Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%

Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.

The Intellectual Property StrategistKickerFeaturesTopicsCommercial LawLitigationSectionsNewsLJN Newsletters

Into the Dark: Patent Trend Post America Invents Act and <i>Alice</i>

By Kean J. DeCarlo
January 31, 2016

Ah, the good old days. When the America Invents Act (AIA; http://1.usa.gov/19AoMZ2) was being pushed through Congress in 2011, proponents of the proposed changes expounded on the virtues of a system that mirrored the patent practices of the majority of the industrialized world. The switch to a “first to file” system, the introduction of more robust U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) methodologies for challenging the validity of issued patents, and the changes to the fundamental statues governing novelty and obviousness were all supposed to provide an enhanced degree of certainty for businesses in their patent portfolio. Instead, the unforeseen consequences of both the AIA and the seminal 2014 Supreme Court decision in Alice v. CLS Bank (Alice), 573 U.S. ___, 134 S. Ct. 2347 (2014), have created a hostile environment for patent portfolios, which has negative implications for investment in innovation and startups.

It is axiomatic in commerce that money will follow opportunity, which is evidenced by the expanding use of the inter partes review process that was introduced in the AIA. Originally, the IPR process under the AIA was introduced to establish a faster and less expensive way to confirm the validity of a patent. It was anticipated that IPRs would be used to help eliminate weak patents that were being asserted by patent challengers, including the much maligned non-practicing entities (“patent trolls”). Those who challenge on the basis of a patent of uncertain scope would rather assume the risk of losing in a timely and efficient USPTO administrative proceeding, than to face losing in a federal court after spending a small fortune.

This premium content is locked for LJN Newsletters subscribers only

  • Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
  • Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
  • Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts

For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473

Read These Next
The DOJ's Corporate Enforcement Policy: One Year Later Image

The DOJ's Criminal Division issued three declinations since the issuance of the revised CEP a year ago. Review of these cases gives insight into DOJ's implementation of the new policy in practice.

Use of Deferred Prosecution Agreements In White Collar Investigations Image

This article discusses the practical and policy reasons for the use of DPAs and NPAs in white-collar criminal investigations, and considers the NDAA's new reporting provision and its relationship with other efforts to enhance transparency in DOJ decision-making.

The DOJ's New Parameters for Evaluating Corporate Compliance Programs Image

The parameters set forth in the DOJ's memorandum have implications not only for the government's evaluation of compliance programs in the context of criminal charging decisions, but also for how defense counsel structure their conference-room advocacy seeking declinations or lesser sanctions in both criminal and civil investigations.

CLE Shouldn't Be the Only Mandatory Training for Attorneys Image

Each stage of an attorney's career offers opportunities for a curriculum that addresses both the individual's and the firm's need to drive success.

A defendant in a patent infringement suit may, during discovery and prior to a <i>Markman</i> hearing, compel the plaintiff to produce claim charts, claim constructions, and element-by-element infringement analyses.