New research from the Perryman Group shows that inter partes review (IPRIntellectual Property Rights. Usually associated with formal legal rights such as patent, trademark, and copyright. Intellectual property is a broader term that encompasses knowledge, information, and data considered proprietary whether or not it is formally protected.) is economically beneficial, even if co-pending district court litigation isn’t stayed. The Perryman study, commissioned by Unified Patents, examines IPR’s economic impact, including the difference between staying or continuing on with a co-pending district court case. There are two important findings in this study.
First, when IPRIntellectual Property Rights. Usually associated with formal legal rights such as patent, trademark, and copyright. Intellectual property is a broader term that encompasses knowledge, information, and data considered proprietary whether or not it is formally protected. is conducted in parallel with district court litigation, it still has a positive impact on the overall efficiency of the patent system and the economy. This means that in any analysis focused on the overall efficiency of the patent system or the overall impact on the economy, institution of IPRIntellectual Property Rights. Usually associated with formal legal rights such as patent, trademark, and copyright. Intellectual property is a broader term that encompasses knowledge, information, and data considered proprietary whether or not it is formally protected. is favored even when there is co-pending district court litigation. And since those are the precise factors that the Director of the USPTOUnited States Patent and Trademark Office. See also PTO. is required to consider in prescribing regulations, this study is a signal that regulations that would deny IPRIntellectual Property Rights. Usually associated with formal legal rights such as patent, trademark, and copyright. Intellectual property is a broader term that encompasses knowledge, information, and data considered proprietary whether or not it is formally protected. on the basis of co-pending litigation may well contravene the statutory factors which Congress directed the USPTOUnited States Patent and Trademark Office. See also PTO. to use in rulemaking.
And second, the grant of a stay is associated with significantly greater savings and more positive impact. Over the 2014-2019 period of the Perryman study, around two thirds of requests for stay were granted. But while there were twice as many stayed cases as non-stayed, the Perryman study finds that stayed cases represented nearly fourteen times as much positive economic impact. That means that, for a given case, the positive economic impact of an IPRIntellectual Property Rights. Usually associated with formal legal rights such as patent, trademark, and copyright. Intellectual property is a broader term that encompasses knowledge, information, and data considered proprietary whether or not it is formally protected. is multiplied approximately sevenfold if a stay is granted. That is a strong signal that there should, as many courts believe, be “‘a liberal policy in favor of granting motions to stay’ pending IPRIntellectual Property Rights. Usually associated with formal legal rights such as patent, trademark, and copyright. Intellectual property is a broader term that encompasses knowledge, information, and data considered proprietary whether or not it is formally protected..”
District courts should take this information into consideration when deciding on motions to stay, given the substantial likelihood that a stay would be economically beneficial to all parties involved. But just as importantly, the USPTO’s continued application of the Fintiv precedent threatens the value of IPR. That precedent is based in part on the mistaken belief that co-pending IPRs have a negative impact on the patent system and the economy. And that belief is now shown to be false by the Perryman study. That’s just one more reason that the USPTOUnited States Patent and Trademark Office. See also PTO. should reject the disastrous Fintiv policy put in place under the previous Director and return to instituting technically meritorious reviews regardless of whether co-pending litigation exists. There’s no reason to leave invalid patents in force just because someone is trying to use them in a lawsuit.
After all, if a petition lacked merit, the PTABPatent Trial and Appeal Board. Reviews adverse decisions of examiners on written appeals of applicants and appeals of reexaminations, and conducts inter partes reviews and post-grant reviews. The Board also continues to decide patent interferences, as it was known as the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences (BPAI) before the AIA. wouldn’t need Fintiv to deny it.
