant—variety—protection counterclaims, thereby
`abrogating Holmes Group, Inc.
`22. Vormzdo Air Circulation Systems, [7%‘.;5 and
`(3) allow removal of civil actions in which “any party” asserts legal claims
`under patent, copyright, or plant-variety-protection statutes.‘
`Aprovision appearing in earlier versions oftheA1A as § 19 (d), Which would
`have required the Federal Circuit to transfer cases that had been appealed as
`patent or plant—variety—protection cases but in which no such legal claim “is
`the subject of the appeal by any party,” was eliminated from the AIA during
`House floor consideration?
`The 201 1 Committee Report briefly described these provisions, noted that
`similar legislation was reported by the House Judiciary Committee in 2006,
`and “reaffirm [ed] ” the Committee Report for that earlier bill.”
`The Committee Report for the 2006 Holmes Group bill stated that:
`The [House Judiciary] Committee believes Holmes Group contravened the will of
`Congress when it created the Federal Circuit. That is, the decision will induce litigants
`to engage in forum-shopping among the regional circuits and State courts. Extending
`the argument, the Committee is concerned that the decision will lead to an erosion
`in the uniformity or coherence in patent law that has been steadily building since the
`Circuit’s creation in 1982.9
`
`The Holmes Group provisions were added to the AIA during the Senate
`Judiciary Committees markup of the bill on February 3, 2011.1“ During the
`Senate debates in March 2011, Senator Kyl noted that the AIA modified the
`2006 bill by limiting its expansion of Federal Circuit jurisdiction to “only
`compulsory counterclairns.”“ Senator Kyl stated: “Compulsory counterclairns
`are defined at Rule 13(a) and basically consist of counterclaims that arise out
`of the same transaction or occurrence and that do not require the joinder
`of parties over whom the court would lack jurisdiction.” He explained
`that “[W]ithout this modification, it is possible that a defendant could raise
`unrelated and unnecessary patent co unterclairns simply in order to manipulate
`appellate jurisdiction.” Senator Kyl also noted that § 1454, the new removal
`
`5 Holmes, 535 U.S. 826.
`
`6 Leahy—Smith America invents Act, sec. 19, 125 Stat. at 332.
`7 157 Com. Rm H4446 (daily ed. June 22, 2011).
`8 H.R. REP. No. 112—98, at 81; see also ul pt. 1, at 54.
`9 H.R. REP. No. 109-407, at 5 (2006).
`
`1° S. 23, 112th Cong., sec. § 17 (2011).
`H 157 CONG. REC. S1378 (daily ed. Mar. 8, 2011) (statement ofSen. Kyl).
`12 Id. at S1378—79.
`
`13 Id. at S1379.
`
`
`
`LEGISLATIVE HISTORY or THE AMERICA INVENTS ACT: PART II or II
`
`541
`
`statute, had been modified to clarify that intellectual—property counterclaims
`would not be remanded.”
`
`B. 28 U.S.C. § 1295 (a) (4) (A): Jurisdiction of the Federal Circuit
`
`"lhis subparagraph was revised to identify all of the various Patent Trial
`and Appeal Board proceedings from which the Federal Circuit shall entertain
`appeals.”
`Senator Kyl addressed these revisions during the March 2011 debates,
`commenting that “[t]he language ofsubparagraph (A) is also generalized and
`clarified, recognizing that the details ofwhat is appealable will be in sections
`134 and 141.” He also noted that it “appears that Congress never gave the
`Federal Circuit jurisdiction over appeals from reexaminations when it created
`those proceedings,” and that the AlA’s recognition of such jurisdiction was
`therefore made retroactive.” Finally, he noted that “[i]n the effectiVe—date
`provision .
`.
`.
`, various existing authorities are extended so that they may
`continue to apply to inter partes reexaminations commenced under the old
`system.”
`
`C. 35 U.S.C. §§ 6, 141: Patent Trial and Appeal Board and
`Appeals to the Federal Circuit
`
`Section 6 of title 35 is revised by section 7(a) of the AIA to (i) redesignate
`the Board of Patent Appeals and interferences (“BPA1”) as the Patent Trial
`and Appeal Board (“PTAB” or “Board”), (ii) to authorize the new Board to
`hear appeals ofexaminations and reexarninations, and (iii) to enable the Board
`to conduct derivation roceedin s and inter artes and ost— rant reviews.”
`P
`g
`P
`P
`g
`Consistent with this chan e, in section 7 c of the AIA, “section 141 of title
`g
`35 [was] modified to allow appeals of PTAB decisions in inter partes and
`post—grant reviews, and the section is edited and reorganized.”
`The Committee Report briefly commented on these revisions,“ as did Senator
`Kyl, who noted that the recodification of section 6 departs from previous
`
`14
`
`‘5 See Leahy—Srnith America lnvents Act, Pub. L. No. 112-29, sec. 6(f) (3)(C), § 1295(a)
`(4) (A), 125 Stat. 284, 313 (2011); see also 157 CONG. REC. S1377 (daily ed. Mar. 8, 2011)
`
`(statement of Sen. Kyl).
`16 157 CONG. REC. S1377 (daily ed. Mar. 8, 2011) (statement of Sen. Kyl).
`17
`
`18
`
`Ia’.
`
`19 Leahy—Smith America Invents Act, sec. 7(a), 125 Stat. at 513.
`2° 157 CONG. REC. S1377 (daily ed. Mar. 8, 2011) (statement of Sen. Kyl).
`2‘ H.R. REP. No. 112-98, at 48, 77 (2011).
`
`3
`
`
`
`542 THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT BAR JOURNAL VoL. 21, No. 4
`
`versions of the bill by allowing all members of the PTAB to participate in
`all proceedings.”
`Section 6(f) (2) (B) of the AIA provides that, for purposes of pending
`interferences, “the Director may deem the Patent Trial and Appeal Board to
`be the Board of Patent Appeals and interferences” and conduct “any further
`proceedings in that interference.” Paragraphs (2) and (3) ofsection 7(e) ofthe
`bill create similar authority for pending inter partes reexaminations.“ And in
`conformity with this change, “language [was] added to section [6(f) (3) (C)] of
`the bill that deems references to derivation proceedings in the current appeals
`statutes to extend to interferences commenced before the effective date of the
`
`bill’s repeal of interferences.”
`
`D. 35 U.S.C. § 32: Suspension or Exclusion from Practice
`
`Section 3(l<) of the AIA modifies the statute of limitations for initiating a
`proceeding under 35 U.S.C. § 32 to exclude an attorney from practice before
`the USPTO.“ It requires that such a proceeding be initiated Within the earlier
`ofeither the ten—year period after the misconduct occurred, or one year after the
`misconduct was reported to the USPTO “as prescribed in * * * regulations.”
`Section 3(l<) also requires the USPTO to report every two years to Congress
`on substantial incidents of misconduct that evade investigation because of
`the ten—year time limit.”
`Senator Kyl commented on these provisions during the March 201 1 Senate
`debates, describing the ambiguity that existed as to Which deadline applied to
`§ 32 proceedings under pre-AIA law.” He also noted that “ [a] 10-year limit
`would appear to allow a proceeding for the vast bulk of misconduct that is
`discovered,” while staying Within the time period “during which individuals
`can reasonably be expected to maintain an accurate recollection ofevents and
`motivations.”
`
`22 157 CONG. REC. S1377 (daily ed. Mar. 8, 2011) (statement of Sen. Kyl).
`23 Leahy—Smith America Invents Act, sec. 6(f) (2) (B), 125 Stat. at 311.
`2‘ Id. at secs. 7(e)(2), 7(e)(3), 125 Stat. at 315.
`
`25 157 Cong. Rec. S1377 (daily ed. Mar. 8, 2011) (statement of Sen. Kyl) (“In the
`effective—date provision at the end of section [7], Various existing [appeal] authorities are
`extended so that they may continue to apply to inter partes reexaminations commenced
`under the old system.”).
`26 Leahy—Smith America Invents Act, § 3(l<), 125 Stat. at 291.
`27
`Ia’. § 3(k)(1).
`28 Id. § 3(l<) (2).
`29 See 157 CONG. REC. S1372 (daily ed. Mar. 8, 2011) (statement of Sen. Kyl).
`30
`
`31 Id. at S1372~73.
`
`
`
`LEGISLATIVE HISTORY or THE AMERICA INVENTS ACT: PART II or II
`
`543
`
`E. 35 U.S.C. § 143: Proceedings on Appeal
`
`Section 7(c) (3) of the AIA amends § 143 of title 35 to allow the Director
`to intervene in a Federal Circuit appeal of the PTAB’s decision in a derivation
`proceeding or in an inter partes or post-grant review.“ Senator Kyl noted this
`provision in passing during the March 2011 debates on the bill.”
`
`F. 35 U.S.C. § 202(b): Bayh-Dole Funding Agreements and
`Technical Corrections
`
`Prior to the enactment of the AIA, § 202(c)(7) (E)(i) of title 35 provided
`that, ifa government-owned, contractor-operated facility received net royalty
`income from patented inventions developed through federally funded research
`in an amount that exceeded 5% of the facility’s annual budget, then 75% of
`any such royalty income received in excess of that 5% must be paid by the
`facility to the federal government.“ Section 13 of the AIA reduced this 75%
`toll to just 15%.”
`V
`The 2011 Committee Report commented briefly on this provision in its
`background section, noting that:
`The Senate Judiciary Committee considered testimony that the requirement to repay
`the government 75 percent of the excess on royalty payments may be causing a
`disincentive for universities and small business operating under the GOCO provisions
`to commercialize products.“ Based on these concerns, the Act maintains the essence
`ofthe agreement GOCOs made with the taxpayers when they received funding[:] that
`theywould reimburse the taxpayer ifthey are suificiently successful in commercializing
`a product invented with taxpayer dollars, but which reduces the burden on universities
`and small businesses, thereby encouraging commercialization.”
`
`32 Leahy-Smith America invents Act § 7(c) (3), 125 Stat. at 314-15.
`33 See 157 CONG. REC. S1377 (daily ed. Mar. 8, 2011) (statement of Sen. Kyl).
`34 35 U.S.C. § 202(c)(7) (E)(i) (2006), amended by Leahy-Smith America Invents Act
`§ 13(a)(1), 125 Stat. at 327.
`35 Leahy—Smith America invents Act § 13(a)(1), 125 Stat. at 327.
`36 H.R. REP. No. 112-98, at 51 n.52 (2011). A footnote that appears in the Report at
`this point cites to the following hearing testimony: 7726 Role ofFedem/ly-Funded University
`Research in the Patent Sy.vtem: Hearing Before the 5. Comm. on the fudiciaig/, 110th Cong.
`(2007) (statement ofDr. Elizabeth Hoffman, Executive Vice President and Provost, Professor
`
`of Economics, Iowa State University).
`37 H.R. REP. No. 112-98, at 51; see also in’. at 79 (section-by-section analysis); S. REP.
`No. 111-18, at 46 (2009) (additional views of Sen. Grassley); 157 CONG. REC. S1366 (daily
`ed. Mar. 8, 2011) (Republican Policy Committee Legislative Notice) (summarizing section
`135 amendments to the America lnvents Act).
`
`5
`
`
`
`544 THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT BAR JOURNAL VoL. 21, No. 4
`
`The AIA also corrected several minor errors in § 202,” conformed it to the
`adoption ofthe first—to—file system,” and softened language that had previously
`provided that, except where infeasible after a reasonable inquiry, federally
`funded patented inventions must be licensed to small firms.“ The AIA replaced
`the previous requirement to license to small firms with a requirement that
`such firms simply be given a “preference” in licensing.“
`
`G. 35 U.S.C. § 251: Allowing Assignees to Seek Broadening
`Reissue
`
`Section 4(b) (2) oftheAlAamends the third paragraph ofsection 25 1 (which
`will be designated as subsection (c) by the AIA)“ to allow an assignee of a
`patent to seek a broadening reissue of the patent if the entire interest in the
`invention was assigned before the application for patent was filed.“ Prior to the
`enactment of this provision, an assignee was barred from seeking broadening
`reissue.‘“And even after its enactment, an assignee who acquired the patent or
`application from the inventor (that is, in cases where the inventor himselffiled
`the application) will continue to be barred from seeking broadening reissue.“
`Senator Kyl commented on this change, and the USPTO’s construction
`the pre—A1A law, during the March 2011 debates on the bill:
`[T]he present bill .
`.
`. modifies section 251 to allow an assignee who applied for a
`patent to also seek broadening reissue of the patent within two years of its issue.
`Notwithstanding the language of the fourth paragraph of current section 251, the
`Office currently does allow assignees to seek broadening reissue, so long as the inventor
`does not oppose the reissue. The Oflice views such unopposed applications for reissue
`as effectively being made “in the name” of the inventory“ Expanding an assignee’s
`right to seek broadening reissue is consistent with the bill’s changes to sections 115
`and 118, which expand assignees’ rights by allowing assignees to apply for a patent
`against the inventors wishes. If an assignee exercises his right to apply for a patent
`
`38 See Leahy—Smith America invents Act, secs.13(a)(3), 20(1) (2) (A), 125 Stat. at 327.
`39 See id. sec. 3(g)(7), 125 Stat. at 288.
`4“ See 121 sec. 20(i)(2)(B), 125 Stat. at 335.
`41
`
`42 Id. sec. 20(d)(3), 125 Stat. at 334.
`‘*5 Id. sec. 4(b)(2),§ 251, 125 Stat. at 296.
`44 35 U.S.C. § 251 (2006), amendm’ éy Leahy—Smith America Invents Act § 4(1)) (2),
`125 Stat. at 296.
`
`45 See Leahy—Srnith America lnvents Act, sec. 4(b) (2), 125 Stat. at 296; 35 U.S.C. § 251.
`46 The regulations governing this matter are somewhat contradictory. Although 37 CPR.
`§ 1.172 (201 1) emphasizes that “[21] reissue oath must be signed and sworn to or declaration
`made by the inventor,” it then adds “except as otherwise provided,” and cites to 37 CFR.
`§ 1.47. Section 1.47 in turn provides that an assignee may file an application for patent
`“[w]henever all of the inventors refuse” to do so. 37 C.F.R. § 1.47(b) (2011).
`
`6
`
`
`
`LEGISLATIVE HISTORY OF THE AMERICA INVBNTS ACT: PART 11 OF II
`
`545
`
`against the inventors wishes, there is no reason not to allow the same assignee to also
`seek a broadening reissue within the section 251 time limits.”
`
`H. 35 U.S.C. § 257: Supplemental Examination
`
`Section 12 of the AIA authorizes a new post~grant proceeding called
`“supplemental examination.” This new proceeding allows the patent owner
`to submit to the USPTO any information that is believed to be “relevant to
`the patent.” Once the information is submitted, the Director must decide
`whether the information creates a substantial new question of patentability. 5“
`If he finds that it does, the USPTO must reexamine the patent.”
`The most important feature of this new proceeding is its effect on the
`inequitable—conduct doctrine. As the final Committee Report stated:
`
`Ifthe Oflice determines that the information [that was submitted to the Office by the
`patent owner] does not present a substantial new question ofpatentability or that the
`patent is still valid, that information cannot later be used to hold the patent unenforceable
`or invalid on the basis [of] an inequitable~conduct attack in civil litigation?
`
`The final Committee Reports section—by-section analysis further elaborated
`on this point, noting that “[c]hallengers may still argue in court that the
`Oflice’s conclusion in supplemental examination was erroneous and that the
`information renders the patent invalid, but the information cannot be used
`to render the patent invalid or unenforceable on the basis of inequitable
`conduct.”
`
`Supplemental examination was championed by Senator Hatch.“ The concept
`grew out of Senator Hatch’s advocacy over several Congresses of proposals
`to restrict the inequitable—conduct doctrine.” The first Senate version of the
`A1A—the Hatch—Leahy bill of 2OO65°——included a provision that would have
`sharply limited courts’ authority to hold a patent unenforceable on the basis
`
`47 157 CONG. REC. S1373 (daily ed. Mar. 8, 2011) (statement of Sen. Kyl).
`48 Leahy-Smith America invents Act, sec. 12, 125 Stat. at 325; see I-LR. REP. No. 112»
`98, at 28 (2011).
`4’ H.R. Rm». No. 112—98, at 28.
`5° Id.
`
`51 For conventional summaries of the features of this new proceeding, see id. at 50, 78;
`157 CONG. REC. S1366 (daily ed. Mar. 8, 2011) (Republican Policy Committee Legisla-
`tive Notice); id. at S1097 (statement of Sen. Hatch); id. at 81378 (statement of Sen. Kyl).
`52 I-LR. REP. No. 112—98, at 50.
`
`53 Id. pt. 1, at 78.
`54 See 157 CONG. REC. S1097 (daily ed. Mar. 2, 2011) (statement of Sen. Hatch).
`55 See 8. 3818, 109th Cong., sec. 4 (2006); see also 153 CONG. REC. S4691 (daily ed.
`Apr. 18, 2007) (statement of Sen. Hatch).
`5“ s. 3818.
`
`
`
`546 THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT BAR JOURNAL VOL. 21, No. 4
`
`of inequitable conduct.” This provision was dropped from the Leahy—Hatch
`bill that was introduced in 2007, but Senator Hatch continued to pursue
`inequitable—conduct reform, arguing that the defense “has been overpleaded
`and has become a drag on the litigation process.”
`In 2009, Senator Hatch secured a commitment from the House and
`Senate bill’s lead sponsors———Senator Leahy and Representative Conyers—to
`include inequitable~conduct reforms in the bill.” Supplemental Examination
`was added to the bill by the Leahy—Sessions managers’ amendment that was
`announced in March 2010.“
`
`57 The Hatch—Leahy bill would have barred courts from holding a patent unenforceable
`because of inequitable conduct if: (1) the patent owner or his agent had an informed good—
`faith belief that the information in question was not material; (2) the patent owner had no
`actual or constructive knowledge of the misconduct in question; or (3) the court had not
`determined that one or more claims in the patent is invalid. See id. sec. 5(c).
`"‘ 153 CONG. REC. S4691 (daily ed. Apr. 18, 2007) (statement of Sen. Hatch); see
`also Patent Reform.‘ 7716 Future of/lmeriazn Innovation: Hearing Before the S. Comm. on I/ae
`judiciary, 110th Cong. 10-11 (2007) [hereinafter 2007 Senate /veering] (statement of Jon
`Dudas, Director, USPTO) (describing impact ofinequitable—conduct litigation on applicant
`behavior); Potent Refiarm Act of2007: Hearing on HR. 1908 Befirre t/or Snlrcomm. on Courts,
`the Internet, andIntellectualProp, 110th Cong. 56 (2007) [hereinafter 2007Home /aezzring]
`(statement of Gary L. Griswold, President and Chief Counsel of Intellectual Property, 3M
`Innovative Properties) (“Defendants now shamelessly second—guess everything that is said to
`the PTO in obtaining a patent .
`.
`. There is always fodder for the contention that .
`.
`. informa-
`tion .
`.
`. was somehow wrongfully withheld”); I-I.R. REP. No. 112-98, at 50 (2011); S. REP.
`No. 110-259, at 59—62 (2008) (additional Views of Sens. Specter and Hatch) (criticizing
`the inequitable—conduct doctrine’s low standard for showing materiality); 155 CONG. REC.
`S2715 (daily ed. Mar. 3, 2009) (statement ofSen. Hatch) (“The inequitable conduct defense
`is frequently pled, rarely proven, and always drives up the cost of litigation tremendouslyf’).
`59 See 155 CONG. REC. S2715—16 (daily ed. Apr. 18, 2007) (statement of Sen. Hatch)
`(“For years I have been arguing .
`.
`. [that] we must take steps to ensure that the inequitable
`.
`.
`conduct doctrine is [reformed] .
`. Chairman Leahy and Chairman Conyers both know of
`my strong interest in this area and have agreed to incorporate changes to the law.”); see also
`id. at 32707 (statement of Sen. Leahy) (“I understand that the issue of inequitable conduct
`is very important to Senator Hatch, and I will work with him to address any statutory
`changes”); 155 CONG. REC. E537 (daily ed. Mar. 3, 2009) (statement of Rep. Conyers) (“It
`is my intention to work closely with [Sen. Hatch} to craft language on inequitable conduct
`that can be incorporated into the bill at a later time.”).
`6° See S. 515, 1 11th Cong. (2009) (amendment in the nature ofa substitute). As noted in
`Part I of this Article, see Matal, supra note 1, at 443 n.54, 444 n.58 and accompanying text,
`there is no official public Version of the 2010 managers’ amendment, but that amendment
`is substantially identical to S. 23, 112th Cong. (2011) (introduced bill).
`
`8
`
`
`
`LEGISLATIVE HISTORY or THE AMERICA INVENTS ACT: PART II or II
`
`547
`
`During the 2011 Senate debates, Senators Hatch and Kyl spoke about
`the policy goals that are intended to be served by allowing supplemental
`examination of patents.“ Senator Hatch stated that:
`the su
`lemental examination rovision satisfies alon —felt needinthe atent communi
`P
`g
`P
`PP
`to be able to identify whether a patent would be deemed flawed if it ever went to
`litigation and enables patentees to take corrective action. This process enhances the
`uali of atents, thereb
`romotin
`reater certain
`for atentees and the ublic.“
`‘1
`P
`8 8
`P
`
`Senator Kyl noted that under the law at that time, “even minor and
`inadvertent errors in the patent application process can lead to expensive and
`very unpredictable .
`.
`. inequitable conduct litigation.” He then went on to
`describe scenarios in which supplemental examination would be particularly
`beneficial to small and start—up businesses:
`researchers cannot afford to
`It is often the case that startu com anies or universit
`Y
`P
`P
`hire the ve
`best atent la
`ers. Their atents are rosecuted b an in—house attorne
`Y
`P
`WY
`P
`P
`Y
`W
`who does a good enough job but who is unfamiliar with all of the sharp corners and
`pitfalls of the inequitable conduct doctrine, such as the need to present cumulative
`studies and prior art. Later, when more legally sophisticated investors evaluate the
`patent for potential investment or purchase, these minor flaws in prosecution can
`deter the investor from purchasing or funding the development of the invention. An
`investor would not risk s endin hundreds of millions of dollars to develo a roduct
`P
`3
`P P
`if a potential inequitable conduct attack may wipe out the whole investment.
`
`Parties on both sides of these exchanges report that investors routinely walk away
`from inventions because of their inability under current law to resolve uncertainties
`whether a flaw in prosecution was, in fact, inequitable conduct. These decisions not
`to invest in a new invention represent important new cures never tested and brought
`to market and other important inventions that are never developed.
`
`The authorization ofsupplemental examination will result in path—breaking inventions
`being developed and brought to market that otherwise would have lingered on the
`shelf because oflegal uncertainty over the patent. It will ensure that small and startup
`companies with important and valid patents will not be denied investment capital
`because of legal technicalities.“
`
`The final Committee Report also described the AIA’s exceptions to § 2573
`guarantee that a patent that survives supplemental examination will be immune
`from an inequitable—conduct attack based on the information presented in the
`supplemental examination.” The Report noted that no immunity will attach
`if there have been “prior allegations involving certain new drug applications
`
`61 See 157 CONG. REC. S1097 (daily ed. Mar. 2, 2011) (statement of Sen. Hatch); id. at
`85319 (daily ed. Sept. 6, 2011) (statement of Sen. Kyl).
`62
`Ia’. at S1097 (daily ed. Mar. 2, 2011) (statement of Sen. Hatch).
`63 Id. at S5319 (daily ed. Sept. 6, 2011) (statement of Sen. Kyl).
`64 Id.
`
`‘5 H.R. R1=.p.No. 112-98, at 78 (2011).
`
`9
`
`
`
`548
`
`THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT BAR JOURNAL VOL. 2:, No. 4
`
`(21 USC§. 355()')),’’ or if the patent owner has brought “patent enforcement
`actions before the International Trade Commission or a [U.S.] district court,
`unless the supplemental examination was concluded before the date on which
`the action is brought.”“
`Senator Hatch further elaborated on this second exception, noting that:
`[t]he request [for supplemental examination] must be made before litigation [by the
`patent owner] commences. Therefore, supplemental examination cannot be used to
`remedy flaws first brought to light in the course oflitigation, nor does it interfere with
`the court’s ability to address inequitable conduct.”
`
`Both Representative Lamar Smith and Senator Kyl also commented during
`the 2011 debates on subsection (e) of § 257.“ Subsection (e) requires that, if
`the Director discovers during the course ofthe supplemental examination that
`a “material fraud on the Oflice may have been committed in connection with
`the patent,” the Director “shall .
`.
`. refer the matter to the Attorney General
`for such further action as the Attorney General may deem appropriate.”
`In an extension of remarks submitted on the day of the House passage
`of the AIA, Representative Smith indicated that: (1) subsection (e) is not
`intended to expand USPTO’s investigatory duties; (2) even if the USPTO
`makes a referral to the Attorney General, it must conclude the supplemental
`examination; and (3) the Director cannot delegate to his subordinate employees
`his duty to refer cases to the Attorney General pursuant to subsection (e).7°
`Representative Smith stated:
`this provision is not intended to impose any obligation on the PTO beyond those it
`already undertakes, or require it to investigate or prosecute any such potential fraud.
`Subparagraph (Q1711 is neither an investigative nor an adjudicative provision, and, as
`
`66 Id. The Report also stated that no immunity will attach in “instances in which fraud on
`the USPTO was practiced or attempted.” Ia’. However, this particular exception, which was
`added to supplemental examination by an amendment offered by Representative Goodlatte
`in the House Judiciary Committee markup, see id. at 60-61, was later stripped from the
`bill on the House floor by the managers’ amendment. See 157 CONG. REC. H4450 (daily
`ed. June 22, 2011) (text of managers’ amendment). Compare H.R. 1249, 112th Cong., sec.
`12, § 2S7(c) (2) (C) (as reported in House, June. 1, 2011), with H.R. 1249, 112th Cong,
`sec. 12, § 257(c)(2) (as passed by House).
`67 157 CONG. REC. S1097 (daily ed. Mar. 2, 2011) (statement of Sen. Hatch).
`68 See id. at E1182 (daily ecl. June 23, 2011) (statement of Rep. Smith); id. at 85429
`(daily ed. Sept. 8, 2011) (statement of Sen. Kyl).
`69 Leahy—Smith America Invents Act, sec. 12 § 257(6), 125 Stat. at 326-27.
`7° See 157 CONG. REC. E1182 (daily ed. June 23, 2011) (statement of Rep. Smith).
`71 Representative Smith mistakenly referred to subparagraph (C) of subsection (c) (2),
`where an earlier provision relating to fraud on the Oflice had been located. See H.R. 1249,
`112th Cong., sec. 12, § 257(c)(2) (C) (as reported in House, June. 1, 2011). His remarks
`are obviously intended to be directed at subsection (e).
`
`10
`
`
`
`LEGISLATIVE HISTORY OF THE AMERICA INVENTS ACT: PART II or II
`
`549
`
`such, is not intended to expand the authority or obligation of the PTO to investigate
`or adjudicate allegations of fraud lodged by private parties.
`
`Further, any referral under this subjection is not meant to relieve the Director from
`his obligation to conclude the supplemental examination or reexamination proceeding
`ordered under this section. It is important for the process to proceed through conclusion
`of reexamination, so that any claims that are invalid can be properly cancelled.
`
`[Finally,] [t]he decision to make referrals under subsection (c)m] is not meant to be
`delegated to examiners or other agents of the PTO, but rather is a determination that
`should only be made by the Director himself or herself.”
`
`When the House—passed MA was brought to the Senate floor in September
`of 201 1, Senator Kyl noted that Representative Smith’s extension of remarks
`had “clarifie[d] the purpose and effect of [new subsection (e)],” and stated
`that “[i]n light of [Representative Srnith’s] remarks, I find the addition
`unobjectionable.”" Senator Kyl also added that, “in evaluating whether a fraud
`is ‘material’ for purpose of referral, the Director should look to the Federal
`Circuit’s decision in Ykerasense, Inc. 1/. Becton, Dickinson 6?" C0. ’’75
`During the March 2011 Senate debates on the AIA, Senator Kyl also
`commented on the fact that the AIA provides only that a patent may not
`later be held unenforceable in civil litigation on the basis of information that
`was evaluated in a supplemental examination.” He noted that:
`
`[n] ew section 257(c)(1) follows the usual practice of referring to inequitable-conduct
`attacks in terms of unenforceability, rather than invalidity, though courts have in the
`past used the terms interchangeably when describing the effect offraud or inequitable
`conduct on a patent."
`
`72 Representative Smith presumably intended to refer to subsection (e). See id
`7” 157 come. REC. E1182 (daily ed. June 23, 2011) (statement of Rep. Smith). It should
`be noted that nothing on the face of § 257(6) precludes the Director from delegating the
`decision to make such referrals, and elsewhere in the same section, responsibilities assigned
`to the Director obviously are intended to be delegated. See, e.g., Leahy—Smith America In-
`vents Act, sec. 12(a), § 257(a), 125 Stat. at 325 (stating that “the Director shall conduct the
`
`supplemental examination”).
`74 157 CONG. REC. S5429 (daily ed. Sept. 8, 2011) (statement of Sen. Kyl).
`75 Id. (citing 649 Efid 1276, 1291 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (“[T]he materiality required to es-
`tablish inequitable conduct is but—for materiality.”)).
`75 See id. at S1378 (daily ed. Mar. 8, 2011) (statement of Sen. Kyl).
`77 Id. In support ofthis proposition, Senator Kyl quoted].1? Stevens 69“ Co. 2/. Lex 7Z=xLz‘d.,
`Inc, 747 F.2d 1553 (Fed. Cir. 1984). That case held that “[w]hether the holding should
`be one of invalidity or unenforceability has had no practical significance in cases thus far
`presented to this court.” Id. at 1560; H.R. REP. NO. 112—98, at 50 (2011) (“Patents are
`unenforceable and invalid if they are obtained through fraud”).
`
`11
`
`
`
`550 THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT BAR JOURNAL VOL. 21, No. 4
`
`Senator Kyl went on to state that:
`
`The term [unenforceability] should be considered to be used interchangeably With
`“invalidity” in this bill as well. Obviously, Congress would not create a procedure for
`reexarnining patents that allowed them to be protected against subsequent inequitable-
`conduct challenges ofunenforceability, only to allow the same patents to be challenged
`on the same basis and declared invalid on the basis of inequitable conduct.“
`
`During his March 8, 2011, remarks, Senator Kyl also responded to critics
`who alleged that the authorization of supplemental examination would
`“irnmunize misconduct.” He argued that “the Patent Office has ample
`authority to sanction such misconduct.” In particular, Senator Kyl noted
`that (1) “the Office can bar an attorney from appearing before the Ofhce if
`he has engaged in misconduct in any proceeding before the Office’"“~—and
`that the AIA even extended the statute of limitations for initiating such