Today, the Retail Litigation Center (RLC) and the National Retail Federation (NRF) jointly filed an amicus brief before the U.S. Supreme Court to highlight the importance of upholding the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) inter partes review (IPR) process. IPR aids retailers and the business community in fighting frivolous lawsuits filed by "patent trolls"—litigators who buy up patents and exploit them in the judicial system to extort settlements from businesses.
The associations filed the brief in Oil States v. Greene's Energy Group, a case that examines the constitutionality of the inter partes review process established by the America Invents Act (AIA). The brief argues that, in many cases, retailers are sued based on their resale or use of products they did not design or manufacture and that retailers defending patent infringement litigation start "behind the eight-ball," often lacking the knowledge or the means to analyze how a product might infringe. The brief states that the IPR process helps resolve these allegations with less time and expense than full-blown patent litigation.
"As one of the nation's top economic drivers, retailers are constantly seeking ways to bring innovative products and solutions to the American marketplace," said Deborah White, president of the Retail Litigation Center. "Unfortunately, in their quest to innovate, retailers face patent liability for products they sell but do not make and often have the least access to information about possible infringement. As patent trolls pray upon America's retailers, the industry is faced with the lose/lose scenario of choosing between costly litigation or settlements against unmeritorious claims. The IPR process is effective against fighting these claims and must be upheld."
"Retailers are innovators – and as a byproduct of this, they are end users of hundreds of forms of advanced technology that allows them to deliver goods and services to consumers faster and for more value," said the National Retail Federation's Senior Vice President and General Counsel, Stephanie Martz. "Patent trolls have targeted retailers over and over again to try to extract extortionate settlements from these innocent users of products. The sensible way to resolve a valid claim of infringement is to allow the US Patent and Trademark Office to apply its expertise in the first instance, rather than incurring high litigation costs. There's no question that this process, called inter partes review, is smart, efficient – and entirely within the authority of the patent office under the Constitution."
The brief filed in support of Greene's Energy Group highlights the importance of the IPR process:
"Retailers defend patent infringement litigation from behind the eight ball. First, retailers have limited or no information at hand to assess the merits of the claims of infringement as to the products they use and sell. Second, they must choose between paying hundreds of thousands of dollars to either litigate disputes that are likely not meritorious, or else settle with the patentee for a sum, that while substantial, is still less than the cost of defense."
"This is truly a Hobson's choice: PAEs typically strategically set settlement rates at or below litigation costs, yet settlement with one PAE encourages more PAEs to file equally frivolous suits."
"A patent system that forces retailers to pick either poison has broader public policy implications."
"These costs harm the public as well as retailers, and are passed down to consumers in the form of higher prices and diminished competition."
"IPR provides a more cost-effective method of attacking the PAE problem at its root – the assertion of invalid patents. IPR's efficiency is not a mere side benefit, but rather fulfills the essential purpose of the patent system to provide limited exclusivity to encourage innovation. Litigation and settlement costs create excess burdens on commerce in addition to the economic cost of the invalid patent itself, and IPR reduces these burdens."
The brief was prepared by Seth Greenstein of Constantine Cannon for the associations. Deborah White is President of the Retail Litigation Center and Stephanie Martz is General Counsel of the National Retail Federation.
RILA is the trade association of the worlds largest and most innovative retail companies. RILA members include more than 200 retailers, product manufacturers, and service suppliers, which together account for more than $1.5 trillion in annual sales, millions of American jobs, and more than 100,000 stores, manufacturing facilities, and distribution centers domestically and abroad.