In)valid Patents

IF 1 3区 社会学 Q2 LAW Notre Dame Law Review Pub Date : 2016-12-19 DOI:10.2139/SSRN.2692614
Paul R. Gugliuzza
{"title":"In)valid Patents","authors":"Paul R. Gugliuzza","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.2692614","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Increasingly, accused infringers challenge a patent’s validity in two different forums: in litigation in federal court and in post-issuance review at the Patent and Trademark Office (PTO). These parallel proceedings have produced conflicting and controversial results. For example, in one recent case, a district court rejected a challenge to a patent’s validity and awarded millions of dollars in damages for infringement. The Federal Circuit initially affirmed those rulings, ending the litigation over the patent’s validity. In a subsequent appeal about royalties owed by the infringer, however, the Federal Circuit vacated the entire judgment — including the validity ruling and damages award it had previously affirmed — because the PTO had since decided that the patent was invalid. The Federal Circuit reasoned that only “final” court judgments are immune from the effects of PTO review and, because of the open issue about royalties, no final judgment existed when the PTO issued its conflicting decision on patent validity.The Federal Circuit’s stringent conception of finality, which this article terms the “absolute finality” rule, raises serious questions of judicial economy, fairness, and separation of powers. Among other things, it allows accused infringers multiple opportunities to defeat liability, permits an administrative agency to effectively nullify decisions of Article III courts, and incentivizes courts to abstain from hearing patent cases altogether, at least until the PTO reconsiders the patent’s validity. That said, some inefficiency or unfairness is inevitable when two different government bodies can evaluate the validity of the same patent, and the absolute finality rule, if nothing else, provides a relatively bright-line test. But it is not the only way to mediate disagreements between the courts and the PTO. This article, in addition to identifying, describing, and critiquing the absolute finality rule, explores several other options for providing greater certainty about patent validity.","PeriodicalId":47176,"journal":{"name":"Notre Dame Law Review","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.0000,"publicationDate":"2016-12-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Notre Dame Law Review","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.2692614","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

Increasingly, accused infringers challenge a patent’s validity in two different forums: in litigation in federal court and in post-issuance review at the Patent and Trademark Office (PTO). These parallel proceedings have produced conflicting and controversial results. For example, in one recent case, a district court rejected a challenge to a patent’s validity and awarded millions of dollars in damages for infringement. The Federal Circuit initially affirmed those rulings, ending the litigation over the patent’s validity. In a subsequent appeal about royalties owed by the infringer, however, the Federal Circuit vacated the entire judgment — including the validity ruling and damages award it had previously affirmed — because the PTO had since decided that the patent was invalid. The Federal Circuit reasoned that only “final” court judgments are immune from the effects of PTO review and, because of the open issue about royalties, no final judgment existed when the PTO issued its conflicting decision on patent validity.The Federal Circuit’s stringent conception of finality, which this article terms the “absolute finality” rule, raises serious questions of judicial economy, fairness, and separation of powers. Among other things, it allows accused infringers multiple opportunities to defeat liability, permits an administrative agency to effectively nullify decisions of Article III courts, and incentivizes courts to abstain from hearing patent cases altogether, at least until the PTO reconsiders the patent’s validity. That said, some inefficiency or unfairness is inevitable when two different government bodies can evaluate the validity of the same patent, and the absolute finality rule, if nothing else, provides a relatively bright-line test. But it is not the only way to mediate disagreements between the courts and the PTO. This article, in addition to identifying, describing, and critiquing the absolute finality rule, explores several other options for providing greater certainty about patent validity.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
在有效的专利
越来越多的被指控侵权者在两个不同的场合挑战专利的有效性:联邦法院的诉讼和专利商标局(PTO)发布后的审查。这些并行的程序产生了相互矛盾和有争议的结果。例如,在最近的一个案例中,地方法院驳回了对专利有效性的质疑,并判给侵权赔偿金数百万美元。联邦巡回法院最初维持了这些裁决,结束了有关该专利有效性的诉讼。然而,在随后关于侵权人所欠的版税的上诉中,联邦巡回法院撤销了整个判决——包括它之前确认的有效性裁决和损害赔偿裁决——因为专利商标局已经决定该专利无效。联邦巡回法院的理由是,只有“最终”法院判决才不受专利商标局审查的影响,而且,由于专利使用费的公开问题,当专利商标局发布关于专利有效性的相互矛盾的决定时,不存在最终判决。联邦巡回法院严格的终局性概念,即本文所称的“绝对终局性”规则,引发了司法经济、公平和三权分立的严重问题。除此之外,它允许被指控的侵权者有多种机会来逃避责任,允许行政机构有效地废除第三条法院的决定,并激励法院完全放弃审理专利案件,至少在专利商标局重新考虑专利的有效性之前。也就是说,当两个不同的政府机构可以评估同一项专利的有效性时,一些效率低下或不公平是不可避免的,而绝对终局规则,如果没有别的,提供了一个相对清晰的界限测试。但这并不是调解法院和专利商标局之间分歧的唯一途径。本文除了识别、描述和批评绝对终局性规则之外,还探讨了提供更大确定性的专利有效性的其他几种选择。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.20
自引率
11.10%
发文量
0
期刊介绍: In 1925, a group of eager and idealistic students founded the Notre Dame Lawyer. Its name was changed in 1982 to the Notre Dame Law Review, but all generations have remained committed to the original founders’ vision of a law review “synonymous with respect for law, and jealous of any unjust attacks upon it.” Today, the Law Review maintains its tradition of excellence, and its membership includes some of the most able and distinguished judges, professors, and practitioners in the country. Entirely student edited, the Law Review offers its members an invaluable occasion for training in precise analysis of legal problems and in clear and cogent presentation of legal issues.
期刊最新文献
Préface Does Docket Size Matter? Revisiting Empirical Accounts of the Supreme Court's Incredibly Shrinking Docket Prior Art in the District Court Acknowledgments The Juggler of Notre Dame and the Medievalizing of Modernity. Volume 6: War and Peace, Sex and Violence
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1