Abstract
The creation of a Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) to preside over quasi-trials of patent validity after the fact at the Patent and Trademark Office (“PTO”), raises substantial issues of constitutional law that have far-ranging implications for both patent jury trials in the U.S. Federal district courts, as well as IP trial practice in general. Motions are regularly filed to stay district court litigation to await the outcome of PTAB proceedings. The patent owner therefore stands to be deprived of the right to a jury trial—in an actual case or controversy with a specific accused infringer—due to intervening invalidation of the patent-in-suit by an Article I tribunal acting without benefit of a jury. Hence, the jury trial right in patent cases, and by implication in other IP cases involving trademarks or copyrights, now logically seems in jeopardy of diminution. Success of the new PTAB proceedings in reducing the perceived exposure from patent jury trials, could lead to similar pressure from perennial defendants in copyright- and trademark-based industries to seek relief from perceived cost, delay and capriciousness of jury-trial proceedings; with the result being increasing reliance upon administrative determinations on validity by Article I judges acting without juries.
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
More From: Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice
Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.