‘The Court’s ruling (i) clarifies that Patent Owners bear no burden for proving that challenged claims are not obvious in response to an instituted IPR Petition, and (ii) counsels that Petitioners must adequately develop arguments during trial to support burdens that the Petitioner alone bears.’
We applaud the court for another exemplary decision. Ignoring for a moment the question of the legality, impartiality and fairness of administrative review of issued patents, in a patent dispute whether in court or admin review the burden should always be on the requestor or defendant to prove that issued claims are invalid -not for the patent owner to prove that they are patentable as that is rarely possible as one can only prove invalidity by the existence of evidence or facts that show the invention was not new or useful when issued. The logical opposite of that to prove validity is to prove that documents for example do not exist and of course logically that is rarely if ever possible. One can only logically prove the existence, not the non existence.
That is one reason why patents are or should be presumed valid in court and why traditionally the decision of an examiner to allow a case is given full faith and credit at the PTO though in present post issue reviews they now ignore those earlier decisions and will even ignore the arguments of the requestor and come up with their own theories of invalidity. In essence, in these admin reviews the PTO becomes the prosecutor, judge and jury. The PTO has thereby breached their duty of impartiality by not placing the burden of proving invalidity on requestors which is where by any application of justice it should rightfully be placed -assuming admin review is legal which we argue it is not. These admin reviews and this practice which places the burden on patentees has given the PTO complete and supreme powers in all phases of an administrative pseudo trial and stood American traditions and jurisprudence on their heads. Until these issues and others we enumerate in our position statement have been Congressionally corrected, inventors and small entities will continue to be illegally and unjustly stripped of our property rights and invention theft will continue to be permitted, and even encouraged. Like Joan of Arc, all inventors are getting out of these administrative pseudo trials is a flaming stake.
For our position and the changes we advocate to truly reform the patent system, or to join our effort, please visit us at https://aminventorsforjustice.wordpress.com/category/our-position/
or, contact us at firstname.lastname@example.org