During these unprecedented times, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit is one of the many institutions taking steps to avoid the spread of COVID-19: shifting to telephonic proceedings, releasing live audio of oral arguments, restricting in-person access to court buildings, and modifying operations. But the court is continuing its work, issuing new opinions every day.

A recent Federal Circuit decision about fee shifting is important to startups facing patent litigation and has broader relevance for confirming that attorney fee awards can be a tool for deterring abusive patent litigation. Startups facing extortive settlement demands for specious patent infringement claims can ask to have the plaintiff pay their attorney fees if they prevail in court. The availability of fees is valuable, because the cost of defending even a meritless patent lawsuit is expensive. But if plaintiffs who file those meritless cases may have to cover the costs of defense, it can help level the playing field, even before the parties find themselves in court. 

The Federal Circuit’s recent decision in Arthrex, Inc. v. Smith & Nephew, Inc. changes the framework for appointing and removing certain patent office officials—the Administrative Patent Judges (APJs). APJs serve on the Patent Trial and Appeal Board which, among other functions, can take a “second look” at weak or overbroad patents that previously issued, and invalidate claims that should not have issued in the first place. Instead of challenging a low-quality patent in federal court, which takes multiple years and millions of dollars, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board can consider a limited scope of validity challenges in less than 18 months and for a fraction of the cost. Therefore, it is a more accessible place for startups to go to challenge weak patents they are accused of infringing, and has the ancillary benefit of increasing overall patent quality and making the abusive patent litigation business less profitable. 

A recent Federal Circuit decision addressing the constitutionality of inter partes review (IPR)—a Patent Office review of a patent that has already been issued—is a positive development for promoting patent quality and leveling the playing field for startups involved in patent litigation. In Celgene Corp. v. Peter, the court held that IPR proceedings which result in the cancellation of issued patent claims are not an unconstitutional taking of private property. While it seems likely the Supreme Court will eventually weigh in on the question, for now IPRs remain available to startups who want to ask the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) to take a second look at weak patents that arguably should have never issued.

Startups facing patent litigation should be aware of recent, positive developments in patent venue law. This area of law dictates where a patentee-plaintiff can file an infringement lawsuit, and requires that a startup (or any company) can only be sued in a location (judicial district) where it has sufficient presence. Importantly, recent legal developments restrict parties—including patent assertion entities (PAEs), sometimes referred to as “patent trolls”—from suing startups in far-flung, plaintiff-friendly judicial districts. This levels the playing field in abusive patent litigation and benefits startups, who should no longer be required to defend litigation far from “home.”