Phil Johnson calls for fairness in PTAB proceedings

Managing IP is part of Legal Benchmarking Limited, 1-2 Paris Gardens, London, SE1 8ND

Copyright © Legal Benchmarking Limited and its affiliated companies 2025

Accessibility | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Modern Slavery Statement

Phil Johnson calls for fairness in PTAB proceedings

ptab-web-icon.jpg

In a session at the AIPLA Annual Meeting, David Kappos said that Federal Circuit decisions will show whether the Patent and Trial Appeal Board (PTAB) is on the right track while Phil Johnson stressed that the proceedings must be perceived as fair

Kappos, partner at Cravath Swaine & Moore, and former director of the USPTO, praised the job the PTAB has done in keeping up with its higher-than-expected workload. He said it was too early to assess how the Board is doing in its ­decisions.

“One thing I would say is that the ultimate arbiter of whether the PTAB is getting these things right is going to be the Federal Circuit and, to some extent, the Supreme Court," Kappos said, “We need to reserve judgment and look to the court decisions and also look to the basis of the court decisions. I would see it as OK if the agency gets reversed on close calls, judgment calls on things like 103 decisions. I certainly ­wouldn’t see it as OK if you start getting into ­arbitrary and capricious or abuse of ­discretion kinds of things, though I see no indication that is a problem yet.”

The USPTO asked for feedback on PTAB proceedings and received 37 comments by its deadline last week. Quite a few of the comments raised concerns about the constraints under the proceedings, such as the lack of ability to amend. Many believe the proceedings are weighted too much in petitioners’ favor and are unfair to patent owners.

“What is really at stake here is: how fair are these proceedings going to be perceived as?” Johnson , senior vice-president for intellectual property at Johnson & Johnson, said. “Ultimately if they are perceived as being unfair there will be reactions, whether the reaction is from the Federal Circuit or whether the reaction is from Congress, or whether the reaction is from businesses who say, ‘If every important patent I get can easily be invalidated by taking it into IPR, why should I be doing anything in the patent system? Why shouldn’t I be doing trade secrets or whatever my other alternatives are?

“We all have a strong interest in making sure these proceedings are not only fair but also that they are perceived to be fair. If it may make a difference in perception on the side of fairness, that is something worth going for. These are extremely important issues and I am really glad the PTO has taken the step to go out and get comments. Frankly, if it gets messed up we could lose even more credibility with the patent system itself and that to me is a big long-term risk.”

more from across site and SHARED ros bottom lb

More from across our site

Attorneys explain why there are early signs that the US Supreme Court could rule in favour of ISP Cox in a copyright dispute
A swathe of UPC-related hires suggests firms are taking the forum seriously, as questions over the transitional stage begin
A win for Nintendo in China and King & Spalding hiring a prominent patent litigator were also among the top talking points
Rebecca Newman at Addleshaw Goddard, who live-reported on the seminal dispute, unpicks the trials and tribulations of the case and considers its impact
Attorneys predict how Lululemon’s trade dress and design patent suit against Costco could play out
Lawyers at Linklaters analyse some of the key UPC trends so far, and look ahead to life beyond the transition period
David Rodrigues, who previously worked at an IP boutique, said he may become more involved in transactional work at his new firm
Indian smartphone maker Lava must pay $2.3 million as a security deposit for past sales, as its dispute with Dolby over audio coding SEPs plays out
Powell Gilbert’s opening in Düsseldorf, complete with a new partner hire, continues this summer’s trend of UPC-related lateral movement
IP leaders at Brandsmiths and Bird & Bird, who were on opposing sides at the UK Supreme Court in Iconix v Dream Pairs, unpick the landmark case and its ramifications
Gift this article