Inter partes review

And so I think especially for small inventors and new businesses, it was a legitimate problem to say, how do we resolve these issues more efficiently and you know i think it was a great idea that that an implementation went a little bit off the tracks and and so you had too many instances where a patent was being challenged in parallel proceedings rather than alternative proceedings and then the changes in the burden and there's there's too many things that that went into that that kind of gave it as a second opportunity to knock down a patent rather than reinforce a patent is is a reliable property right you know the fact that you you know at the time when it was being debated a second window and you know i think a lot of people could get around and understood much like the european system you have an opposition period or you have a window for a pgr that makes complete sense to me the fact you can bring an ipr at any point in time i think was a little bit in especially in hindsight a little bit of a miss on a policy side just because you you never get rid of that exposure and then the new administration has really done a lot of work to try to eliminate the kind of the parallel proceedings in the in the in the double jeopardy if you will but you know i think that the statute itself probably could have been a little better in in terms of pick a venue either you go to the p tab or you go to district court but going to both It's problematic.

During my time at Lilly, I had a patent that went all the way up through the district court, up through the federal circuit, had 10 IPRs, go through the IPR, back to the federal circuit.

I mean, just the unending, never really being 100% confident that you're not going to have a stray judge, a stray PTAB panel, knock your patent down after years and years and years of litigation.

And the Federal Circuit, when an issue came to it, I can't remember the case name, you know, basically said, well, the standard's different and these things can coexist.

This is a very, very public product, very, very widely used, very, very big defendant.

And in an ex parte re-exam, and also I think in IPR, they referenced a bunch of technical disclosure bulletins.

And these things were gibberish.

These were less well-written than the ones I'd seen before.