Tafas v. Dudas et al

Filing 142

Memorandum in Support re 133 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by SmithKline Beecham Corporation, SmithKline Beecham PLC, Glaxo Group Limited. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1-1# 2 Exhibit 1-2# 3 Exhibit 1-3# 4 Exhibit 1-4# 5 Exhibit 1-5# 6 Exhibit 1-6# 7 Exhibit 1-7# 8 Exhibit 1-8# 9 Exhibit 2# 10 Exhibit 3# 11 Exhibit 4# 12 Exhibit 5# 13 Exhibit 6# 14 Exhibit 7# 15 Exhibit 8# 16 Exhibit 9# 17 Exhibit 10# 18 Exhibit 11# 19 Exhibit 12# 20 Exhibit 13# 21 Exhibit 14# 22 Exhibit 15# 23 Exhibit 16# 24 Exhibit 17# 25 Exhibit 18# 26 Exhibit 19# 27 Exhibit 20# 28 Exhibit 21# 29 Exhibit 22# 30 Exhibit 23# 31 Exhibit 24-1# 32 Exhibit 24-2# 33 Exhibit 24-3# 34 Exhibit 24-4# 35 Exhibit 25# 36 Exhibit 26-1# 37 Exhibit 26-2)(Reilly, Craig)

Tafas v. Dudas et al

Doc. 142

Case 1:07-cv-00846-JCC-TRJ

Document 142

Filed 12/20/2007

Page 1 of 58

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA Alexandria Division ____________________________________ : : : Plaintiff, : : v. : : JON W. DUDAS, et al., : : Defendants. : ____________________________________: TRIANTAFYLLOS TAFAS,

1:07cv846 (JCC/TRJ)

CONSOLIDATED WITH ____________________________________ : SMITHKLINE BEECHAM : CORPORATION, : d/b/a GLAXOSMITHKLINE, et al., : : Plaintiffs, : : v. : 1:07cv1008 (JCC/TRJ) : JON W. DUDAS, et al., : : Defendants. : ____________________________________: MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF GLAXOSMITHKLINE'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Dockets.Justia.com

Case 1:07-cv-00846-JCC-TRJ

Document 142

Filed 12/20/2007

Page 2 of 58

TABLE OF CONTENTS Page TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ........................................................................................................ III I. II. III. INTRODUCTION. ..............................................................................................................1 OVERVIEW OF LEGAL DEFECTS IN THE FINAL RULES. ........................................4 STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED FACTS. .......................................................................7 A. B. C. IV. V. GSK Spends Up To One Billion Dollars Or More Researching And Developing A New Drug. ........................................................................................7 GSK Relies On Strong Patent Protection To Recoup Its Significant Investments. .............................................................................................................8 The Current Status Of Some Of GSK's Pending Patent Applications. ...................9

IMPORTANCE OF PRIORITY DATE TO PATENT APPLICATIONS. .........................9 STATUTORY AND REGULATORY BACKGROUND.................................................12 A. B. The PTO's Proposed Rules....................................................................................12 The PTO's Final Rules...........................................................................................14 1. The Final Rules Arbitrarily And Mechanically Limit Patent Applicants To Only Two Continuing Applications Without A Petition And Showing. ...............................................................................14 The Final Rules Arbitrarily And Mechanically Limit Patent Applicants To One RCE Without A Petition And Showing......................15 The Final Rules Arbitrarily And Mechanically Limit The Number Of Claims An Applicant May Prosecute. ..................................................15

2. 3. VI. VII.

LEGAL STANDARD FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT...................................................16 GSK IS ENTITLED TO JUDGMENT AS A MATTER OF LAW ON ALL CAUSES OF ACTION. .....................................................................................................17 A. The PTO Lacks Substantive Rulemaking Authority, Cannot Promulgate Rules Inconsistent With Established Law, And Is Entitled To No Deference When It Attempts To Do So.................................................................17

i

Case 1:07-cv-00846-JCC-TRJ

Document 142

Filed 12/20/2007

Page 3 of 58

B. C. D.

The Arbitrary And Mechanical Limit On Continuing Applications In Final Rule 78 Is Contrary To Established Patent Law....................................................20 The Arbitrary And Mechanical Limit On RCEs In Final Rule 114 Is Contrary To Established Patent Law. ....................................................................23 The Arbitrary And Mechanical Limit On The Number Of Claims An Applicant May File In Final Rule 75 Is Contrary To Established Patent Law. .......................................................................................................................25 The ESD's Preexamination Search Requirement Is Incomprehensibly Vague And Fails To Provide Sufficient Notice As To How To Comply. .............28 The PTO Has No Authority To Implement The Final Rules Retroactively. .........31 The PTO's Failure To Adequately Consider The Final Rules' Taking Of Constitutionally Protected Property Rights In Patent Applications Was Arbitrary, Capricious, And Contrary To Law........................................................34 In Addition To Its Substantive Defects, Final Rule 75 Is Procedurally Defective Because It Is Not A Logical Outgrowth Of The Proposed Rule. ..........39 The Final Rules' Mechanical Limits On Continuing Applications, RCEs, And Claims Are Arbitrary And Capricious. ..........................................................41

E. F. G.

H. I. VIII.

CONCLUSION..................................................................................................................45

ii

Case 1:07-cv-00846-JCC-TRJ

Document 142

Filed 12/20/2007

Page 4 of 58

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Page(s) Cases A.T. Massey Coal Co. v. Holland, 472 F.3d 148 (4th Cir. 2006) ............................................................................................ 18 Adams Fruit Co. v. Barrett, 494 U.S. 638 (1990).......................................................................................................... 18 Agro Dutch Indus. Ltd. v. United States, --- F.3d ---, 2007 WL 4107570 (Fed. Cir. Nov. 20, 2007) ................................................. 4 Am. Mining Congress v. EPA, 907 F.2d 1179 (D.C. Cir. 1990) ........................................................................................ 43 Am. Water Works Ass'n v. EPA, 40 F.3d 1266 (D.C. Cir. 1994) .......................................................................................... 41 Animal Legal Def. Fund. v. Quigg, 932 F.2d 920 (Fed. Cir. 1991)........................................................................................... 17 Appalachian Power Co. v. EPA, 208 F.3d 1015 (D.C. Cir. 2000) ........................................................................................ 30 Appalachian Power Co. v. Train, 545 F.2d 1351 (4th Cir. 1976) .......................................................................................... 45 Bowen v. Georgetown Univ. Hosp., 488 U.S. 204 (1988).......................................................................................... 4, 31, 33, 34 Brenner v. Ebbert, 398 F.2d 762 (D.C. Cir. 1968) .......................................................................................... 35 Brown v. Angelone, 150 F.3d 370 (4th Cir. 1998) ............................................................................................ 34 Chevron, U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837 (1984).......................................................................................................... 27 Chocolate Mfrs. Ass'n of the United States v. Block, 755 F.2d 1098 (4th Cir. 1985) ......................................................................................... 41 Comm'r v. Stephens-Adamson Mfg. Co., 51 F.2d 681 (7th Cir. 1931) .............................................................................................. 34 Conroy v. Reebok Int'l, Ltd., 14 F.3d 1570 (Fed. Cir. 1994)........................................................................................... 16 iii

Case 1:07-cv-00846-JCC-TRJ

Document 142

Filed 12/20/2007

Page 5 of 58

Conway v. White, 292 F. 837 (2d Cir. 1923) ................................................................................................. 34 CropLife Am. v. EPA, 329 F.3d 876 (D.C. Cir. 2003) .......................................................................................... 29 DeFerranti v. Lyndmark, 30 App. D.C. 417 (1908) .................................................................................................. 35 Doe v. Rumsfeld, 341 F. Supp. 2d 1 (D.D.C. 2004), modified by, 2005 WL 1124589 (D.D.C. Apr. 6, 2005) ................................................... 41 Eli Lilly & Co. v. Bd. of Regents of Univ. of Wash., 334 F.3d 1264 (Fed. Cir. 2003)......................................................................................... 17 Envt'l Integrity Project v. EPA, 425 F.3d 992 (D.C. Cir. 2005) .......................................................................................... 39 Ex parte Hull, 191 U.S.P.Q. 157 (Pat. & Tr. Office Bd. App. 1975)....................................................... 21 Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Allapattah Servs., Inc., 545 U.S. 546 (2005).......................................................................................................... 27 Fabil Mfg. Co. v. United States, 237 F.3d 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2001)......................................................................................... 19 Gen. Chem. Corp. v. United States, 817 F.2d 844 (D.C. Cir. 1987) .......................................................................................... 43 Gen. Elec. Co. v. EPA, 290 F.3d 377 (D.C. Cir. 2002) .......................................................................................... 30 Godfrey v. Eames, 68 U.S. 317 (1863)............................................................................................................ 20 Grayned v. City of Rockford, 408 U.S. 104 (1972).......................................................................................................... 31 Hooe v. United States, 218 U.S. 322 (1910).......................................................................................................... 38 In re Bogese II, 303 F.3d 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2002)................................................................................... 22, 23 In re Chandler, 319 F.2d 211 (C.C.P.A. 1963) .................................................................................... 26, 27

iv

Case 1:07-cv-00846-JCC-TRJ

Document 142

Filed 12/20/2007

Page 6 of 58

In re Clark, 97 F.2d 628 (C.C.P.A. 1938) ............................................................................................ 26 In re Flint, 411 F.2d 1353 (C.C.P.A. 1969) ........................................................................................ 27 In re Henriksen, 399 F.2d 253 (C.C.P.A. 1968) .......................................................................................... 21 In re Hogan, 559 F.2d 595 (C.C.P.A. 1977) .......................................................................................... 21 In re Lueders, 111 F.3d 1569 (Fed. Cir. 1997)......................................................................................... 19 In re Wakefield, 422 F.2d 897 (C.C.P.A. 1970) .................................................................................... 26, 27 Int'l Union, United Mine Workers of Am. v. Mine Safety & Health Admin., 407 F.3d 1250 (D.C. Cir. 2005) ................................................................................. 39, 41 Keen, Inc. v. Gecker, 264 F. Supp. 2d 659 (N.D. Ill. 2003) ................................................................................ 34 La. Pub. Serv. Comm'n v. FCC, 476 U.S. 335 (1986)............................................................................................................ 4 Landgraf v. USI Film Prods., 511 U.S. 244 (1994)........................................................................................ 31, 32, 33, 34 Leland v. Fed. Ins. Admin., 934 F.2d 524 (4th Cir. 1991) ............................................................................................ 31 Lucas v. S.C. Coastal Council, 505 U.S. 1003 (1992)........................................................................................................ 35 Marsh v. Nichols, Shepard & Co., 128 U.S. 605 (1888).......................................................................................................... 35 Martin v. Hadix, 527 U.S. 343 (1999).......................................................................................................... 33 Merck & Co. v. Kessler, 80 F.3d 1543 (Fed. Cir. 1996)........................................................................................... 17 Molins PLC v. Textron, Inc., 48 F.3d 1172 (Fed. Cir. 1995)........................................................................................... 11

v

Case 1:07-cv-00846-JCC-TRJ

Document 142

Filed 12/20/2007

Page 7 of 58

Motor Vehicles Mfrs. Ass'n of U.S., Inc. v. State Farm Mut. Auto Ins. Co., 463 U.S. 29 (1983)..................................................................................................... passim Mullins Mfg. Co. v. Booth, 125 F.2d 660 (6th Cir. 1942) ............................................................................................ 35 Nat'l Ass'n of Mfrs. v. Dep't of Labor, 159 F.3d 597 (D.C. Cir. 1998) .......................................................................................... 17 Nat'l Wildlife Fed'n v. ICC, 850 F.2d 694 (D.C. Cir. 1988) .................................................................................... 36, 38 Nathan Katz Realty, LLC v. NLRB, 251 F.3d 981 (D.C. Cir. 2001) .......................................................................................... 29 NRDC v. Thomas, 838 F.2d 1224 (D.C. Cir. 1988) ........................................................................................ 42 NSK Ltd. v. United States, 390 F.3d 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2004)......................................................................................... 44 Owner-Operator Indep. Driver Ass'n, Inc. v. Fed. Motor Carrier Safety Adm'n, 494 F.3d 188 (D.C. Cir. 2007) .......................................................................................... 44 Penn Cent. Transp. Co. v. City of New York, 438 U.S. 104 (1978).......................................................................................................... 35 Prill v. NLRB, 755 F.2d 941 (D.C. Cir. 1985) .................................................................................... 39, 41 Prof'l Pilots Fed'n v. FAA, 118 F.3d 758 (D.C. Cir. 1997) .......................................................................................... 37 Public Citizen, Inc. v. Mineta, 427 F. Supp. 2d 7 (D.D.C. 2006), judgment amended, 444 F. Supp. 2d 12 (D.D.C. 2006)................................................... 41 Ruckelshaus v. Monsanto Co., 467 U.S. 986 (1984).............................................................................................. 32, 34, 35 SEC v. Chenery Corp., 318 U.S. 80 (1943)............................................................................................................ 42 Star Fruits S.N.C. v. United States, 393 F.3d 1277 (Fed. Cir. 2005)......................................................................................... 16 Symbol Techs., Inc. v. Lemelson Med., Educ. & Research Found., 277 F.3d 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2002)................................................................................... 22, 23

vi

Case 1:07-cv-00846-JCC-TRJ

Document 142

Filed 12/20/2007

Page 8 of 58

Symbol Techs., Inc. v. Lemelson Med., Educ. & Research Found., 422 F.3d 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2005)................................................................................... 10, 21 United States v. Lanier, 520 U.S. 259 (1997).......................................................................................................... 28 United States v. N. Am. Transp. & Trading Co., 253 U.S. 330 (1920).......................................................................................................... 38 Whitman v. American Trucking Ass'ns, 531 U.S. 457 (2001).......................................................................................................... 20 Winchester v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue, 27 B.T.A. 798 (1933)........................................................................................................ 34 Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, 103 F. Supp. 569 (D.D.C.), aff'd on other grounds, 343 U.S. 579 (1952).................................................................... 38 Statutes 35 U.S.C. § 1................................................................................................................................... 1 35 U.S.C. § 102..................................................................................................................... 1, 9, 25 35 U.S.C. § 103..................................................................................................................... 1, 9, 25 35 U.S.C. § 111............................................................................................................................. 25 35 U.S.C. § 112................................................................................................................... 1, 25, 26 35 U.S.C. § 120...................................................................................................................... passim 35 U.S.C. § 121............................................................................................................................. 14 35 U.S.C. § 122............................................................................................................................... 9 35 U.S.C. § 132............................................................................................................................... 1 35 U.S.C. § 132(b) ........................................................................................................................ 24 35 U.S.C. § 154(d) ........................................................................................................................ 35 35 U.S.C. § 2(b)(2) ................................................................................................................. 17, 31 35 U.S.C. § 2(b)(2)(A).............................................................................................................. 1, 17 35 U.S.C. § 2(b)(2)(C) ........................................................................................................ 1, 17, 19

vii

Case 1:07-cv-00846-JCC-TRJ

Document 142

Filed 12/20/2007

Page 9 of 58

35 U.S.C. § 261....................................................................................................................... 34, 35 35 U.S.C. § 365(c) ........................................................................................................................ 14 35 U.S.C. § 41............................................................................................................................... 27 5 U.S.C. § 553(b) .................................................................................................................... 29, 41 5 U.S.C. § 553(b)(B)..................................................................................................................... 29 5 U.S.C. § 706(2) .............................................................................................................. 17, 38, 42 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(D)..................................................................................................................... 41 5 U.S.C.§ 553(c) ........................................................................................................................... 29 Other Authorities 65 Fed. Reg. 14,865 (Mar. 20, 2000)............................................................................................ 25 65 Fed. Reg. 14,868 (Mar. 20, 2000)............................................................................................ 25 65 Fed. Reg. 50,092 (Aug. 16, 2000)............................................................................................ 24 65 Fed. Reg. 50,095 (Aug. 16, 2000)............................................................................................ 24 71 Fed. Reg. 38,808 (July 10, 2006)............................................................................................. 43 71 Fed. Reg. 48 (Jan. 3, 2006) ...................................................................................................... 13 71 Fed. Reg. 61 (Jan. 3, 2006) ...................................................................................................... 13 Act of July 19, 1952, Pub. L. No. 593-950, 66 Stat. 792 (1952)............................................................................................................ 20 American Inventors Protection Act of 1999, Pub. L. No. 106-113, 113 Stat. 1501 (1999)........................................................................................................ 24 H.R. 2795, 109th Cong. (June 8, 2005) ........................................................................................ 18 Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (8th ed. 2005)................................................................ 27 Manual of Patent Examining Procedures...................................................................................... 29 Robinson, William C., The Law of Patents for Useful Inventions......................................................................... 20 S. 3818, 109th Cong. (2006)......................................................................................................... 18

viii

Case 1:07-cv-00846-JCC-TRJ

Document 142

Filed 12/20/2007

Page 10 of 58

S. Rep. No. 1979 (1952) ............................................................................................................... 20 Rules 37 C.F.R. § 1.265(b) ....................................................................................................................... 5 37 C.F.R. § 10.85 .......................................................................................................................... 15 37 C.F.R. § 10.85(a)(5)................................................................................................................. 22 Fed. R. Civ. P. 56.......................................................................................................................... 16

ix

Case 1:07-cv-00846-JCC-TRJ

Document 142

Filed 12/20/2007

Page 11 of 58

I.

INTRODUCTION. Plaintiffs SmithKline Beecham Corporation and Glaxo Group Limited d/b/a

GlaxoSmithKline, and SmithKline Beecham plc (collectively, "GSK") are entitled to judgment as a matter of law that the Defendants, Jon W. Dudas and the United States Patent and Trademark Office (collectively, "PTO"), violated the Administrative Procedure Act ("APA") in enacting the "Changes To Practice for Continued Examination Filings, Patent Applications Containing Patentably Indistinct Claims, and Examination of Claims in Patent Applications" ("the Final Rules"), 72 Fed. Reg. 46,716 (Aug. 21, 2007) (attached hereto as Ex. 1). This case is about elegantly simple laws that govern U.S. patents: (i) In Article 1, Section 8, Clause 8 of the United States Constitution, Congress was granted the power to establish Patent Laws ("to promote the Progress of Science and useful arts by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries"). Congress exercised this power in 35 U.S.C. § 1 et seq.: An inventor has a statutory entitlement to a patent unless the invention that is the subject of the application for the patent is not new or is obvious. Id. §§ 102-03. To obtain a patent, an inventor must file a written application that contains a specification, an oath, and "one or more" claims. Id. § 112. And the PTO shall allow continuing applications and requests for continued examination at the request of an applicant. Id. §§ 120, 132. Congress authorized the PTO to "establish regulations, not inconsistent with law" for a list of enumerated purposes. The relevant provisions of section 2(b)(2) authorize the PTO, through its Director, to "govern the conduct of proceedings in the Office," 35 U.S.C. § 2(b)(2)(A), and to "facilitate and expedite the processing of patent applications," 35 U.S.C. § 2(b)(2)(C).

(ii)

(iii)

The U.S. Constitution thus gave Congress, not the PTO, the power to establish the laws that govern the United States patent system. Congress has not authorized the PTO to limit an inventor's rights to a patent to reduce its backlog of pending applications. Nor has Congress authorized the PTO to limit those rights to reduce its general workload. Congress did not give the PTO any powers to enact substantive rules that affect or abridge patent rights. Congress did

1

Case 1:07-cv-00846-JCC-TRJ

Document 142

Filed 12/20/2007

Page 12 of 58

not give the PTO the right to enact retroactive rules. And Congress did not give the PTO the right to limit the number of continuing applications, requests for continued examination ("RCEs"), or patent claims that an applicant may present. Since at least 2005, Congress has considered increasing the PTO's authority, and has even considered giving the PTO substantive rulemaking authority. But those proposals have not made any progress in Congress--not in 2005, not in 2006, and as 2007 comes to a close, not this year either. To date, Congress has never delegated to the PTO substantive rulemaking authority of any kind. This case is about the fact that the PTO got tired of waiting for Congress to give it the power it wanted to reduce its workload and instead took matters into its own hands. In a blatant attempt to dispense with its backlog of patent applications, the PTO promulgated its own rules, the Final Rules, that will unambiguously terminate certain pending patent applications, prevent new applications, and effectively deny patent applicants the rights guaranteed to them by statute and controlling case law. The PTO has gone too far. The Final Rules will harm not only GSK's interests, but also the public's interest in protecting human health and in promoting innovation. This cannot be tolerated by GSK, since the PTO's actions destroy the quid pro quo of already filed GSK patent applications, thereby putting at risk hundreds of millions of dollars of GSK capital, eviscerating business certainty for GSK, and destroying proprietary rights in GSK patent applications. Further, this cannot be tolerated by the millions of people awaiting cures for diseases they or their relatives or friends are suffering from or will in the future suffer from, which may be helped by inventions disclosed in GSK patent applications, but will never make it to market without strong patent rights.

2

Case 1:07-cv-00846-JCC-TRJ

Document 142

Filed 12/20/2007

Page 13 of 58

The Final Rules stifle innovation. They would truncate not just GSK's rights, but the existing rights in more than 700,000 currently pending patent applications. The unparalleled outcry of opposition highlights the devastating repercussions of these rules. Amici representing the full breadth of industries, from information technology to biotechnology, and of all sizes, from individual inventors to multi-national corporations and organizations, have participated at the preliminary injunction stage and, now, at the summary judgment stage. The public concern that the PTO has overstepped the legal framework created by Congress has been duly acknowledged on both sides of the political aisle. On October 25, 2007, Senior Democratic Senator Charles Schumer, a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee overseeing U.S. Patent Law Reform, wrote to Undersecretary Dudas at the PTO to request that he voluntarily stop the implementation of the Final Rules. Senator Schumer highlighted that because "there are questions as to whether the PTO has the necessary authority to limit the number of continuation applications," "the proposed rules may thus serve to undermine core principles of patenting process, [and] full candor to the PTO and the public." (Ex. 2.) Moreover, while he appreciated the PTO's "goal to create the most efficient and effective" patenting processes, in his view the proposed rules "may have the unintended consequences of stifling such innovation." (Id.) Then, on November 15, 2007, from the other side of the political spectrum, Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney commented: "With his preliminary injunction against the PTO, Judge Cacheris emphasized the importance of a dependable patent system to protect the significant investment capital of innovators. I applaud the decision." (Ex. 3.) Mr. Romney also said: "If I am privileged to serve as President of the United States, a tenet of my administration

3

Case 1:07-cv-00846-JCC-TRJ

Document 142

Filed 12/20/2007

Page 14 of 58

will be to strengthen the U.S. patent system and immunize it from the type of anti-innovation governmental meddling duly enjoined by Judge Cacheris." (Id.) II. OVERVIEW OF LEGAL DEFECTS IN THE FINAL RULES. By enacting the Final Rules, the PTO has far exceeded its authority. The Final Rules are substantive rules contrary to the Patent Act and established case law, they are retroactive, and they run afoul of well-established constitutional doctrines. As the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has recently reemphasized, "`an agency literally has no power to act . . . unless and until Congress confers power upon it.'" Agro Dutch Indus. Ltd. v. United States, --- F.3d ---, 2007 WL 4107570, at *7 (Fed. Cir. Nov. 20, 2007) (quoting La. Pub. Serv. Comm'n v. FCC, 476 U.S. 355, 374 (1986)). Congress has never given the PTO substantive rulemaking authority. Congress has instead vested the PTO with limited procedural rulemaking authority to govern the conduct of proceedings in the PTO. The Final Rules are substantive in nature because they trump and expressly limit an applicant's statutorily defined rights to file continuing applications, RCEs, and patent claims. On the contrary, the relevant governing statutes and judicial

pronouncements interpreting them do not limit an applicant's ability to file any number of continuing applications, RCEs, or claims. Furthermore, not only has the PTO exceeded its authority in enacting the rules in the first place, but to make matters worse, the Final Rules apply retroactively to the backlog of more than 700,000 pending patent applications. Congress must expressly delegate authority to apply rules retroactively. Bowen v. Georgetown Univ. Hosp., 488 U.S. 204, 208 (1988). Although Congress has never delegated to the PTO any such retroactive rulemaking authority, and the PTO does not dispute this lack of authority, the PTO has taken it upon itself to impose these new restrictions in mid-course on hundreds of thousands of pending applications.

4

Case 1:07-cv-00846-JCC-TRJ

Document 142

Filed 12/20/2007

Page 15 of 58

In addition to exceeding the PTO's authority, the retroactive application of the rules to GSK's pending patent applications is an unconstitutional, ultra vires, and arbitrary and capricious taking of GSK's patent application property rights. GSK invests billions of dollars in research and development to create its inventions, which it initially holds as trade secrets. GSK surrenders its constitutionally protected trade secret rights as a quid pro quo for acquiring constitutionally protected rights in its patent applications. The parties' settled expectations are that the government will afford GSK strong, reliable patent protection in return for the publication of its trade secrets. In that bargained-for exchange, GSK maintains constitutional protection over its inventions by exchanging one form of property for another. The Final Rules, however, change GSK's quid pro quo with the government after it has already entered into that bargained-for exchange. The Final Rules, if applied retroactively, will destroy GSK's

constitutionally protected property rights in its already filed patent applications, after GSK has already been induced under the current rules to disclose its trade secrets. These property rights, retroactively taken from GSK in violation of the Constitution, will be lost forever. In addition to being beyond both the PTO's lack of substantive and retroactive rulemaking authority, the Final Rules also impose an incomprehensibly vague Examination Support Document ("ESD") requirement on applicants. The ESD requires that applicants

perform a geographically, contextually, and financially boundless preexamination search (proposed 37 C.F.R. § 1.265(b)). The ESD's preexamination search is required if a patent application has more than five independent or more than twenty-five total claims. Conceding the vagueness of the ESD, the PTO directs applicants to other sources to clarify the details of what is required, like its Manual of Patent Examining Procedure ("MPEP"), for example. Notwithstanding that the MPEP and other published guidance fails to cure the vagueness of the

5

Case 1:07-cv-00846-JCC-TRJ

Document 142

Filed 12/20/2007

Page 16 of 58

proposed regulation, the MPEP and other sources of extraneous support were not part of the rulemaking process, and were not published for notice and comment. requirement is both substantively and procedurally flawed. Moreover, the Final Rules are procedurally flawed for another reason--they are not a logical outgrowth of the rules as originally proposed. For example, because the Final Rules' limit on the number of claims an applicant may seek is so different from the limit described earlier in the PTO's "Notice of Proposed Rulemaking," the agency was required to seek additional comments on the limits it adopted in the Final Rules. Yet the PTO did not even attempt to do so. Specifically, in its proposed rule, the PTO proposed limiting an applicant to the examination of ten "representative" claims before requiring the applicant to submit the onerous and vague ESD. The "representative" claims restriction limited an applicant to ten independent claims and, significantly, allowed an applicant to seek any total number of claims. After receiving many negative comments regarding its proposed claims rule, the PTO issued the Final Rules, which impose an even more stringent limit of five independent claims and/or twenty-five total claims. The drastic change from the proposed rule to the Final Rule is best highlighted by the fact that the PTO estimated that the proposed rule would have impacted only 1.2% of applications, whereas the claims limit of the Final Rules will potentially impact 23.7% of applications--an increase of more than 1800%. Interested parties could not have anticipated such a change in the rules and, as a result, the Defendants again violated their notice and comment obligations under the APA. Thus, for this additional reason, the Final Rules are procedurally defective. Finally, the Final Rules are per se arbitrary and capricious because the PTO exceeded its statutory authority in promulgating these rules and because the principal justification for the Thus, the ESD

6

Case 1:07-cv-00846-JCC-TRJ

Document 142

Filed 12/20/2007

Page 17 of 58

Final Rules (reduction of workload) has not been adequately or rationally explained. Therefore, the Final Rules are unsupported. For at least the foregoing reasons, as explained in more detail below, GSK respectfully requests that the Court enter judgment as a matter of law that the Final Rules are invalid, vacate the Final Rules, and grant a permanent injunction against their enforcement. III. STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED FACTS. A. 1. GSK Spends Up To One Billion Dollars Or More Researching And Developing A New Drug. "GSK is the second largest pharmaceutical company in the world." (Decl. of

Sherry M. Knowles in Supp. of Pls.' Mot. for TRO and Prelim. Inj. (hereinafter, "Knowles Decl."), ¶ 6) (attached hereto as Exhibit 4 without exhibits thereto.) "GSK researches, develops, tests, and markets life-saving medicines that treat some of the worst human diseases, including cancer, cardiovascular disease, respiratory diseases such as asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, HIV, and depression." (Id. ¶ 7.) 2. "GSK's drug research [necessarily] requires a large, up-front, totally at-risk

investment." (Id. ¶ 9.) That research involves sophisticated, high-level sciences, including organic chemistry and molecular biology, which require significant resources to generate innovative drugs. (Verified Am. Compl., Dkt. No. 5 in 1:07cv1008, ¶ 32.) "In 2006, GSK invested $6.4 billion, or approximately $18 million per day, on drug research and development." (Knowles Decl. ¶ 12.) GSK's discovery of a new drug and the development work required for market introduction can take ten years or more of hard work and up to a billion dollars or more in investment. (Verified Am. Compl. ¶¶ 52, 54.)

7

Case 1:07-cv-00846-JCC-TRJ

Document 142

Filed 12/20/2007

Page 18 of 58

B. 3.

GSK Relies On Strong Patent Protection To Recoup Its Significant Investments. GSK's drug products protect and support the health and life of American citizens.

(Id. ¶ 32.) GSK has expended tremendous research investments to bring those drugs to market. (Id.) The current patent laws encourage GSK to invest in the discovery and development of those drugs, as well as new drugs currently under development, by providing robust patent protection. (Id.) 4. Under the current patent system and its predictable bases for rational business

decisions and investment, GSK has brought to market some of the leading drugs in the world, including (just to mention a few) Advair and Veramist (respiratory problems), Epivir, Combivir, Epzicom and Trizivir (HIV), Valtrex (herpes), Avodart (enlarged prostate), Zofran (chemotherapy induced nausea), and Tykerb (breast cancer), as well as a host of vaccines such as Infanrix (pediatric multiple protection), Rotarix (rotavirus), Engerix-B (hepatitis B), and, in final development, Cervarix (cervical cancer), and a pandemic avian flu vaccine. (Knowles Decl. ¶ 16.) The current patent system is important to GSK for recovering the significant costs of development and regulatory approval associated with these and other critical drugs. (Id. ¶ 17.) 5. In filing patent applications in the PTO, GSK has relied on the statutory

framework that allows it to file any number of continuations, any number of RCEs, and any number of claims. (Id. ¶¶ 17-19; see Decl. of Harry F. Manbeck, Jr., In Supp. of GSK's Mot. for Summ. J. (hereinafter, "Manbeck Decl.", attached hereto as Exhibit 5) ¶¶ 27-28, 32-34, 38, 4546.) 6. Without strong patent protection, a new drug would be copied and sold by others

who have not incurred the billions of dollars in research investments borne by an innovator company like GSK. (Knowles Decl. ¶ 14.) "Without patent protection or with inadequate

8

Case 1:07-cv-00846-JCC-TRJ

Document 142

Filed 12/20/2007

Page 19 of 58

protection, GSK would not be unable to undertake the huge investments in research and development necessary to bring drugs--including drugs that treat the most serious and lifethreatening diseases--into widespread use." (Id. ¶ 15.) C. 7. The Current Status Of Some Of GSK's Pending Patent Applications. Presently, GSK has over 1900 patent applications pending. GSK has more than

100 pending applications in which two or more continuing applications have been filed. GSK also has approximately 30 or more pending applications in which two or more continuing applications and a RCE have been filed. (Id. ¶¶ 18, 20.) Thus, many of GSK's pending patent applications are already over the limits imposed in the Final Rules. IV. IMPORTANCE OF PRIORITY DATE TO PATENT APPLICATIONS. The date of filing of each patent application is critically important. The applicant's entitlement to a patent, e.g., novelty under 35 U.S.C. § 102 and non-obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103, is judged from the earliest filing date to which the application is entitled ("the priority date"). The priority date is critical to GSK because it sets the stake in the ground on prior art references from which the PTO will analyze the patentability of the patent claims during prosecution (and, potentially, in later litigation). (Manbeck Decl. ¶¶ 14-15; Verified Am. Compl. ¶ 37.) If the priority date is lost because GSK cannot claim the benefit of the filing date in a later-filed application, the later-filed application will only be entitled to its actual filing date, and the later-filed application will be analyzed against prior art that became available between the earlier-filed application and the later-filed application. (Manbeck Decl. ¶¶ 15, 18.) In such situations, if the earlier-filed application is published as is often the case under 35 U.S.C. § 122, then the earlier-filed application itself may become prior art against the later-filed application. (Id. ¶ 19.) The priority date is also critical to GSK because, by obtaining the earliest possible

9

Case 1:07-cv-00846-JCC-TRJ

Document 142

Filed 12/20/2007

Page 20 of 58

filing date, GSK may establish that its patent application was filed before a similar application filed by someone else. (Id. ¶ 14.) There have historically been numerous valid reasons to file continuation applications of earlier-filed patent applications in a manner that advances patent prosecution, yet maintains the benefit of that critical early stake in the ground. (Verified Am. Compl. ¶ 38.) For example, GSK files continuation applications to differentiate its invention from the prior art, following the unsuccessful submission of arguments that the patent examiner has not established a prima facie case of obviousness. (Id.) GSK also files continuation applications containing rejected claims to present evidence of unexpected advantages of an invention when that evidence may not have existed at the time of an original rejection. See, e.g., Symbol Techs., Inc. v. Lemelson Med., Educ. & Research Found., 422 F.3d 1378, 1385 (Fed. Cir. 2005) ("Symbol IV") (stating that it is proper to file a continuation application to submit evidence of unexpected advantage that did not exist at the time of the rejection). GSK also files continuation applications to add new claims directed to subject matter that is disclosed in the application, but which has not been claimed in a prior application for which examination has closed on the merits. (Verified Am. Compl. ¶ 38.) The PTO has indicated that all the foregoing bases would be insufficient to carry the applicant's burden of showing that the argument or evidence "could not have been submitted earlier" under the Final Rules. (Ex. 1 at 46,772-77.) The PTO has made these pronouncements despite the fact that the Federal Circuit has stated that GSK, or any applicant, "may also refile an application even in the absence of any of these reasons, provided that such refiling is not unduly successive or repetitive." See Symbol IV, 422 F.3d at 1385. In the past, GSK has also filed continuations to disclose new prior art, often times, as a result of the receipt of a "Search Report" from a foreign patent office during the examination of a

10

Case 1:07-cv-00846-JCC-TRJ

Document 142

Filed 12/20/2007

Page 21 of 58

related foreign patent application.

(Verified Am. Compl. ¶ 39.)

Applicants may submit

references cited by a foreign patent office in a related application or face a later charge of inequitable conduct for failure to comply with the duty to disclose material information to the PTO during prosecution. See, e.g., Molins PLC v. Textron, Inc., 48 F.3d 1172, 1180 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (finding inequitable conduct based on failure to submit references cited in a search report from the European Patent Office). The PTO, however, has indicated that, under the Final Rules, it will not accept a petition based on the disclosure of new prior art. (Ex. 1 at 46,773-74.) After a long and difficult research process, GSK typically files patent applications on a discovered potential class of new drug products, well before commencing human clinical trials. (Knowles Decl. ¶ 18.) The potential class of compounds (a "genus") will include numerous structurally related compounds ("species"), which are all possibilities for drug development and sale. At the time GSK files its initial applications, GSK may have little idea which member of the drug class genus will ultimately be brought to market until years later after the lengthy regulatory procedures have run their course. (Id. ¶ 19.) Accordingly, GSK often files

applications containing a disclosure encompassing the related group of potential "lead drug" candidates (the "genus"), understanding that it will prosecute one of the drugs in the genus in continuing applications, as its depth of knowledge of the properties of the genus and of commercial realities grows through the development and regulatory processes. (Id.) For

example, if the selected drug fails in expensive clinical trials, an alternative can be selected, and continuing patent applications filed to protect the new lead drug candidate. In a typical GSK patent application on a new class of chemical compounds, the disclosure includes a number of inventions. One example of such a GSK application is described in the Knowles Declaration and pertains to compounds for the treatment of the inflammatory

11

Case 1:07-cv-00846-JCC-TRJ

Document 142

Filed 12/20/2007

Page 22 of 58

component of certain diseases, including asthma and atherosclerosis. (Id. ¶¶ 23-29.) The PTO has already issued one patent in this family, U.S. Patent No. 7,235,551 ("the `551 patent"), for part of the disclosed inventive subject matter (demonstrating patentability). (See id. ¶ 24.) But the `551 patent discloses more than it claims. It discloses: (i) Chemical formulas that describe variations of the class (see, e.g., Formulas (I), (Ia), (II), (IIa), (III), (IIIa), (IV), (IVa), (V), (Va) in Cols. 4-8 of the `551 patent) (sometimes referred to as "genuses" of compounds); Numerous subsets of the broad genuses of (i) which highlight preferred embodiments of the invention (see, e.g., Col. 9, line 10 to Col. 22, line 32) (sometimes referred to as "subgenuses" of compounds); Specific examples of compounds within the class (see, e.g., Col. 24, lines 1-31, and Tables 1-7) (in this case over 160 specific compounds, sometimes referred to as "species"); Processes for the manufacture of the compounds (see, e.g., Col. 24, line 32 to Col. 30, line 21); Methods of treatment of human diseases with the disclosed compounds (see, e.g., Col. 30, line 23 to Col. 44, line 15); and Pharmaceutically acceptable salts of the disclosed compounds (see Col. 22, lines 5562).

(ii)

(iii)

(iv) (v) (vi)

(Id. ¶ 34.) Under current U.S. patent law, GSK typically presents and prosecutes a portion of this subject matter at a time, each in its own separate application, all of which get the benefit of the filing date of the first patent application that was filed (i.e., the priority date). (See Knowles Decl. ¶¶ 18-19.) It is critical that all of these continuing patent applications that present

additional portions of the pharmaceutical inventions get the benefit of the critical "stake in the ground" so as not to unfairly lose patentability. V. STATUTORY AND REGULATORY BACKGROUND. A. The PTO's Proposed Rules.

In January 2006, the PTO issued two separate notices of proposed rule making in the Federal Register. The first Notice of Proposed Rule Making is entitled "Changes To Practice for

12

Case 1:07-cv-00846-JCC-TRJ

Document 142

Filed 12/20/2007

Page 23 of 58

Continuing Applications, Requests for Continued Examination Practice, and Applications Containing Patentably Indistinct Claims." 71 Fed. Reg. 48 (Jan. 3, 2006) ("NPRM 1"). (Ex. 6.) The second Notice of Proposed Rule Making is entitled "Changes to Practice for the Examination of Claims in Patent Applications." 71 Fed. Reg. 61 (Jan. 3, 2006) ("NPRM 2"). (Ex. 7.) In NPRM 1, the PTO proposed limiting applicants to a single continuing application before requiring that the applicant submit a petition "showing to the satisfaction of the Director that the amendment, argument, or evidence could not have been submitted during the prosecution of the prior-filed application." (Ex. 6 at 59-60 (Proposed Rule 78(d)).) The PTO also proposed limiting applicants to a "single request for continued examination," before requiring applicants seeking further RCEs to file a petition "showing to the satisfaction of the Director that the amendment, argument, or evidence could not have been submitted prior to the close of prosecution in the application." (Id. at 61 (Proposed Rule 114).) In relevant part, NPRM 2 proposed amending the PTO's rules to allow an applicant to obtain examination of only claims designated by the applicant as "representative claims." (Ex. 7 at 62.) Each independent claim automatically counted as a "representative" claim. (See id.) If the applicant chose to submit more than ten independent claims or designate a combination of more than ten independent and dependent claims, then the applicant would have to provide an ESD. (See id. at 67-68 (Proposed Rule 75).) The PTO also proposed adding Rule 261 to the Patent Office rules setting forth the requirements of the ESD, which would include, for example, a preexamination search, an information disclosure statement citing the reference or references deemed most closely related to the subject matter of each designated claim, and, for each claim

13

Case 1:07-cv-00846-JCC-TRJ

Document 142

Filed 12/20/2007

Page 24 of 58

cited, identification of all limitations of the designated claims found in the reference or references. (See id. at 68-69.) Numerous entities, including GSK, submitted comments to the proposed rules, both critiquing the substance of the proposed rules and offering constructive alternatives. (See, e.g., Exs. 8-15.) The general tenor of the more than five hundred comments submitted was almost uniformly negative. GSK, and many others, commented that the proposed rules would damage their business and stifle innovation. (See Ex. 8; Ex. 9; Ex. 10 at A02664-65; Ex. 11) GSK and others also commented that the proposed rules were beyond the PTO's statutory authority. (See, e.g., Ex. 8 at A02373-76; Ex. 14 at A02834-48.) commentary, the PTO marched forward. B. The PTO's Final Rules. 1. The Final Rules Arbitrarily And Mechanically Limit Patent Applicants To Only Two Continuing Applications Without A Petition And Showing. Despite the overwhelmingly negative

The Final Rules impose an arbitrary and mechanical limit on continuing applications. Applicants may file no more than two nonprovisional continuing applications as of right. After that, an applicant must file a petition showing that the "amendment, arguments, or evidence could not have been submitted during the prosecution of the prior-filed application." (See Ex. 1 at 46,839 (Final Rule 78).) For a particular continuing application, if the applicant cannot satisfy the "could not have been submitted" showing, it will lose the benefit of priority to which it was otherwise entitled under 35 U.S.C. §§ 120, 121, or 365(c). The "could not have been submitted" standard is tantamount to a "physical impossibility" standard, which contradicts the current law and precludes an applicant in almost all circumstances from being granted a petition for a third continuing application. (Manbeck Decl. ¶ 41.) Indeed, in responding to comments, the PTO confirmed that it would consider almost all

14

Case 1:07-cv-00846-JCC-TRJ

Document 142

Filed 12/20/2007

Page 25 of 58

circumstances to be insufficient under that standard. (See Ex. 1 at 46,772-77 (responses to Comments 80 through 100); see also Verified Am. Compl. ¶ 40.) Further, the "could not have been submitted" standard places GSK in the untenable position of either averring that it physically could not have presented an amendment before (thus risking a violation of its ethical obligations to the PTO under 37 C.F.R. § 10.85) or not filing a petition and losing its right to prosecute additional patent claims on its inventions. (See Knowles Decl. ¶¶ 40-44; Manbeck Decl. ¶ 42.) Exacerbating the negative impact of these new continuing application rules is the fact that the PTO will apply the new restrictions retroactively. (Ex. 1 at 46,716-17; Manbeck Decl. ¶ 39.) 2. The Final Rules Arbitrarily And Mechanically Limit Patent Applicants To One RCE Without A Petition And Showing.

The Final Rules also include an arbitrary and mechanical rule restricting an applicant to one RCE in a patent family before requiring that the applicant file a petition "showing that the amendment, argument, or evidence sought to be entered could not have been submitted prior to the close of prosecution in the application . . . ." (Ex. 1 at 46,841 (Final Rule 114) (emphasis added).) The petition and showing requirement for RCEs suffers from the same shortcomings as the petition and showing requirement for continuing applications. (Manbeck Decl. ¶¶ 40-42.) Likewise, the new limitation on RCEs also applies retroactively by requiring a petition and showing if an applicant files an RCE after November 1, 2007, after having filed an RCE in an earlier-filed application in the same family before November 1, 2007. Manbeck Decl. ¶ 29.) 3. The Final Rules Arbitrarily And Mechanically Limit The Number Of Claims An Applicant May Prosecute. (Ex. 1 at 46,717;

The Final Rules also arbitrarily and mechanically limit the number of claims an applicant may seek. Specifically, Final Rule 75 limits applicants to five independent claims and a total of

15

Case 1:07-cv-00846-JCC-TRJ

Document 142

Filed 12/20/2007

Page 26 of 58

twenty-five claims ("the 5/25 limit") before requiring that applicants file an ESD. (See Ex. 1 at 46,836-37 (Final Rule 75).) The ESD imposes incomprehensibly vague and extreme

requirements on applicants, including a requirement that applicants perform a seemingly boundless preexamination search, off-loading the PTO's assigned duties onto applicants, with little or no guidance on what would be sufficient. (Id. at 46,842 (Final Rule 265(b)); Manbeck Decl. ¶¶ 48-49.) For example, Final Rule 265 does not specify whether the applicant must search electronically, manually, or both; which countries must be searched; what databases must be searched; or which libraries must be searched. (Manbeck Decl. ¶ 49.) And there is no cost cap on searching. (Id.) The ESD requirements are retroactive because they apply to any pending application that has not yet received a First Office Action from the PTO on the merits. (Ex. 1 at 46,716; Manbeck Decl. ¶ 52.) VI. LEGAL STANDARD FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT. GSK has brought this case under the APA to challenge the validity of the Final Rules. In a case brought against the PTO under the APA, the ordinary standard for summary judgment applies. Star Fruits S.N.C. v. United States, 393 F.3d 1277, 1281 (Fed. Cir. 2005).1 That standard is well-settled: Summary judgment "should be rendered" if the moving party has shown "that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c); see also Conroy v. Reebok Int'l, Ltd., 14 F.3d 1570, 1575 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (quoting prior version of Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)). Thus, GSK must show, as a matter of law, that an "agency action" of the PTO is `"arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law.'" Star Fruits, 393 F.3d at 1281
1

Cases challenging the PTO's authority under the APA to issue substantive regulations relating to the patent laws raise substantial questions under the patent laws; accordingly, appellate jurisdiction lies in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, whose law governs the standard applied at summary judgment. Star Fruits, 393 F.3d at 1281.

16

Case 1:07-cv-00846-JCC-TRJ

Document 142

Filed 12/20/2007

Page 27 of 58

(quoting 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)). GSK is entitled to judgment as a matter of law because the PTO's actions are defective in each of these respects. Moreover, in addition to their substantive defects, GSK is also entitled to summary judgment as the PTO's promulgation of the Final Rules violated the APA-required notice and comment rulemaking process. See, e.g., Nat'l Ass'n of Mfrs. v. Dep't of Labor, 159 F.3d 597, 598-99 (D.C. Cir. 1998) (noting that the District Court had issued summary judgment against an agency that failed to follow notice-and-comment processes). VII. GSK IS ENTITLED TO JUDGMENT AS A MATTER OF LAW ON ALL CAUSES OF ACTION. A. The PTO Lacks Substantive Rulemaking Authority, Cannot Promulgate Rules Inconsistent With Established Law, And Is Entitled To No Deference When It Attempts To Do So.

There is no dispute that the PTO lacks "any general substantive rulemaking power." Merck & Co. v. Kessler, 80 F.3d 1543, 1549-50 (Fed. Cir. 1996); see also Eli Lilly & Co. v. Bd. of Regents of Univ. of Wash., 334 F.3d 1264, 1269 n.1 (Fed. Cir. 2003). In fact, the PTO concedes that it lacks any substantive rulemaking authority. (See Defs.' Opp. to Pls.' Mot. TRO and Prelim. Inj., Dkt. No. 46 in 1:07cv1008, 21-23.) Thus, the PTO cannot promulgate

substantive rules, i.e., rules that "effect[] a change in existing law or policy which affect[] individual rights and obligations." Animal Legal Def. Fund. v. Quigg, 932 F.2d 920, 927 (Fed. Cir. 1991) (citations and internal quotations omitted). Here, rather than substantive rulemaking authority, in 35 U.S.C. § 2(b)(2), Congress has granted the PTO only limited rulemaking authority. That section authorizes the PTO to "establish regulations, not inconsistent with law" for a list of enumerated purposes, such as, to "govern the conduct of proceedings in the Office," 35 U.S.C. § 2(b)(2)(A), and to "facilitate and expedite the processing of patent applications," id. § 2(b)(2)(C).

17

Case 1:07-cv-00846-JCC-TRJ

Document 142

Filed 12/20/2007

Page 28 of 58

The PTO's lack of substantive rulemaking authority is further evidenced by the fact that since 2005, Congress has considered giving the PTO such authority, but has never done so. (See Manbeck Decl. ¶ 9.) For example, in 2005, the U.S. House of Representatives considered vesting the PTO with substantive authority to limit continuing applications, but the resolution did not pass. See H.R. 2795, 109th Cong. § 123 (June 8, 2005) ("The Director may by regulation limit the circumstances under which an application for patent, other than a divisional application that meets the requirements for filing under section 121, may be entitled to the benefit under section 120 of the filing date of a prior-filed application . . . ."). In 2006, Congress again declined to grant such authority. See S. 3818, 109th Cong., § 9 (2006). And, as of the end of 2007, Congress still has not granted such substantive authority to the PTO. (See Manbeck Decl. ¶ 9; compare Ex. 16, § 11 (Senate Bill 1145 as introduced), with Ex. 17 (Section 11 is no longer included in the "Senate Manager's" version .).) In Adams Fruit Co. v. Barrett, the Supreme Court held that agencies that lack authority to regulate in particular areas gain no deference to their interpretations of law in those areas. 494 U.S. 638, 649 (1990) ("A precondition to deference under Chevron is a congressional delegation of administrative authority."). It is not enough for an agency to possess a power to issue regulations over some aspects of a statute's coverage. As the Court explained in Adams Fruit: Congress clearly envisioned, indeed expressly mandated, a role for the Department of Labor in administering the [Agricultural Worker Protection Act ("AWPA")] statute by requiring the Secretary to promulgate standards implementing AWPA's motor vehicle provisions. This delegation, however, does not empower the Secretary to regulate the scope of the judicial power vested by the statute. Although agency determinations within the scope of delegated authority are entitled to deference, it is fundamental "that an agency may not bootstrap itself into an area in which it has no jurisdiction." Id. at 650 (emphasis added) (citation omitted). In such circumstances, Chevron deference is inapplicable. See A.T. Massey Coal Co. v. Holland, 472 F.3d 148, 167 (4th Cir. 2006)

18

Case 1:07-cv-00846-JCC-TRJ

Document 142

Filed 12/20/2007

Page 29 of 58

(according no deference to Social Security Administration where Congress did not delegate the authority to interpret the provisions of the Coal Act). Here, Congress has not granted the PTO authority to promulgate substantive rules interpreting the patent laws. (See Manbeck Decl. ¶ 9.) On the contrary, in the Federal Courts Improvement Act of 1982, Congress centralized construction and interpretation of the patent laws in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. See In re Lueders, 111 F.3d 1569, 1577 (Fed. Cir. 1997) ("[T]he Federal Courts Improvement Act was a significant venture . . . . [It] consolidated in this court, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC), nationwide jurisdiction over all appeals from patent cases in the district courts in addition to the CCPA's existing jurisdiction over direct appeals from the PTO boards."). Because the PTO exceeded its statutory authority when it promulgated substantive rules interpreting the patent laws--the exclusive province of Congress and the Federal Circuit--the PTO is not entitled to any deference. See, e.g., Fabil Mfg. Co. v. United States, 237 F.3d 1335, 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (agency could not claim deference over matter delegated to the judiciary for resolution). As Congress drafted them, the patent laws do not limit the number of continuing applications, RCEs, or claims that an applicant may file. (See Manbeck Decl. ¶¶ 28, 38, 46.) Congress has not vested the PTO Director with the authority or discretion to limit those statutes; nor has Congress granted the Director the authority to impose retroactive limitations. Rather, Congress has only vested the Director with narrowly defined powers to facilitate the granting of applications that satisfy the conditions for patentability outlined in those statutes. Contrary to these clear limits to its delegated power that the PTO has long observed, the current PTO apparently interprets its power under 35 U.S.C. § 2(b)(2)(C) to "facilitate and expedite the processing of patent applications" to allow it to redefine the statutory rules concerning

19

Case 1:07-cv-00846-JCC-TRJ

Document 142

Filed 12/20/2007

Page 30 of 58

continuing applications, RCEs, and claims. Neither by its plain terms nor by implication does this application-processing power delegate substantive rulemaking power to the PTO. Because "Congress . . . does not alter the fundamental details of a regulatory scheme in vague terms or ancillary provisions--it does not, one might say, hide elephants in mouseholes." Whitman v. American Trucking Ass'ns, 531 U.S. 457, 468 (2001). In terms pure and simple, the PTO wholly lacks substantive rulemaking authority to interpret the terms of the patent laws and its attempt to alter patent rights is therefore ultra vires, unconstitutional, and entitled to no deference. B. The Arbitrary And Mechanical Limit On Continuing Applications In Final Rule 78 Is Contrary To Established Patent Law.

Final Rule 78 restricts an applicant to two continuing applications before requiring a petition and showing. (Ex. 1 at 46,839.) Nothing in section 120 of the patent laws, however, limits the number of continuation applications an applicant may file.2 See 35 U.S.C. § 120. Rather, it expressly states that a continuation application "shall" be given the benefit of the same filing date as the application to which it references, so long as the other requirements of Title 35 are satisfied: An application for patent for an invention disclosed in the manner provided by the first paragraph of section 112 of this title in an application previously filed in the United States, or as provided by section 363 of this title, which is filed by an inventor or inventors named in the previously filed application shall have the The right to file continuing applications dates back to at least 1863 when the Supreme Court recognized that the Patent Act allowed an applicant to file continuing patent applications. See Godfrey v. Eames, 68 U.S. 317, 325-26 (1863). In the ensuing years, the case law further clarified that the patent laws did not limit the number of continuing applications that an applicant could file. See, e.g., 2 William C. Robinson, The Law of Patents for Useful Inventions § 581, at 204 ("It is immaterial how many of these substituted applications may be filed, or for how long a period such efforts to obtain a patent may be continued."). Congress codified this law when it enacted section 120 in 1952. See S. Rep. No. 1979, at 2413 (1952) (accompanying H.R. 7794). As enacted in 1952, section 120 stated that a continuation application "shall" be entitled to the benefit of an earlier-filed application, provided the application met certain formal requirements. Act of July 19, 1952, Pub. L. No. 593-950, 66 Stat. 792, 800 (1952). Congress has amended section 120 only minimally since then.
2

20

Case 1:07-cv-00846-JCC-TRJ

Document 142

Filed 12/20/2007

Page 31 of 58

same effect, as to such invention, as though filed on the date of the prior application . . . . 35 U.S.C. § 120 (emphasis added). Thus, Final Rule 78's numerical limit on continuing

applications exceeds the plain language of section 120. (See Manbeck Decl. ¶ 38.) This is not the first time that the PTO has attempted to impermissibly restrict continuing applications. Cour