WPCA ڬNh%E,&E$Eņ:eppdŌV9FLo/"? 3sכ2W}jө-_^,dANP'D4MPv7, Q11q{\?%ҫ{/b+Rc7f%9=u2ې٢ABo)i]v #AD<>Xz! f~1k_߷ԟGan!<$?bK>zK^[V 51H8ȷ/Z$fQXe@'(x{nfVLI\p?~%.ʍpfޅ߶NJ*QRjLIϠ̌!zR.~ߥ^Z%y vBAoz$lOf+HB<*a̜ cc.o!!w*.3Q)n'1NpÛ%D/?$# y#!UN % 0( ^ ; w@G 4   m 1 1uJ 0c 0;o" 0 0 1 18 1 1F 1 1T 1Zb 0DN 1 0D 1Y 1 1g 1 1u 1 1 1 1 1  1 1. 1 1< 1 1J 1 1X 1 1f 1 1t 1 ! 1#!UN! 1! 1" 1# 1# 1$ 1$ 1"% 1%0& 1E& 1& 1[' 1' 1i( 1( 1w) 1) 1* 1 + 1+ 1, 1, 1(- 1- 16. 1. 1D/ 1/ 1R0 10 1`1 11 1n2 12 1|3 14 145 15!?6 0`6 0 7 07 08 99 19 1A: 1: 1O; 1; 1]< 1< 1k=UN= 1@>>UNN? ? 1? 1C@ @@@HP LaserJet 4 Plus,,,,0(hH  Z6Times New Roman RegularX($*p, DDD.+ing3|xU CEKQW_ekqAutoList11.a.1.(1)1.1.1.1. abcd3ߊ37=CIQYag1.a.i.(1)(a)(i)1)a)(;k$2  0  .3    (Gu$0  2  a  .3   ` (Z*X$0  0` (#(#2   .3   (pt$0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#2(  0  )3    (CEMU]emu}AutoList2(1)(1)(1)(1)(1)(1)(1)(1)(UhCEKQW]cioAutoList3a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a. ZCEKQYagmsAutoList4a.a.(1)(1)a.a.a.a. }CEKQY_ekqAutoList51.a.(1)1.1.1.1.1.(hCEKQW]cioAutoList6a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a. @CEKQY_ekqAutoList7a.a.(1)a.a.a.a.a. @CEKQY_ekqAutoList8a.a.(1)a.a.a.a.a. P '  _XX (3$ !  (EGOW_gowAutoList68(1)(1)(1)(1)(1)(1)(1)(1) z '  _8 XX6(#DRAFT2!4/1/024pm (3$ !   CEKQW]cioAutoList91.A.1.1.1.1.1.1. -EGMS[agmsAutoList10a.a.(1)a.a.a.a.a.(EGMSY_ekqAutoList11a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a. 1EGMS[agmsAutoList12a.a.(i)a.a.a.a.a. WEGOW_gowAutoList13(1)(1)(1)(1)(1)(1)(1)(1)(EGMSY_ekqAutoList14a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a. %EGMSY_ekqAutoList15a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a. /EGMS[agmsAutoList16a.a.(1)a.a.a.a.a. M/EGMS[agmsAutoList17a.a.(1)a.a.a.a.a. /EGMS[agmsAutoList18a.a.(1)a.a.a.a.a. eEGMSY_ekqAutoList19a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.(EGMSY_ekqAutoList201.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.(%EGMSY_ekqAutoList211.1.1.1.1.1.1.1. 5EGMSY_ekqAutoList22a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a. M/EGMS[agmsAutoList23a.a.(1)a.a.a.a.a.(UEGMSY_ekqAutoList241.1.1.1.1.1.1.1. =EGMS[agmsAutoList251.a.(1)1.1.1.1.1. uEGMSY_ekqAutoList261.A.1.1.1.1.1.1.(EGMSY_ekqAutoList27a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.(EGMSY_ekqAutoList281.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.(EGMSY_ekqAutoList291.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.(eEGMSY_ekqAutoList31a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a. eEGMSY_ekqAutoList771.a.1.1.1.1.1.1. w )  _*Thepanel,moderatedbyDonaldR.Dunner,Esq.,includesHon.RandallR._Rader_,Hon.PaulineNewman,Hon.WilliamG.Young,Hon.KathleenMcDonald_OMalley_,RobertA.Armitage,Esq.,Prof.MarkD.Janis,andE.Anthony_Figg_,Esq.     (UEGMSY_ekqAutoList301.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.(hH  Z6Times New Roman Regular(UEGMSY_ekqAutoList70a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.(uEGMSY_ekqAutoList321.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.(EGMSY_ekqAutoList331.1.1.1.1.1.1.1. \EGMSY_ekqAutoList341.a.1.1.1.1.1.1.(EGMSY_ekqAutoList35a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.(EGMSY_ekqAutoList36a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.(ŤEGMSY_ekqAutoList37a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a. դEGMSY_ekqAutoList38a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.   (EGOW_gowAutoList39(1)(1)(1)(1)(1)(1)(1)(1)(EGMSY_ekqAutoList40A.A.A.A.A.A.A.A.(EGMSY_ekqAutoList41a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a. EGMSY_ekqAutoList42a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a. EGMS[agmsAutoList431.1.(a)1.1.1.1.1. dEGMSY_ekqAutoList441.a.1.1.1.1.1.1. dEGMSY_ekqAutoList451.a.1.1.1.1.1.1. dEGMSY_ekqAutoList461.a.1.1.1.1.1.1. EGMSY_ekqAutoList471.A.1.1.1.1.1.1. EGMSYagmsAutoList48a.a.a.(1)a.a.a.a. &eEGMSY_ekqAutoList491.a.1.1.1.1.1.1.(դEGMSY_ekqAutoList501.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.(EGMSY_ekqAutoList511.1.1.1.1.1.1.1. dEGMSY_ekqAutoList521.a.1.1.1.1.1.1. eEGMSY_ekqAutoList531.a.1.1.1.1.1.1. eEGMSY_ekqAutoList541.a.1.1.1.1.1.1.(%EGMSY_ekqAutoList551.1.1.1.1.1.1.1. 6eEGMSY_ekqAutoList561.a.1.1.1.1.1.1. FeEGMSY_ekqAutoList571.a.1.1.1.1.1.1. VeEGMSY_ekqAutoList581.a.1.1.1.1.1.1.(eEGMSY_ekqAutoList591.1.1.1.1.1.1.1. eEGMSY_ekqAutoList601.a.1.1.1.1.1.1. FeEGMSY_ekqAutoList631.a.1.1.1.1.1.1. 3EGMS[ciouAutoList691.a.(1)(A)1.1.1.1.(%EGMSY_ekqAutoList611.1.1.1.1.1.1.1. 6eEGMSY_ekqAutoList621.a.1.1.1.1.1.1.)UEGMSY_ekqAutoList641.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.!γEGMSYagmsAutoList651.1.a.(1)1.1.1.1. '  _o XXNN3(#DRAFT2!4/1/024:30_pm _ eEGMSY_ekqAutoList711.1.a.1.1.1.1.1.     (i$0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#0 (# (#2(  a  )3   h (u$0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#0 (# (#0h(#(#2(   )3    (J$0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#0 (# (#0h(#(#0h(#h(#2  0  )3    ([$0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#0 (# (#0h(#(#0h(#h(#0(#(#2  a  )3   p         (uEGMSY_ekqAutoList661.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.(EGMSY_ekqAutoList671.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.(uEGMSY_ekqAutoList72a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.(EGMSY_ekqAutoList731.1.1.1.1.1.1.1. eEGMSY_ekqAutoList741.a.1.1.1.1.1.1.(EGMSY_ekqAutoList75a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.(EGMSY_ekqAutoList761.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.(եEGMSY_ekqAutoList78a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.(hH  Z6Times New Roman Regular(EGMSY_ekqAutoList791.1.1.1.1.1.1.1. } '  _r3aXXNN3(#DRAFT3!4/1/024:30pm (hH  Z6Times New Roman Regular     (EGMSY_ekqAutoList801.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.(EGMSY_ekqAutoList811.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.           !  _8uXXdd8    q^A@ e`֤f@5s6x@w@v@  Bench,BarandAcademia:PanelDiscussionBy  @ LeadingExpertsintheFieldontheLatest@@"PatentLawTopics@ ABASectionofIntellectualPropertyLaw@__#April12,2002 *  L Y3 3 abcdL  k    k=23  1  .3      TheFederalCircuitAfterTwentyYears k=h݌   Ќ  ̀0  InControlResources,Inc.v.DeltaElectronics,Inc.,__F3d__133_F._Supp.2d121,59USPQ2d z d 1177(D.Mass.2001),ChiefJudgeYoungoftheMassachusettsDistrictCourtintroducedhisopiniononthedoctrineofequivalentsandotherissueswiththeobservationthat (#(# 8  8`    TheFederalCircuitisdifferent.Unliketheothercircuitcourtsofappeal,theFederalCircuitcameintobeing,inpart,pursuanttoanexpressCongressionalmandatetofosteruniformityintheapplicationofthelawofpatents....TheSupremeCourtreferstotheFederalCircuitasa specializedcourt,...andpaysheedtoits soundjudgmentonpatentlaw....Indeed,theFederalCircuitviewsitselfasasubstantivepolicymaker,acourtwithamission.... ` x` x ̀  Id.at117778. v` 0  ChiefJudgeYoungfollowedtheseobservationswithquotesfromotherscriticizingtheFederalCircuitformakingpolicydecisionsbeyondtheexpertiseofthecourtandfor strayingfromthepathcarefullydelineatedforappellatetribunalsby factfindingandotherformsofhyperactivejudging.ChiefJudgeYoungconcludedthatthis apparenttensionresultsfromafundamentaldifferenceinorientationbetweentheFederalCircuit....andtheninetyfourdistrictcourtsthatitsupervises: (#(# 8  8`   TheFederalCircuitisakintothecivilcodecourtsoftheEuropeancommunity....Itsemphasisisonthecarefuldelineationofevermoreexplicitanddetailedrules,a patentcode,ifyouwill....[_I]t_Ԁseesasparamount theneedforcertaintyastothescopeofpatentprotection....Such certaintyaidsboththepublicandthepatenteeinascertainingthetruescopeandvalueofthepatentwithouthavingtoresorttolitigationtoobtainacasebycaseanalysis....[Withbrightlinerules]neitherthepublicnorthepatenteeisrequiredtopaythetransactioncostsoflitigation....#") #&` x` x #s s    s  _8  8`    Incontrast, litigationand casebycaseanalysisistheveryraisondetreofthedistrictcourts....Smallwonder,then,  thatintellectualtensionexistsasthecourtofthefuturestrugglestoimposeitsvisionandtoshapetheviewsofthosecourtsthatrightlyconsiderthemselvestheprimeguardiansofthemostvitalexpressionofdirectdemocracyinAmericatoday!thejuryofthe   people. ` x` x   Id.at1179. v ` @&**** u   u0  23  a  .3   `   WhataretheviewsofthepanelistsontheseobservationsofChiefJudgeYoung?u%݌& (#(# Ќ   u   u0  23  b  .3   `   Beyondtheforegoing,whatarethepanelistsviewsontheextenttowhichthe   FederalCircuithassucceededafteritsfirsttwentyyearsofoperationinmeetingthemajorgoalsofitsproponentsandavoidingthepitfallsidentifiedbyitsopponents?uH݌ (#(# Ќ   *X   *X0  0` (#(#23(  1  )3     Proponents*X%݌` (#` (# Ќ   t   t0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#23(  A  )3      Establishinguniformityintheinterpretationandapplicationofthe p patentlaws;t݌  (# (# Ќ   t   tM0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#23(  B  )3      Eliminatingexistingconflictsintheinterpretationofthepatent J4 laws;tMx݌  (# (# Ќ   t   tΞ0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#23(  C  )3      Increasingpredictabilityintheenforceabilityofpatents;andtΞ݌ (# (# Ќ   t   t0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#23(  D  )3      Eliminatingorreducingforumshopping.t݌ (# (# Ќ   *X   *X0  0` (#(#23(  2  )3     Opponents*X)݌!` (#` (# Ќ   t   t0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#23(  A  )3      Developingaproorantipatentbias;t!݌#  (# (# Ќ   t   t0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#23(  B  )3      Developingparochialviewsandtunnelvisioninitsdecision n%X" makingbecauseofitsrelativelyspecializedcharacter;andtD݌  (# (# Ќ    t   tΥ0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#23(  C  )3      Becomingadumpinggroundforpoliticalhasbeens.tΥ݌#2("% (# (#  #6 6    6  ь  &   L Y3  YL  k    kˉ23  2  .3      TheLitigationintheDistrictCourtsDuringtheLastTwentyYears kˉ݌  Ќ  L (e( YL u   u0  2e  a  .3   `   Tothebarandacademia:Whatshortcomingsdoyoufindinthehandlingbythe  federaldistrictcourtsofpatentbasedlitigation?u ݌ (#(# Ќ  '' u   uO!0  2e  b  .3   `   Tothebench:Whatshortcomingsdoyoufindintheperformancebypatent   litigatorsinthefederaldistrictcourts?uO!z!݌ (#(# Ќ  L t(((L  k    k #2  3  .3      AmicusBriefs k #8#݌ v ` Ќ  0  TheFederalCircuithashadprofessionalorganizationssuchastheABAIPLSectionandAIPLA,aswellasotherentities,fileamicusbriefsincasesofsignificance. (#(# L iu((tL u   u$0  2u  a  .3   `   Whatimpact,ifany,dosuchbriefshaveontheoriginalhearingofacasebefore   theFederalCircuit?u$ %݌ (#(# Ќ   u   u;&0  2u  b  .3   `   Onanenbanchearingorrehearing?u;&f&݌(#(# Ќ   u   u2'0  2u  c  .3   `   WhatwordsofadvicedotheFederalCircuitpanelmembershaveforfutureamici  beforetheCourt?u2']'݌ (#(# Ќ  4.0  SuccessfulAdvocacyBeforetheFederalCircuitr\(#(# 0  FederalCircuitJudgeLinnwasquotednottoolongagoasadvancingthe ThreeCsforwinningacasebeforetheFederalCircuit:criteria,credibility,andclarity. (#(# 0  BeyondthesethreeCs,andbeyondtheadviceJudgeRichusedtogiveonwinningacase(beontherightside),whatadvicedothepanelistshaveforpresentingwinningargumentstotheFederalCircuit? (#(# 5.0  Festo!(#(# 0  Isthereanyoneonthepanel(otherthantheFederalCircuitjudges)whowouldliketopredicttheoutcomeoftheSupremeCourtsreviewofFesto?$l!(#(# 6.0  TrialofPatentCasesintheDistrictCourtsZ&D #(#(# 0  Overtheyears,therehavebeenrepeatedsuggestionsoftheneedfortrialcourtswithgreaterknowledgeandexperienceinhandlingpatentcases.Atthepresenttime,severaldistrictcourtsaroundthecountryhavedevelopedsuchknowledgeandexperience. (#(# _  *$(  v v    v  &   0  Recently,asuggestionhasemergedtoimprovetheexistingsituation,whileavoidingthesignificanthostilitytospecializedcourts,byassigningallpatentcasestoahandful(e.g.,four)districtcourtswithaspecificgroupofjudgesineachhandlingsuchcasesuptoonehalf'-Ԁoftheircaseloadandwithallcomplaintsinvolvingpatentsfiledinotherdistrictsbeingtransferredtooneofthesedistrictcourtsforpretrialandtrialproceedings. (#(#  u   u/0  2u  d  .3   `   Isthereaneedtochangetheexistingapproachtotryingpatentcasesatthedistrict   courtlevel?u//݌ (#(# Ќ   u   u00  2u  e  .3   `   Ifso,whatdoyouthinkofthisrecentproposal?u0)1݌bL (#(# Ќ   u   u20  2u  f  .3   `   Arethereanyotherproposalsalongthisgenerallinethatappealtoyou?u2.2݌:$ (#(# Ќ  7.0  PatentLawExperts:IsTheirRoleDiminishing? (#(# 0  Foragreatmanyyears,patentlawyerexpertshavebeenpermittedtotestifyinpatentlitigations,withlimitedifanyrestrictionsonthecontentandscopeoftheirtestimony.Morerecently,reportsareprevalentofdistrictcourtslimitingifnotaltogetherexcludingthetestimonyofpatentlawyerexperts.Inonesuchcase,_Bausch_Ԁ&_Lomb_,Inc.v._Alcon_  Lab.,Inc.,79F.Supp.2d.252,53USPQ2d1682(_W.D.N.Y._Ԁ2000),Judge_Larimer_Ԁfrom  theWesternDistrictofNewYorkheldthatwhileapatentlawexpertcouldtestifyaboutthegeneralproceduresinvolvedinthepatentexaminationprocess(e.g.,patentapplicationsandhowtheyareexamined,thenatureandpurposeofinterferenceandreexaminationpracticeandprocedure)andcertainothermorespecifictopics(e.g.,whattheeffectivefilingdatewasofthepatentinsuit,whetheraclaimlimitationconstitutednewmatter),hewouldnotbepermittedtooffergeneralizedtestimonyabout theproblemsExaminersencounterwiththecompletenessorfileintegrityoftheshoesmaintainedatthePTO, thedifficultiesExaminersfaceindiscoveringandobtainingpriorartreferencesotherthanpatents,and thetimeconstraintsunderwhichExaminersinthePTOmustoperate.Thepatentlawexpertinthiscasewasalsonotpermittedtotestifyaboutwhatisrequiredforapatenttobevalid,oraboutthedefinitenessrequirementof35USC1122. (#(#   a.0 ` Whatdoyouthinkofthisholding?$l!` (#` (#  u   u:0  2u  g  .3   `   Howprevalentinthedistrictcourtsareholdingssuchasthese?u::݌Z&D #(#(# Ќ   u   u;0  2u  h  .3   `   Whatdoesthefutureholdforthepracticeofusingpatentlawexperts?u;;݌2("%(#(#   L j((iL )#& w@ w  w  _&   L p((jL  k    k>2  8  .3      MarkmanandiItsProgeny k>F>݌  Ќ  0   ` TheFederalCircuitholdingsinVitronicsCorp.v.Conceptronic,Inc.,90F.3d  1576,39USPQ2d1573(Fed.Cir.1996)hasbeeninterpretedbysomecourtsas'<precludingtheconsiderationofextrinsicevidenceonclaimconstructionissues.Morerecently,severalFederalCircuitcases,KeyPharm.v.HerconLab.Corp.,161F.3d709,   48USPQ2d1911(Fed.Cir.1998),VoiceTechnologiesGroup,Inc.v.VMCSys.,Inc.,   164F.3d605,49USPQ2d1333(Fed.Cir.1999),PitneyBowes,Inc.v.HewlettPackard  t Co.,182F.3d1298,51USPQ2d1161(Fed.Cir.1999),andAFGIndustries,Inc.v. v ` CardinalIGCo.,Inc.,239F.3d1239,57USPQ2d1776(Fed.Cir.2001),haveheldthis bL  interpretationtobetoobroad.Inoneofthesecases,VoiceTechnologies,164F.3dat N8  61516,49USPQ2dat134041,thecourtreversedasummaryjudgmentholdingand,intheprocess,criticizedthedistrictcourtforrefusingtoadmitthetestimonyofaninventorontheinterpretationoftheclaims.Inanother,PitneyBowes,thecourtseemedtogoout   ofitswaytorestrictthesweepofVitronics,notingthatVitronicsdoesntprohibitcourts   fromexaminingextrinsicevidence,evenwhenthepatentisitselfclear,thoughitisimproperforcourtstorelyonextrinsicevidencetocontradictthemeaningofclaimsdiscerniblefromthoughtfulexaminationoftheclaims,thewrittendescriptionandtheprosecutionhistory!theintrinsicevidence.Instillanotherofthesecases,AFG  Industries,theFederalCircuitvacatedthedistrictcourtssummaryjudgmentofnon  infringementbasedinpartonthedistrictcourtsclaimconstructionwhichfailedtotakeintoaccountthetestimonyofseveralwitnessesthatfurtherreinforcedadistinctionbetweencertainclaimelementsandcertainunclaimedelements.Yet,inamorerecentcase,theCourtseemstohaveretreatedfromthesecasesbyholdingthatrelianceonextrinsicevidenceis properonlywhentheclaimlanguageremainsgenuinelyambiguousafterconsiderationoftheintrinsicevidence.InteractiveGiftExpressInc.v. "  CompuServe,Inc.,256F.3d1323,1332,59USPQ2d1401,1407(Fed.Cir.2001).What  areyourviewsonthissubject? (#(# L ke (pL9.0  Reexamination (#(# 0  Severalyearsago,Congressenactedasubstantiallyrevisedreexaminationformatpermittingconsiderablymoreinterpartesinvolvementbutplacingrestrictionsonfuturechallengestothepatentonthosethirdpartieswhoparticipateintheproceedings.Morerecently,theHouseofRepresentativespassedH.R.1886whichwouldgivethirdpartyrequestersininterpartesreexaminationstherighttoappealtotheFederalCircuit. (#(# L l( kL u   uK0  2  a  .3   `   Whatimpacthasthereexaminationstatutehadonthelitigationprocess,both 2("% undertherevisedformatandundertheprerevisionformat?uK,K݌ (#(# Ќ   u   ujL0  2  b  .3   `   Towhatextenthasthesuccessfulpassagethroughthereexaminationprocess *$( impactedonthepatenteessuccessinarelatedpatentlitigation?ujLL݌#+%)(#(#: #x@ x  x  ь   u   5u*N0  2  c  .3   `   Towhatextenthasreexaminationresultedinorcontributedtotheresolutionof  patentdisputes?u*NjN݌ (#(# Ќ   u   uO0  2  d  .3   `   WhatimpactdoyouexpecttheHousepassedH.R.1886wouldhaveonthe  litigationprocess,ifenactedintolaw?uOO݌ (#(# Ќ  10.0  BusinessMethodPatents:WhereDoWeGoFromHere? (#(# 0  IthasnowbeenseveralyearssincetheFederalCircuitinStateStreetBank&TrustCo.v. v ` SignatureFin.Group,Inc.,149F.3d1368,47USPQ2d1596(Fed.Cir.1998),cert. bL  denied,525U.S.1093,andinAT&Tv.ExcelCommunications,Inc.,172F.3d1352,50 N8  USPQ2d1447(Fed.Cir.1999),cert.denied,528U.S.946,essentiallyabandonedahost :$  ofprecedentialholdingsonthepatentabilityofclaimsembracingmathematicalalgorithmsinfavorofa practicalapplicationtest.Theseholdingshavespawnedextensivediscussiononthesocalled businessmethodpatentsthathavebecomeviableundertheirumbrella.Indeed,theCongresshasgottenintotheactinabill(H.R.1332)thatwould(1)requirepublicationofanymethodapplicationwithin18monthsofitsfiling,(2)providethepublicwithanopportunitytopresentpriorartorpublicuseinformationbeforeabusinessmethodpatentisissued,(3)exposeanypatentissuedonsuchanapplicationtoapostgrantoppositionproceeding,(4)reducetheburdenofprovingsuchapatentinvalidtoapreponderanceoftheevidence,(5)createarebuttablepresumptionofobviousnessoftheclaimsofsuchapatentundercertaincircumstances,andrequiretheapplicantofabusinessmethodapplicationtodiscloseanypriorartsearchresults. (#(#   Withthisbackground,Iwouldlikethepanelistsviewsonthefollowing:L nե((lL  k      kˮW2ե  a  .3   `   HaveStateStreetBankandExcelcreatedamonster? kˮWW݌  Ќ    k      k˷X2ե  b  .3   `   Whatifanyproblemshavearisenintheaftermathoftheseholdings? k˷XX݌   Ќ    k      kY2ե  c  .3   `   HowdoyoureacttoproposalssuchasH.R.1332? kYY݌ " Ќ    k      k˿Z2ե  d  .3   `   Whatfix,ifany,wouldyouproposeonthissubject? k˿ZZ݌ $l! Ќ   L u((nL  k    k(\2  11  .3      StandardofReviewofPTODecisions k(\S\݌ Z&D # Ќ  0  InDickinsonv.Zurko,527U.S.150,50USPQ2d1930(1999),theSupremeCourt 2("% reversedaunanimousenbancFederalCircuitandheldthatreviewofPTOfactfindingwassubjecttoanAPAratherthanaclearlyerroneousstandardofreview.TheSupremeCourt,however,didntdecidewhetherthecorrectstandardwasthe arbitrary,capriciousorthe substantialevidencetest.#+%)(#(#: #e e    e  0  Morerecently,theFederalCircuitheldthatthe substantialevidencetestwasthetestitwouldapply.InreGartside,203F.3d1305,53USPQ2d1769(Fed.Cir.2000).Andin  theremandofZurkofromtheSuperiorremeCourt,theFederalCircuitheldthatZurkos  inventionwaspatentableregardlessofwhetherthestandardwasclearlyerroneousorsubstantialevidence.InreZurko,258F.3d1379,59USPQ2d1693(Fed.Cir.2001).In   stillanotherholding,WinnerInt'lRoyaltyCorp.v.Wang,202F.3d1340,53USPQ2d   1580(Fed.Cir.2000),theFederalCircuitheldthatwhereaSection146plaintiffsubmitslivetestimonyonallmattersbeforethePTOBoardofPatentAppealsandInterferences,theentiredistrictcourtproceedingisconductedasatrialdenovoandnodeferenceneedbegivenbythedistrictcourttofactualfindingsbytheBoard,bothastotheBoardrecordandthenewevidenceinthedistrictcourt.(ButnotethatinWinner,thecourtexpressly N8  deferreddecidingwhethertheintroductionoftestimonyonsomemattersbeforetheBoardwillleadtodeferentialreviewoffactsinvolvedinothermattersbeforetheBoard.) (#(# L @դ((uL u   ud0  2դ  a  .3   `   In1994,theFederalCircuitaffirmedPTOBoarddecisionsin102,103and   112cases79-83%ofthetime,andthenumberstodaymaybehigher.Giventhisfact,andtherecentFederalCircuitholdingthatZurkosinventionwaspatentableregardlessofthetestused,whatpracticalimpact,ifany,doyouexpecttheZurkoholdingandits  progenywillhaveintheFederalCircuitreviewofPTOdecisions?udd݌ (#(# Ќ   u    u\g0  2դ  b  .3   `   InlightoftheGartsideholding,towhatextentcantheeffectsofZurkoeffectively p beavoidedthroughthefilingofSection145or146actionsratherthanappealingadverseBoarddecisionsdirectlytotheFederalCircuit?u\gg݌ (#(# Ќ   u    u(i0  2դ  c  .3   `   ArethereanyotherpotentialimplicationsofZurkothatyouwouldcareto 6  commenton?u(iSi݌ (#(# Ќ    L 4e (@L