Guest Post by Prof. Gregory Dolin (Baltimore). Prof. Dolin recently filed an amicus brief supporting Celgenes arguments that AIA post-issuance review represents an uncompensatedtakings of pre-AIA patent rights.
Since its passage in 2011, the America Invents Act has been subject to numerous Supreme Court decisions. But thus far, the major constitutional challenge to the Act in Oil States Energy Servs v. Greenes Energy Group has failed. But while the Court the, upheld the AIAs post-issuance review system against an Article III challenge, left a major question open. The Oil States Court stated that it was not resolving whether the application the AIA-created procedures to patents issued prior to the AIAs effective date violates the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment. This question is now squarely presented to the Court in Celgene v. Peter. (There are also pendingcases that in addition to the Takings issue raise a Due Process challenge).
Celgene owns two patents generally directed to methods for safely distributing teratogenic or other potentially hazardous drugs while avoiding exposure to a fetus to avoid adverse side effects of the drug. These patents were issued in 2000 and 2001, or more than a decade prior to the enactment of the AIA. These patents were challenged before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) in 2015 in an Inter Partes Review (IPR), and the proceeding resulted in cancellation of all but one of the challenged claims in bothpatents. As with other post-issuance proceedings, but unlike district court litigation, Celgenes patents enjoyed no presumption of validity, and could be cancelled upon preponderance of evidence. Furthermore, in construing Celgenes claims, PTAB utilized the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) approach, as was called for by the then-current rules. The interplay of lower standard of proof for cancellation and the BRI standard, combined with the lack of a meaningful opportunity to amend the claims, left patents challenged in IPR particularly vulnerable. (Since that time, the Patent Office issued new rules to amend its procedures and now measures the claims under the Phillips frameworkthe same standard in use by Article III tribunals).
Celgene challenged this procedure in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, arguing that by applying a different claim construction standard than in district court and denying the patent a previously existent presumption of validity, the America Invents Act retroactively devalued its property rights in their patents and therefore resulted in the constitutionally compensable Taking in violation of the Fifth Amendment. Relying on its two priordecisions, the Federal Circuit rejected the argument, holding that the presumption of validity is not a property right subject to the protection of the Constitution. Additionally, the Federal Circuit held that Celgene suffered no diminution in its property rights because its patents were always subject to ex parte and inter partes reexamination proceedings, both of which use (or used) the preponderance of the evidence standard with respect to patent validity. Celgene sought certiorari and I, together with Professors Kristen Jakobsen Osenga and Irina Manta filed a brief in support of the petition.
The argument we made in favor of Celgene is relatively straightforward. As the Supreme Court recognized timeandagain, a patent is a property right protected by the Takings Clause of the Constitution. In turn, the decision to procure a patent is fundamentally an investment decision which takes into account the likelihood that a patent would be challenged and survive such a challenge. In addition, the decision to disclose the invention and forgo trade secret protection is essentially a tradeoff: the patentee sacrifices the confidentiality of the invention in exchange for the protections of the patent system. (Admittedly, it is not always possible to keep the invention secret, especially if regulatory approval is necessary as in the case of Food and Drug Administrations approval to market drugs or medical devices. Nonetheless, broadly speaking, an inventor has a choice between patent protection and trade secrecy protection). Depending on the robustness of those protections, the scales of the decision on whether to seek a patent may tip one way or another. Thus, the legal regime existing at the time the applicant filed for the patent constitutes the patentees investment-backed expectation.
The legal regime matters, and IPRs couldnt be more different from reexaminations. As my researchshows, the economic impact of the AIA on patent holders has been profound. The reason behind this significant drop in value is that although administrative review procedures have existed for nearly 40 years, these procedures have always been coupled with a patentees unlimited right to amend the claims in order to preserve their validity. Thus, prior to the AIA the patentee knew that if his patent were challenged one of two things will happen. One option was for the dispute to end up in an Article III court where the claim would rise and fall as written, but where the patent would enjoy a presumption of validity. Alternatively, the dispute would be resolved by the Patent Office where the claims would not be presumed valid, but would be subject to amendments for as long as the patentee was willing to continue prosecuting the patent. The AIA fundamentally altered this balance. Under the AIA, claim patentability can be adjudicated by the PTAB without the presumption of validity and without a robust opportunity to amend the claims. (Although the statute does permit claim amendments, these are not as of right, but must be requested by motion to the PTAB. Since October 2017 when the Federal Circuit held that Motions to Amend must be allowed unless the Patent Office carried its burden to show that claims are unpatentable, the PTAB has granted only 16% of such motions (with an additional 6.5% being granted in part). These already low numbers are a significant improvement from the pre-2017 system where the PTAB granted under 3% of such motions.
It should be acknowledged that Celgene did not seek to amend its claims during the PTAB proceedings, which may make it not an ideal vehicle to resolve the takings claim. On the other hand, given PTABs rejectionist approach to motions to amend, it is quite possible that Celgene was among countless patentees who chose not to bother with filing the motions in the first place. (It is worth noting that Celgenes patents were adjudicated prior to October 2017).
The Supreme Court has previously concluded in Ruckelshaus v. Monsanto Co., that when the government changes the terms of the bargain with an individual, such a change can result in a regulatory taking. In Monsanto, the Court held that the Environmental Protection Agencys public disclosure of data voluntarily submitted to the Agency may, in some circumstances, constitute a taking. The Courts analysis was centered on the legal rules governing the use and disclosure of such data and the nature of the expectations of the submitter at the time the data were submitted. The Court held that the Governments guarantee at the time of submission that the submitted data would remain a trade secret and not be disclosed to third parties formed the basis of a reasonable investment-backed expectation and played a role in the property holders decision whether to submit the data to the EPA in the first place. Celgenes situation is analogous. When it had to make a decision whether or not to obtain a patent or rely on trade secrecy, it made the decision by reference to the then existing government guarantees of patent protections. Changes to that regime are what constitutes a compensable taking.
Before closing, it should be acknowledged that there is a significant issue that is antecedent to the question presented in Celgenes petition. That is whether the Federal Circuit has jurisdiction to hear such claims absent filing of a claim for compensation in the Court of Federal Claims (CFC) and if so, how the Claims Court is supposed to evaluate the value of property lost. That question is embedded in a separate petition before the Supreme Court. The Federal Circuit has recently concluded that the CFC does have jurisdiction to hear such claims, even if on the merits it must reject them. The Government has advanced a contrary view (which the CFC endorsed, though this endorsement is at odds with the Federal Circuits later opinion). It may be that this issue may need to be resolved before (or concurrently with) the issue presented by Celgene.
In sum, the Supreme Court should answer the question whether retroactive application of the AIAs post issuance review procedures to patents issued prior to the passage of the AIA, and which results in their invalidation, constitutes a taking within the meaning of the Fifth Amendmenta question the Court explicitly left open in Oil States. And in my view, the answer should be yes.
View post:
Cancelling Pre-AIA patents and the Takings Clause - Patently-O
- Fifth Amendment - The Text, Origins, and Meaning of the ... - April 26th, 2014 [April 26th, 2014]
- 5th Amendment - Revolutionary War and Beyond - April 26th, 2014 [April 26th, 2014]
- Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution ... - April 26th, 2014 [April 26th, 2014]
- Justices suggest public employees' testimony is protected - April 29th, 2014 [April 29th, 2014]
- HST 330 fifth amendment presentation - Video - May 1st, 2014 [May 1st, 2014]
- Police not sure if Sioux City murder suspect invoked 5th Amendment rights - May 3rd, 2014 [May 3rd, 2014]
- Christie Ally Samson Refuses to Give Documents to Lawmakers - May 4th, 2014 [May 4th, 2014]
- House votes to hold ex-IRS official in contempt - May 8th, 2014 [May 8th, 2014]
- House votes to hold ex-IRS official Lois Lerner in contempt of Congress - May 8th, 2014 [May 8th, 2014]
- House holds Lois Lerner in contempt - May 8th, 2014 [May 8th, 2014]
- House votes to hold former IRS official in contempt - May 8th, 2014 [May 8th, 2014]
- Articles about Fifth Amendment - Los Angeles Times - May 9th, 2014 [May 9th, 2014]
- Former PA Chairman Samson Pleads Fifth - Video - May 9th, 2014 [May 9th, 2014]
- GOP-led House votes to hold former IRS official in contempt - May 12th, 2014 [May 12th, 2014]
- No plans to arrest Lois Lerner, John Boehner says - May 13th, 2014 [May 13th, 2014]
- Im not going to testify: Witness pleads Fifth Amendment during Bangor triple murder trial - May 13th, 2014 [May 13th, 2014]
- Attorney: Defense told Corso will take Fifth - May 16th, 2014 [May 16th, 2014]
- Spokane County workers use Fifth Amendment in back-dating case - Thu, 22 May 2014 PST - May 22nd, 2014 [May 22nd, 2014]
- Shawn Vestal: County permit clerical mishap raises eyebrows - Fri, 23 May 2014 PST - May 23rd, 2014 [May 23rd, 2014]
- Sexual abuse measure could lead to wrongful convictions, attorneys say - August 31st, 2014 [August 31st, 2014]
- 5th Amendment - Laws.com - August 31st, 2014 [August 31st, 2014]
- Wildstein takes the 5th - Video - August 31st, 2014 [August 31st, 2014]
- Fifth Amendment (United States Constitution ... - September 2nd, 2014 [September 2nd, 2014]
- New bill a powerful tool to imprison sex offenders - September 3rd, 2014 [September 3rd, 2014]
- Cristin Milioti in The Good Wife - Julianna Margulies - Video - September 4th, 2014 [September 4th, 2014]
- Kansas Supreme Court: Grand jury violated man's Fifth Amendment rights - September 6th, 2014 [September 6th, 2014]
- Attorney Gwendolyn Solomon Petitions United States Supreme Court to Review Tenth Circuits Decision in Case of the IRP6 - September 9th, 2014 [September 9th, 2014]
- Texas man's conviction overturned because of Fifth Amendment violation - September 10th, 2014 [September 10th, 2014]
- Cop Says 'You Must Be Doing Something Wrong if You Invoke Your Rights' (Video) - September 12th, 2014 [September 12th, 2014]
- Public be damned Litchfield latest example - September 14th, 2014 [September 14th, 2014]
- Volokh Conspiracy: What the posse comitatus case might mean for the future of the exclusionary rule - September 15th, 2014 [September 15th, 2014]
- Fifth Amendment - Video - September 15th, 2014 [September 15th, 2014]
- Top 5 Constitution-Related Searches at FindLaw.com - September 19th, 2014 [September 19th, 2014]
- The Fifth Amendment Eminent Domain - Video - September 19th, 2014 [September 19th, 2014]
- Apple And Google Will Force A Legal Battle Over The Privacy Of Your Passcode - September 20th, 2014 [September 20th, 2014]
- Civics- The Fifth Amendment (Sarah Hutchinson) - Video - September 20th, 2014 [September 20th, 2014]
- Google and Apple Wont Unlock Your Phone, But a Court Can Make You Do It - September 22nd, 2014 [September 22nd, 2014]
- GOP fumes over Lerner remarks - September 23rd, 2014 [September 23rd, 2014]
- Assistant to DeKalb CEO Ellis invokes 5th Amendment 30 times - September 23rd, 2014 [September 23rd, 2014]
- GOP fumes as Lois Lerner talks to press but snubs Congress - September 24th, 2014 [September 24th, 2014]
- Cry us a river, Lois Lerner - September 24th, 2014 [September 24th, 2014]
- Can You Go to Jail for Refusing to Testify? - September 25th, 2014 [September 25th, 2014]
- Fifth Amendment Projectb - Video - September 25th, 2014 [September 25th, 2014]
- The Commander Cody Band - Take The Fifth Amendment - 8/5/1977 - Convention Hall (Official) - Video - September 27th, 2014 [September 27th, 2014]
- Joey Gallo Takes The Fifth Amendment - Video - September 29th, 2014 [September 29th, 2014]
- Batavia High School teacher John Dryden retires from school district - October 3rd, 2014 [October 3rd, 2014]
- Batavia High School teacher John Dryden retires - October 4th, 2014 [October 4th, 2014]
- The Fifth Amendment Please Don't Leave Me Now - Video - October 6th, 2014 [October 6th, 2014]
- Man Denied Fifth Amendment While In Court Wearing Anti-Police Shirt, Still Won His Case (Video) - October 7th, 2014 [October 7th, 2014]
- Batavia teacher previously involved in Fifth Amendment dispute retires - October 7th, 2014 [October 7th, 2014]
- INFORMUCATE: THE FIFTH AMENDMENT - Video - October 8th, 2014 [October 8th, 2014]
- Fairholme Funds Appeals Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac Verdict - October 10th, 2014 [October 10th, 2014]
- Fresno Police Officer violated fifth amendment at a dui checkpoint. - Video - October 10th, 2014 [October 10th, 2014]
- Code cases: Police want phone access, but some pass - October 12th, 2014 [October 12th, 2014]
- Fresno Police Officer violated fifth amendment at a dui checkpoint. part 2 - Video - October 12th, 2014 [October 12th, 2014]
- Property Rights | Century Law Group - Video - October 20th, 2014 [October 20th, 2014]
- Agents questioned, Askar takes the Fifth in Trombetta hearing - October 21st, 2014 [October 21st, 2014]
- Scott and Crist have heated and personal final debate before November election - October 22nd, 2014 [October 22nd, 2014]
- Detective dodges questions about allegations made during rape investigation - October 25th, 2014 [October 25th, 2014]
- Disciplinary hearing for SB officer moved to later date - Video - October 27th, 2014 [October 27th, 2014]
- Judge Rules Suspect Can Be Required To Unlock Phone With Fingerprint - October 31st, 2014 [October 31st, 2014]
- Virginia judge: Police can demand a suspect unlock a phone with a fingerprint - October 31st, 2014 [October 31st, 2014]
- Court rules: Touch ID is not protected by the Fifth Amendment but Passcodes are - October 31st, 2014 [October 31st, 2014]
- Virginia Court: LEOs Can Force You To Provide Fingerprint To Unlock Your Phone - November 1st, 2014 [November 1st, 2014]
- Civil Rights and Civil Liberties - Fifth Amendment - Shh! The Right to Remain Silent - Video - November 1st, 2014 [November 1st, 2014]
- Your Fingerprints Belong To Us: Iphone Users Forfeit 5th Amendment - Video - November 2nd, 2014 [November 2nd, 2014]
- All Your Fingerprints Are Belong To Us: iPhone Users Forfeit Fifth Amendment - Video - November 2nd, 2014 [November 2nd, 2014]
- Log into Tax-News+ - November 4th, 2014 [November 4th, 2014]
- Editorial: Applying the Fifth Amendment in the era of smartphones - November 4th, 2014 [November 4th, 2014]
- Volokh Conspiracy: Virginia state trial court ruling on the Fifth Amendment and smart phones - November 4th, 2014 [November 4th, 2014]
- Fingerprints: iPhone Users Forfeit Fifth Amendment. - Video - November 4th, 2014 [November 4th, 2014]
- New ruling may affect police access to smartphones - Video - November 6th, 2014 [November 6th, 2014]
- Why the Constitution Can Protect Passwords But Not Fingerprint Scans - November 7th, 2014 [November 7th, 2014]
- Virginia state trial court ruling on the Fifth Amendment ... - November 7th, 2014 [November 7th, 2014]
- Is taking the fifth amendment a bad idea? - Video - November 7th, 2014 [November 7th, 2014]
- IT Security TV Show 4 November 2014 - iPhone Users Forfeit Fifth Amendment - Video - November 7th, 2014 [November 7th, 2014]
- the fifth amendment happy parody project song for connections - Video - November 8th, 2014 [November 8th, 2014]
- 13-year-olds murder conviction overturned - November 11th, 2014 [November 11th, 2014]
- Your Fifth Amendment Rights DO NOT Cover Biometrics - Video - November 11th, 2014 [November 11th, 2014]
- Philadelphia charter school officials pleaded Fifth 77 times - November 12th, 2014 [November 12th, 2014]