SENATE PASSES PATENT REFORM BILL
|
|
- Bernice Sparks
- 5 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 SENATE PASSES PATENT REFORM BILL CLIENT MEMORANDUM On Tuesday, March 8, the United States Senate voted 95-to-5 to adopt legislation aimed at reforming the country s patent laws. The America Invents Act (the Act ) contains measures implementing first-to-file priority and expanding opportunities for post-grant review. 1 It also includes measures directed to more recent developments in areas such as false-marking claims and tax strategy patents. This memorandum highlights significant changes that the Act would make to the patent laws relating to first-to-file priority, review of patents and applications, tax strategy patents, and patent litigation. Provisions that were considered but not adopted by the Senate are also briefly discussed. The next focal point for the legislation will be the House of Representatives, which has yet to take up the issue in this Congress. A. Priority For First Filers I. Major Provisions Of The America Invents Act Under current U.S. law, the first inventor seeking to obtain a patent may be given priority over a later inventor regardless of which inventor was the first to file a patent application. 2 In contrast, most nations employ a first-to-file rule giving priority to the first applicant for a patent on an invention, even if a later applicant was actually first to arrive at the invention. One perceived benefit of a first-to-file system is that it is relatively simple to administer, as priority can usually be determined objectively with little factual inquiry needed. The Act would introduce first-to-file priority in the U.S. In general, an applicant would be entitled to a patent unless the invention were the subject of an earlier application by another or previously available to the public. The scope of the prior art would include references up to the date of the application, as well as foreign public uses or sales, that may not constitute prior art under current law. However, direct or indirect disclosures by the applicant within a year before the date of the application would not constitute prior art. 3 Current procedures for resolving priority contests, or interferences, would be replaced with narrower derivation proceedings. These proceedings would be limited to priority challenges on grounds that an earlier applicant derived the invention from a later applicant without America Invents Act, S. 23, 112th Cong. (as passed by Senate, March 8, 2011), available at See 35 U.S.C. 102(a), (e), and (g). Act at 2 (amending 35 U.S.C. 100, ). NEW YORK WASHINGTON PARIS LONDON MILAN ROME FRANKFURT BRUSSELS in alliance with Dickson Minto W.S., London and Edinburgh
2 authorization. 4 In contrast, current interference practice allows a party to challenge priority on the basis of simply having been the first to invent. Critics note that the lack of discovery in a derivation proceeding would make it difficult for an inventor to establish that another s invention was improperly derived. 5 The new first-to-file provisions would apply only to patents and applications with an effective filing date that is at least 18 months after enactment. 6 B. Review Of Patents And Patent Applications By The Patent Office The Act includes three procedures for third parties to challenge a patent or application: submission of prior art or statements while an application is pending, post-grant review within nine months after a patent issues, and inter-partes review after the nine-month window closes. A fourth, temporary procedure for post-grant review of business-method patents would also be established. 1. Third-Party Submission Before a patent application is approved and issued, third parties could submit prior art (including patents, patent applications, and printed publications) to the Patent Office for consideration in connection with the pending application. 7 In addition, at any time, a party may cite to the Patent Office prior art bearing on patentability, or written statements of the patent owner as to the scope of a claim, although written statements would be considered only in construing claims during reexamination or post-grant review. If the pertinence of the prior art or written statement is explained, the cited art or statement and the explanation would become part of the patent s official file Post-Grant Review Within nine months after the grant or reissue of a patent, a party other than the patent holder could petition the Patent Office to review the claims for failure to meet any of the conditions or requirements for patentability or reissue. To initiate review, the challenger must provide information that, if not rebutted, demonstrates that at least one challenged claim is more likely unpatentable than patentable. The challenger may participate in the review, and bears the ultimate burden of proving unpatentability by a preponderance of the evidence. The Patent Office may not proceed if the challenger also has instituted a civil court case to invalidate the Act at 2 (amending 35 U.S.C , 146, & 291). See 157 Cong. Rec. S1095 (daily ed., Mar. 2, 2011) (remarks of Sen. Feinstein). See Act at 2(o). Act at 14. The application is published or a notice of allowance is mailed, whichever is earlier. Act at 5 (amending 35 U.S.C. 301)
3 patent. 9 The challenger also may not later assert invalidity in another Patent Office proceeding, a civil action, or a proceeding before the International Trade Commission on any ground that the petitioner raised during a review that results in a final written decision. 10 New rules for post-grant review would apply only to patents subject to the new first-to-file provisions i.e., patents with an effective application filing date that is at least 18 months after enactment Inter-Partes Review After the nine-month window for post-grant review has closed, a party could challenge a patent by a petition for inter-partes review. This proceeding replaces current procedures for inter-partes reexamination, and is similarly limited to novelty or obviousness challenges based on prior-art patents and printed publications. 12 However, the showing required to initiate review (a reasonable likelihood that the petition would prevail with respect to at least one claim) would be less stringent than the current standard for reexamination (which requires proof of a substantial new question of patentability). 13 Similar to post-grant review, the challenger bears the burden of proof by a preponderance of the evidence, must not have already initiated a civil action challenging validity, and is estopped from later asserting invalidity on any ground that the challenger raised, or reasonably could have raised, during the review. Additionally, a party sued for infringement may not wait more than six months from the date of the complaint before petitioning for inter-partes review. 14 Due to these timing restrictions, a party sued for infringement of a patent within the first three months after the patent issues may seek post-grant review of the patent, but may not seek interpartes review. A broader range of arguments may be made during post-grant review than in inter-partes review e.g., the challenger may assert invalidity based on a prior public use, or insufficient enablement or description under Section 112. However, due to estoppel provisions, a challenger would be largely foreclosed from also arguing invalidity as a defense in the litigation on the same bases asserted in the post-grant review. The new rules for inter-partes review would take effect one year after enactment and apply to patents issued prior to enactment as well as after Id. (adding 35 U.S.C., Chapter 32). Id. (adding new 35 U.S.C. 325(e)). See Act at 5(f). Act at 5 (amending 35 U.S.C., Chapter 31). The deadline for petitioning for inter-partes review is extended to the termination of any post-grant review. Compare Act at 5 (adding new 35 U.S.C. 314) with 35 U.S.C Act at 5 (adding new 35 U.S.C. 315). Act at 5(c)
4 4. Transitional Review Of Business-Method Patents The Act calls for the Patent Office to establish proceedings for hearing challenges to businessmethod patents by accused infringers. These proceedings would be transitional in that once established, they would be available for only four years. Transitional proceedings would allow parties accused of infringing a business-method patent to challenge the patent on grounds of lack of novelty or obviousness based on prior public availability or prior-art patents or publications. The Act defines a business-method patent as a patent, other than for a technological innovation, that claims a method or apparatus for performing data processing utilized in the practice, administration, or management of a financial product. Unlike the post-grant review process, the process for review of business-method patents could be initiated more than nine months after issuance, and the petitioner would not be estopped from raising the same grounds for invalidity in a later civil action or International Trade Commission proceeding. 16 Transitional proceedings are not intended to supplant other mechanisms for review by the Patent Office or the courts. Patents that are subject to any of the new post-grant review procedures would be exempt from transitional proceedings. 17 In the case of concurrent court proceedings, the Act specifies that a court that is considering staying a motion for preliminary injunction must consider whether the stay would promote efficiency or prejudice the nonmoving party. 18 C. Tax Strategies Strategies for reducing, avoiding, or deferring tax liability under any federal, state, local, or foreign law would be deemed indistinguishable from the prior art, and thus not patentable. However, the exclusion would not apply to aspects of an invention that relate solely to the preparation of tax returns or other tax filings. 19 Provisions of the Act regarding tax strategies would apply only to applications pending on the date of enactment or filed thereafter. The Act states explicitly that it should not be construed to imply that other types of business methods may be patented Act at 18(b). Act at 18(b)(1). Id. at 18(c) (codifying the four-factor analysis of Broad. Innovation, L.L.C. v. Charter Commc ns, Inc., No. 03-cv-2223, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 46623, at *10 11 (D. Colo. July 11, 2006)). Act at 14. Id
5 D. Patent Litigation 1. Preliminary Injunction If a patent infringement suit is filed within three months of the grant of a patent, a court could not stay consideration of a motion for preliminary injunction on grounds that post-grant review is being sought False-Marking Suits To satisfy the notice requirement for recovering damages for infringement, a patent owner or licensee may identify the relevant patents on either the patented article itself or its packaging. 22 Improper marking for example, listing an expired, invalid, or inapposite patent may give rise to a claim of false marking. The Federal Circuit s 2009 holding in Forest Group, Inc. v. Bon Tool Co. that false marking is punishable by a fine of up to $500 per article, 23 coupled with a statutory right of every person to bring a false-marking claim, 24 has led to an explosion in falsemarking litigation. The Act would limit the cause of action to (a) the United States for recovery of the fine, and (b) parties who have suffered a competitive injury for recovery of only their actual damages due to the false marking. This provision would take effect immediately upon enactment and apply in all cases pending on or after that date. 25 In addition, the Act would permit virtual marking by posting a list of patents on the Internet and referencing the web address on the patented article or its packaging. 26 This provision would benefit companies with large numbers of products and patents. 3. Best Mode Although the Act would retain the requirement that an application must set forth the best mode for practicing the invention, any failure to disclose a best mode would no longer be a defense to infringement Act at 5 (adding new 35 U.S.C. 325). See 35 U.S.C. 287(a). Forest Group, Inc. v. Bon Tool Co., 590 F.3d 1295 (Fed. Cir. 2009). See 35 U.S.C Act at 2(k) (amending 35 U.S.C. 292). Act at 4 (amending 35 U.S.C. 273). Act at 15 (amending 35 U.S.C. 282). See generally 35 U.S.C. 112,
6 II. Provisions Not Adopted Several provisions considered by the Judiciary Committee and the full Senate were ultimately not adopted. Most notably, the Senate defeated an amendment introduced by Senator Feinstein (D-Calif.) that would have eliminated first-to-file provisions from the Act and retained the current first-to-invent priority laws. 28 The Act s sponsor, Senator Leahy (D-Vt.), has referred to the first-to-file provisions as the heart of the America Invents Act. 29 Earlier versions of the Act would have required trial judges to play a greater role in evaluating patent damages methodologies before submitting the issue to the jury. 30 It is unclear that an additional statutory framework for damages is needed in view of the heightened court scrutiny of damages awards reflected in recent decisions. 31 Other unadopted provisions would largely have codified recent case law on willfulness and change of venue. 32 Under the Federal Circuit s Seagate decision, willfulness must be proved by clear and convincing evidence that the accused acted despite an objectively high likelihood that its acts constituted infringement. In addition, a party charging willfulness may not rely solely on the infringer s knowledge of the patent or on a failure to obtain advice of counsel. 33 Under T.S. Tech., a motion to transfer a case from one district to another should be granted if the transferee venue is more clearly convenient than the plaintiff s chosen forum. 34 The Senate also rejected a provision that would have allowed the Patent Office to continue its current reexamination procedures, for a period of up to four years, in place of inter-partes review and any post-grant review on the basis of prior-art patents and printed publications S. Amdt. 133, 112th Cong. (2011). Press Release, Senate Comm. on the Judiciary Chairman Patrick Leahy, Leahy: First-Inventor-To-File Transition Support In Every Corner Of Patent Community (Mar. 3, 2011), See Patent Reform Act of 2011, S.23, 112th Cong. 4 (2011) (as reported by S. Comm. on the Judiciary, Feb. 3, 2011), available at See, e.g., Uniloc USA, Inc. v. Microsoft, Inc., Nos , -1055, 2011 U.S. App. LEXIS (Fed. Cir. Jan. 4, 2011) (reversing royalty damages award based on a 25% rule of thumb as unsupported by evidence, and rejecting a calculation based on the entire market value of the infringing product where sales were not shown to have been driven by patented features). See id. at 4 & 8. See In re Seagate, 497 F.3d 1360, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2007). See In re TS Tech U.S. Corp., 551 F.3d 1315, 1319 (Fed. Cir. 2008). See 157 Cong. Rec. S1071 (daily ed., Mar. 1, 2011)
7 III. Conclusion Having cleared the Senate, the Act must proceed through the House of Representatives, where a version of the bill is expected to be introduced in the next few weeks. 36 Assuming that the bill passes in the House, any differences between the House and Senate versions will have to be resolved before a final bill is adopted by Congress. Senate passage is an auspicious start for the Act. Efforts at similar patent legislation in 2007 and 2008 met with success in the House but became bogged down in the Senate. If adopted, the America Invents Act will represent the most substantial change to the U.S. patent code in almost 60 years. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * For further information regarding this memorandum or intellectual property issues generally, please contact Kelsey I. Nix ( , knix@willkie.com), Robert G. Kofsky ( , rkofsky@willkie.com), or the Willkie attorney with whom you regularly work. Willkie Farr & Gallagher LLP is headquartered at 787 Seventh Avenue, New York, NY Our telephone number is (212) and our facsimile number is (212) Our website is located at March 10, 2011 Copyright 2011 by Willkie Farr & Gallagher LLP. All Rights Reserved. This memorandum may not be reproduced or disseminated in any form without the express permission of Willkie Farr & Gallagher LLP. This memorandum is provided for news and information purposes only and does not constitute legal advice or an invitation to an attorney-client relationship. While every effort has been made to ensure the accuracy of the information contained herein, Willkie Farr & Gallagher LLP does not guarantee such accuracy and cannot be held liable for any errors in or any reliance upon this information. Under New York s Code of Professional Responsibility, this material may constitute attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. 36 Press Release, House Comm. on the Judiciary Chairman Lamar Smith, Chairman Smith Praises Senate Passage of Patent Reform; House to Introduce Similar Legislation This Month (Mar. 8, 2011),
Factors That May Weigh In Favor Of, Or Against, Patentability
CLIENT MEMORANDUM U.S. PATENT OFFICE PUBLISHES GUIDELINES FOR DETERMINING WHETHER PROCESS CLAIMS COVER ELIGIBLE SUBJECT MATTER IN THE WAKE OF THE SUPREME COURT S BILSKI DECISION The United States Patent
More informationFebruary, 2010 Patent Reform Legislative Update 1
02 14 2011 February, 2010 Patent Reform Legislative Update 1 The Patent Law Reform Act of 2011, based on the Managers Amendment version of S. 515 in the 11 th Congress, was introduced as S. 23 on January
More informationNewly Signed U.S. Patent Law Will Overhaul Patent Procurement, Enforcement and Defense
September 16, 2011 Practice Groups: IP Procurement and Portfolio Management Intellectual Property Litigation Newly Signed U.S. Patent Law Will Overhaul Patent Procurement, Enforcement and Defense On September
More informationFTC AND DOJ ISSUE JOINT REPORT REGARDING ANTITRUST ENFORCEMENT AND INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS
OF INTEREST FTC AND DOJ ISSUE JOINT REPORT REGARDING ANTITRUST ENFORCEMENT AND INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS Interesting and difficult questions lie at the intersection of intellectual property rights and
More informationAMERICA INVENTS ACT. Changes to Patent Law. Devan Padmanabhan Shareholder, Winthrop & Weinstine
AMERICA INVENTS ACT Changes to Patent Law Devan Padmanabhan Shareholder, Winthrop & Weinstine American Invents Act of 2011 Enacted on September 16, 2011 Effective date for most provisions was September
More informationIntellectual Property/Legislative ADVISORY
Intellectual Property/Legislative ADVISORY March 18, 2011 Patent Reform Legislation Passes the Senate; House to Introduce Similar Bill this Month On March 8, 2011, the U.S. Senate passed S. 23, the America
More informationTECHNOLOGY & BUSINESS LAW ADVISORS, LLC
TECHNOLOGY & BUSINESS LAW ADVISORS, LLC www.tblawadvisors.com Fall 2011 Business Implications of the 2011 Leahy-Smith America Invents Act On September 16, 2011, the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (AIA)
More informationCONGRESS MAKES SIGNIFICANT CHANGES TO RULES GOVERNING CLASS ACTIONS
CLIENT MEMORANDUM CONGRESS MAKES SIGNIFICANT CHANGES TO RULES GOVERNING CLASS ACTIONS Effective February 18, 2005, the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 ( CAFA ) makes significant changes to the rules
More informationPost-Grant Proceedings at the Patent Office After Passage of the America Invents Act
Post-Grant Proceedings at the Patent Office After Passage of the America Invents Act Patrick A. Doody, Partner Northern Virginia Office America Invents Act (AIA) S 23 Senate Verison Passed the Senate in
More informationSOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK BANKRUPTCY COURT HOLDS THAT CREDITORS CAN HOLD A VALID LIEN ON THE ECONOMIC VALUE OF FCC LICENSES
CLIENT MEMORANDUM SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK BANKRUPTCY COURT HOLDS THAT CREDITORS CAN HOLD A VALID LIEN ON THE ECONOMIC VALUE OF FCC LICENSES In a recent decision, Judge Sean H. Lane of the Southern
More informationAmerica Invents Act (AIA) The Patent Reform Law of 2011 Initial Summary
PRESENTATION TITLE America Invents Act (AIA) The Patent Reform Law of 2011 Initial Summary Christopher M. Durkee James L. Ewing, IV September 22, 2011 1 Major Aspects of Act Adoption of a first-to-file
More informationAmerica Invents Act H.R (Became Law: September 16, 2011) Michael K. Mutter Birch, Stewart, Kolasch & Birch October 11-12, 2011
America Invents Act H.R. 1249 (Became Law: September 16, 2011) Michael K. Mutter Birch, Stewart, Kolasch & Birch www.bskb.com October 11-12, 2011 H.R. 1249 became law Sept. 16, 2011 - Overview first inventor
More informationPatent Reform Act of 2007
July 2007 Patent Reform Act of 2007 By Cynthia Lopez Beverage Intellectual Property Bulletin, July 27, 2007 On July 18, 2007 and July 20, 2007, the House Judiciary Committee and the Senate Judiciary Committee,
More informationPROCEDURES FOR INVALIDATING, CLARIFYING OR NARROWING A PATENT IN THE PATENT OFFICE UNDER THE AMERICA INVENTS ACT (AIA)
I. Prior to AIA, there were two primary ways for a third party to invalidate a patent in the patent office: A. Interference under 35 U.S.C. 135 & 37 C.F.R. 41.202, which was extremely limited, as it required:
More informationPost-Grant Patent Proceedings
Post-Grant Patent Proceedings The Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (AIA), enacted in 2011, established new post-grant proceedings available on or after September 16, 2012, for challenging the validity of
More informationU.S. Patent Law Reform The America Invents Act
U.S. Patent Law Reform The America Invents Act August 15, 2011 John B. Pegram Fish & Richardson What s New in 2011? Patent Law Reform is high on Congressional agenda A desire to legislate Bipartisan Patent
More informationThe America Invents Act : What You Need to Know. September 28, 2011
The America Invents Act : What You Need to Know September 28, 2011 Presented by John B. Pegram J. Peter Fasse 2 The America Invents Act (AIA) Enacted September 16, 2011 3 References: AIA = America Invents
More informationThe Scope and Ramifications of the New Post-Grant and Inter Partes Review Proceedings at the USPTO
The Scope and Ramifications of the New Post-Grant and Inter Partes Review Proceedings at the USPTO By Lawrence A. Stahl and Donald H. Heckenberg The Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (AIA) makes numerous
More informationCongress Passes Historic Patent Reform Legislation
Congress Passes Historic Patent Reform Legislation America Invents Act Transitions U.S. Patent System from a First-to-Invent to First-Inventor-to-File System, Overhauls Post-Issue Review Proceedings and
More information2012 Winston & Strawn LLP
2012 Winston & Strawn LLP How the America Invents Act s Post-Issuance Proceedings Influence Litigation Strategy Brought to you by Winston & Strawn s Intellectual Property practice group 2012 Winston &
More informationT he landscape for patent disputes is changing rapidly.
BNA s Patent, Trademark & Copyright Journal Reproduced with permission from BNA s Patent, Trademark & Copyright Journal, 84 PTCJ 828, 09/14/2012. Copyright 2012 by The Bureau of National Affairs, Inc.
More informationAmerica Invents Act: Patent Reform
America Invents Act: Patent Reform Gunnar Leinberg, Nicholas Gallo, and Gerald Gibbs LeClairRyan December 2011 gunnar.leinberg@leclairryan.com; nicholas.gallo@leclaairryan.com; and gerald.gibbs@leclairryan.com
More informationPOST-GRANT REVIEW UNDER THE AMERICA INVENTS ACT GERARD F. DIEBNER TANNENBAUM, HELPERN, SYRACUSE & HIRSCHTRITT LLP
POST-GRANT REVIEW UNDER THE AMERICA INVENTS ACT GERARD F. DIEBNER TANNENBAUM, HELPERN, SYRACUSE & HIRSCHTRITT LLP TABLE OF CONTENTS Page I. Introduction... 1 II. Post-Grant Review Proceedings... 1 A. Inter-Partes
More informationLatham & Watkins Litigation Department
Number 1241 September 28, 2011 Client Alert Latham & Watkins Litigation Department Practical Implications of the America Invents Act on United States Patent Litigation This Client Alert addresses the key
More informationAmerica Invents Act: Patent Reform
America Invents Act: Patent Reform Gunnar Leinberg, Nicholas Gallo, and Gerald F. Gibbs, Jr. LeClairRyan January 4 th 2012 gunnar.leinberg@leclairryan.com; nicholas.gallo@leclaairryan.com; and gerald.gibbs@leclairryan.com
More informationAIA Post-Grant Implementation Begins - Is Your Business Strategy Aligned? August 27, A Web conference hosted by Foley & Lardner LLP
AIA Post-Grant Implementation Begins - Is Your Business Strategy Aligned? August 27, 2012 A Web conference hosted by Foley & Lardner LLP Attorney Advertising Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome
More informationU.S. Patent and Trademark Office Issues Proposed Rules for Post-Issuance Patent Review under the America Invents Act
February 16, 2012 Practice Groups: Intellectual Property Intellectual Property Litigation U.S. Patent and Trademark Office Issues Proposed Rules for Post-Issuance Patent Review under the America Invents
More informationConsiderations for the United States
Considerations for the United States Speaker: Donald G. Lewis US Patent Attorney California Law Firm Leahy-Smith America Invents Act First Inventor to file, with grace period Derivation Actions Prior user
More informationIntellectual Property: Efficiencies in Patent Post-Grant Proceedings
Intellectual Property: Efficiencies in Patent Post-Grant Proceedings By Ann Fort, Pete Pappas, Karissa Blyth, Robert Kohse and Steffan Finnegan The Leahy-Smith America Invents Act of 2011 (AIA) created
More informationSTATUS OF. bill in the. Given the is presented. language. ability to would be. completely. of 35 U.S.C found in 35. bills both.
STATUS OF PATENTT REFORM LEGISLATION On June 23, 2011, the United States House of Representatives approved its patent reform bill, H.R. 1249 (the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act). Thee passage follows
More informationPATENT REFORM. Did Patent Reform Level the Playing Field for Foreign Entities? 1 Leahy-Smith America Invents Act, Pub. L. No.
Reproduced with permission from BNA s Patent, Trademark & Copyright Journal, 82 PTCJ 789, 10/07/2011. Copyright 2011 by The Bureau of National Affairs, Inc. (800-372-1033) http://www.bna.com PATENT REFORM
More information2011 Foley & Lardner LLP Attorney Advertising Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome Models used are not clients but may be representative
2011 Foley & Lardner LLP Attorney Advertising Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome Models used are not clients but may be representative of clients 321 N. Clark Street, Suite 2800, Chicago,
More informationPolicies of USPTO Director Kappos & U.S. Patent Law Reform
Policies of USPTO Director Kappos & U.S. Patent Law Reform December 15, 2011 Speaker: Ron Harris The Harris Firm ron@harrispatents.com The USPTO Under Director David Kappos USPTO Director David Kappos
More informationAmerica Invents Act: The Practical Effects of the New USPTO Post-Grant Proceedings
PRESENTATION TITLE America Invents Act: The Practical Effects of the New USPTO Post-Grant Proceedings Wab Kadaba February 8, 2012 1 America Invents Act of 2011 Signed by President Obama on Sept. 16, 2011
More information10 THINGS YOU NEED TO KNOW ABOUT PATENT REFORM. W. Edward Ramage Chair, IP Group Baker Donelson
10 THINGS YOU NEED TO KNOW ABOUT PATENT REFORM W. Edward Ramage Chair, IP Group Baker Donelson eramage@bakerdonelson.com Patent Reform Signed by President Obama on Sept. 16 th Melange of changes (major
More informationAmerica Invents Act Implementing Rules. September 2012
America Invents Act Implementing Rules September 2012 AIA Rules (Part 2) Post Grant Review Inter Partes Review Section 18 Proceedings Derivation Proceedings Practice before the PTAB 2 Post Grant Review
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS N.V. and PHILIPS LIGHTING NORTH AMERICA CORP., Plaintiffs, v. Civil Action No. 14-12298-DJC WANGS ALLIANCE CORP., d/b/a WAC LIGHTING
More informationAmerica Invents Act September 19, Matt Rainey Vice President/Chief IP Policy Counsel
America Invents Act September 19, 2011 Matt Rainey Vice President/Chief IP Policy Counsel Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (AIA) Text is available at: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/bills-112hr1249enr/pdf/bills-112hr1249enr.pdf
More informationThe America Invents Act: Key Provisions Affecting Inventors, Patent Owners, Accused Infringers and Attorneys
The America Invents Act: Key Provisions Affecting Inventors, Patent Owners, Accused Infringers and Attorneys James Morando, Jeff Fisher and Alex Reese Farella Braun + Martel LLP After many years of debate,
More informationHigh-Tech Patent Issues
August 6, 2012 High-Tech Patent Issues On June 4, 2013, the White House Task Force on High-Tech Patent Issues released its Legislative Priorities & Executive Actions, designed to protect innovators in
More informationDo-Overs: Overviewing the Various Mechanisms for Reevaluating an Issued Patent and How They Have Changed Over the Last Five Years +
Do-Overs: Overviewing the Various Mechanisms for Reevaluating an Issued Patent and How They Have Changed Over the Last Five Years + By: Brian M. Buroker, Esq. * and Ozzie A. Farres, Esq. ** Hunton & Williams
More informationPre-Issuance Submissions under the America Invents Act
Pre-Issuance Submissions under the America Invents Act By Alan Kendrick, J.D., Nerac Analyst The Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (AIA) was signed into law By President Obama in September 2011 and the final
More informationPreemptive Use Of Post-Grant Review Vs. Inter Partes Review
Portfolio Media. Inc. 111 West 19 th Street, 5th Floor New York, NY 10011 www.law360.com Phone: +1 646 783 7100 Fax: +1 646 783 7161 customerservice@law360.com Preemptive Use Of Post-Grant Review Vs. Inter
More informationAmerica Invents Act (AIA) Post-Grant Proceedings
America Invents Act (AIA) Post-Grant Proceedings Various Post-Grant Proceedings under AIA Ex parte reexamination Modified by AIA Sec. 6(h)(2) Continue to be available under AIA Inter partes reexamination
More informationImpact of the Patent Reform Bill
G. Hopkins Guy, III of Orrick Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP Speaker 3: 1 Impact of the Patent Reform Bill G. Hopkins Guy, Esq. Patent Reform Bill: Current Status Passed House 9/7/07 Passed Senate Judiciary
More informationNew Post Grant Proceedings: Basics by
New Post Grant Proceedings: Basics by Tom Irving Copyright Finnegan 2013 May 14, 2013 Disclaimer These materials are public information and have been prepared solely for educational and entertainment purposes
More informationShould Patent Prosecution Bars Apply To Interference Counsel? 1. Charles L. Gholz 2. and. Parag Shekher 3
Should Patent Prosecution Bars Apply To Interference Counsel? 1 By Charles L. Gholz 2 and Parag Shekher 3 Introduction The Federal Circuit stated that it granted a rare petition for a writ of mandamus
More informationThe New Post-AIA World
Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP The New Post-AIA World New Ways to Challenge a US Patent or Patent Application Erika Arner FICPI ABC 2013 Conference New Orleans, LA 0 Third Party Patent
More informationCase 2:15-cv JRG-RSP Document 41 Filed 10/19/15 Page 1 of 9 PageID #: 338
Case 2:15-cv-00961-JRG-RSP Document 41 Filed 10/19/15 Page 1 of 9 PageID #: 338 NEXUSCARD INC., IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MARSHALL DIVISION v. Plaintiff, BROOKSHIRE
More informationL DATE FILED: ~-~-~ lll'f
Case 1:13-cv-03777-AKH Document 154 Filed 08/11/14 I USDC Page SL ~ y 1 of 10 I DOCJ.. 1.' '~"'"T. ~ IFLr"l 1-... ~~c "' ' CALL\ ELED DOL#: 1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT L DATE FILED: ~-~-~ lll'f SOUTHERN
More informationSEC. 6. AIA: POST-GRANT REVIEW PROCEEDINGS
SEC. 6. AIA: POST-GRANT REVIEW PROCEEDINGS (a) INTER PARTES REVIEW. Chapter 31 of title 35, United States Code, is amended to read as follows: Sec. 3 1 1. I n t e r p a r t e s r e v i e w. 3 1 2. P e
More informationThe Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (AIA)
POLICY BRIEF SEPTEMBER 2011 no. 184 The Comprehensive Patent Reform of 2011 Navigating the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act John Villasenor The Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (AIA) approved in September
More informationPatent Prosecution in View of The America Invents Act. Overview
Patent Prosecution in View of The America Invents Act Courtenay C. Brinckerhoff David Dutcher Paul S. Hunter 2 Overview First-To-File (new 35 U.S.C. 102) Derivation Proceedings New Proceedings For Patent
More informationStrategic Use of Post-Grant Proceedings In Light of Patent Reform
Strategic Use of Post-Grant Proceedings In Light of Patent Reform October 11, 2011 The Leahy-Smith America Invents Act U.S. House of Representatives passed H.R. 1249 (technical name of the bill) on June
More informationInter Partes Review vs. District Court Litigation
Inter Partes Review vs. District Court Litigation February 19, 2015 2 PM ET Ha Kung Wong Inter Partes Review vs. District Court Litigation February 19, 2015 2 PM ET Ha Kung Wong Debbie Gibson v. Tiffany
More informationPatent Pending: The Outlook for Patent Legislation in the 114th Congress
Intellectual Property and Government Advocacy & Public Policy Practice Groups July 13, 2015 Patent Pending: The Outlook for Patent Legislation in the 114th Congress The field of patent law is in a state
More informationAmerica Invents Act of 2011 Part 1: Impact on Litigation Strategy Part 2: Strategic Considerations of the FTF Transition
America Invents Act of 2011 Part 1: Impact on Litigation Strategy Part 2: Strategic Considerations of the FTF Transition Dave Cochran Jones Day Cleveland December 6, 2012 Part 1: Impact on Litigation Strategy
More informationOLIVE & OLIVE, P.A. INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW
OLIVE & OLIVE, P.A. INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW Since 1957 500 MEMORIAL ST. POST OFFICE BOX 2049 DURHAM, NORTH CAROLINA 27702-2049 (919) 683-5514 GENERAL RULES PERTAINING TO PATENT INFRINGEMENT Patent infringement
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS HOUSTON DIVISION. v. CIVIL ACTION NO. H Defendants.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS HOUSTON DIVISION United States District Court Southern District of Texas ENTERED October 09, 2018 David J. Bradley, Clerk NEURO CARDIAC
More informationNo Appeal Against High Court Ruling That Notes of Interviews Conducted by Lawyers Are Not Covered by Legal Advice Privilege
CLIENT MEMORANDUM No Appeal Against High Court Ruling That Notes of Interviews Conducted by Lawyers Are Not Covered by Legal Advice Privilege February 13, 2017 AUTHORS Peter Burrell Paul Feldberg A. Introduction
More informationPresented to The Ohio State Bar Association. May 23, 2012
Your Guide to the America Invents Act (AIA) Presented to The Ohio State Bar Association May 23, 2012 Overview A. Most comprehensive change to U.S. patent law in over 60 years; signed into law Sept. 16,
More informationThird Circuit Holds That Claims Are Disallowable Under Section 502(d) of the Bankruptcy Code No Matter Who Holds Them
CLIENT MEMORANDUM Third Circuit Holds That Claims Are Disallowable Under Section 502(d) of the Bankruptcy Code No November 22, 2013 AUTHORS Paul V. Shalhoub Marc Abrams In a recent opinion, the United
More informationPOST GRANT REVIEW PROCEEDINGS IN THE PTO STEPHEN G. KUNIN PARTNER
POST GRANT REVIEW PROCEEDINGS IN THE PTO STEPHEN G. KUNIN PARTNER PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD (PTAB) COMPOSITION DIRECTOR DEPUTY DIRECTOR COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS COMMISSIONER FOR TRADEMARKS APJ 2 PATENT
More informationJuly 12, NPE Patent Litigation. The AIA s Impact on. Chris Marchese. Mike Amon
The AIA s Impact on NPE Patent Litigation Chris Marchese Mike Amon July 12, 2012 What is an NPE? Non Practicing Entity (aka patent troll ) Entity that does not make products Thus does not practice its
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA CYPRESS SEMICONDUCTOR CORPORATION, v. Plaintiff, GSI TECHNOLOGY, INC., Defendant. Case No. -cv-00-jst ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO STAY Re: ECF
More informationHalliburton II: Fraud-on-the-Market Presumption Survives but Supreme Court Makes it Easier to Rebut Presumption
CLIENT MEMORANDUM Halliburton II: Fraud-on-the-Market Presumption Survives but Supreme Court Makes it Easier to June 24, 2014 AUTHORS Todd G. Cosenza Robert A. Gomez In a highly-anticipated decision (Halliburton
More informationBCLT Back to School: The New Patent Law Explained (Post-Grant Procedures) Stuart P. Meyer
BCLT Back to School: The New Patent Law Explained (Post-Grant Procedures) Stuart P. Meyer Agenda Overview of AIA Post-Grant Approach More Lenses on Patents After Issuance Section 6 Post-Grant Review Proceedings
More informationWilmerHale Webinar: Untangling IPR Estoppel and Navigating Into the Future
Webinar: Untangling IPR Estoppel and Navigating Into the Future June 21, 2017 David Cavanaugh, Partner, Christopher Noyes, Partner, Attorney Advertising Speakers David Cavanaugh Partner Christopher Noyes
More informationThe Supreme Court is Set to Decide the Scope of Business Method Patent Protection
Winter 2010 Federal Circuit Confirms Cislo & Thomas Arguments that Egyptian Goddess Applies to Design Patent Validity Adopting the position that Cislo & Thomas argued in briefs before the Federal Circuit,
More informationPatent Litigation With Non-Practicing Entities: Strategies, Trends and
Patent Litigation With Non-Practicing Entities: Strategies, Trends and Techniques ALFRED R. FABRICANT 20 th Annual Fordham Intellectual Property Conference April 12, 2012 2011 Winston & Strawn LLP Leveling
More informationOil States, SAS Institute, and New Approaches at the U.S. Patent Office
Oil States, SAS Institute, and New Approaches at the U.S. Patent Office Supreme Court Holds that Challenges to Patent Validity Need Not Proceed Before an Article III Court and Sends More Claims Into Review,
More informationNovember Obvious To Try In Pharmaceutical Formulations. g Motivation To Combine. g Obviousness-Type Double Patenting
Federal Circuit Review Obviousness Volume Two Issue Two November 2009 In This Issue: g Obvious To Try In Pharmaceutical Formulations g Motivation To Combine g Obviousness-Type Double Patenting = Product-Process
More informationUNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD PROPPANT EXPRESS INVESTMENTS, LLC, PROPPANT EXPRESS SOLUTIONS, LLC, Petitioner, v. OREN TECHNOLOGIES, LLC, Patent Owner.
More informationPatent Prosecution Update
Patent Prosecution Update March 2012 Contentious Proceedings at the USPTO Under the America Invents Act by Rebecca M. McNeill The America Invents Act of 2011 (AIA) makes significant changes to contentious
More informationGENERAL ASSEMBLY OF NORTH CAROLINA SESSION
GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF NORTH CAROLINA SESSION 01 S SENATE BILL Commerce Committee Substitute Adopted //1 Judiciary I Committee Substitute Adopted //1 Fourth Edition Engrossed //1 House Committee Substitute
More informationCan I Challenge My Competitor s Patent?
Check out Derek Fahey's new firm's website! CLICK HERE Can I Challenge My Competitor s Patent? Yes, you can challenge a patent or patent publication. Before challenging a patent or patent publication,
More informationInter Partes and Covered Business Method Reviews A Reality Check
Inter Partes and Covered Business Method Reviews A Reality Check Wab Kadaba Chris Durkee January 8, 2014 2013 Kilpatrick Townsend Agenda I. IPR / CBM Overview II. Current IPR / CBM Filings III. Lessons
More informationCase: 3:13-cv bbc Document #: 48 Filed: 11/14/13 Page 1 of 9
Case: 3:13-cv-00346-bbc Document #: 48 Filed: 11/14/13 Page 1 of 9 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
More informationPost-SAS: What s Actually Happening. Webinar Presented by: Bill Robinson George Quillin Andrew Cheslock Michelle Moran
Post-SAS: What s Actually Happening Webinar Presented by: Bill Robinson George Quillin Andrew Cheslock Michelle Moran June 21, 2018 Housekeeping Questions can be entered via the Q&A Widget open on the
More informationThe Supreme Court decision in Halo v. Pulse Electronics changes treble damage landscape
The Supreme Court decision in Halo v. Pulse Electronics changes treble damage landscape Halo Elecs., Inc. v. Pulse Elecs., Inc., 136 S. Ct. 1923, 195 L. Ed. 2d 278 (2016), Shawn Hamidinia October 19, 2016
More informationCase 2:09-cv NBF Document 604 Filed 11/05/12 Page 1 of 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
Case 2:09-cv-00290-NBF Document 604 Filed 11/05/12 Page 1 of 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA CARNEGIE MELLON UNIVERSITY, vs. Plaintiff, MARVELL TECHNOLOGY
More informationFactors Favoring Early Settlement of Post-Grant Proceedings Landslide Vol. 8, No. 6 July/August 2016
Factors Favoring Early Settlement of Post-Grant Proceedings Landslide Vol. 8, No. 6 July/August 2016 MARY R. HENNINGER, PHD 404.891.1400 mary.henninger@mcneillbaur.com REBECCA M. MCNEILL 617.489.0002 rebecca.mcneill@mcneillbaur.com
More informationIPRs and CBMs : The Good, the Bad, and the Unknown. Seattle Intellectual Property Inn of Court A Presentation by Group 6 April 17, 2014
IPRs and CBMs : The Good, the Bad, and the Unknown Seattle Intellectual Property Inn of Court A Presentation by Group 6 April 17, 2014 The Governing Statutes 35 U.S.C. 311(a) In General. Subject to the
More informationUnited States Patent and Trademark Office. Patent Trial and Appeal Board
United States Patent and Trademark Office Patent Trial and Appeal Board PTAB Organization Statutory Members of the Board The Board is created by statute (35 U.S.C. 6). 35 U.S.C. 6(a) provides: There shall
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE DIVISION
0 0 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA HTC CORPORATION, et al., HTC CORPORATION, et al., KYOCERA CORPORATION, et al., V. PLAINTIFF, KYOCERA CORPORATION, et al., SAN JOSE DIVISION
More informationPost Grant Review. Strategy. Nathan Frederick Director, IP Services
Post Grant Review Strategy Nathan Frederick Director, IP Services Cardinal Intellectual Property 1603 Orrington Avenue, 20th Floor Evanston, IL 60201 Phone: 847.905.7122 Fax: 847.905.7123 Email: mail@cardinal-ip.com
More informationAre the Board s Institution Decisions on 315 Eligibility for Inter Partes Review Appealable?
April 2014 Are the Board s Institution Decisions on 315 Eligibility for Inter Partes Review Appealable? The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has before it the first appeal from the denial 1
More informationNew Law Creates a Patent Infringement Defense and Restructures the Patent and Trademark Office Pat Costello
New Law Creates a Patent Infringement Defense and Restructures the Patent and Trademark Office Pat Costello On November 29, 1999, President Clinton signed a bill containing the American Inventors Protection
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS HOUSTON DIVISION. v. CIVIL ACTION NO. H MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
e-watch Inc. v. Avigilon Corporation Doc. 40 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS HOUSTON DIVISION e-watch INC., Plaintiff, v. CIVIL ACTION NO. H-13-0347 AVIGILON CORPORATION,
More informationFINAL RULES IMPLEMENTING EIGHTEEN MONTH PUBLICATION OF PATENT APPLICATIONS
FINAL RULES IMPLEMENTING EIGHTEEN MONTH PUBLICATION OF PATENT APPLICATIONS November 3, 2000 As discussed in our November 29, 1999, Special Report on the Omnibus Reform Act of 1999, legislation was enacted
More informationChanges at the PTO. October 21, 2011 Claremont Hotel. Steven C. Carlson Fish & Richardson P.C. Bradley Baugh North Weber & Baugh LLP
Changes at the PTO October 21, 2011 Claremont Hotel Steven C. Carlson Fish & Richardson P.C. Bradley Baugh North Weber & Baugh LLP Overview: Changes at the PTO Some Causes for Reform Patent Trial and Appeals
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO WESTERN DIVISION
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO WESTERN DIVISION THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY, : Case No. 1:12-cv-552 : Plaintiff, : Judge Timothy S. Black : : vs. : : TEAM TECHNOLOGIES, INC., et
More informationUnited States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit IN RE: AFFINITY LABS OF TEXAS, LLC, Appellant 2016-1173 Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in
More informationSPECIAL REPORT May 2018 SURPREME COURT FINDS USPTO S ADMINISTRATIVE PATENT TRIALS CONSTITUTIONAL AND SETS GROUND RULES FOR THEIR CONDUCT BY THE PTAB
SPECIAL REPORT May 2018 Spring 2017 SURPREME COURT FINDS USPTO S ADMINISTRATIVE PATENT TRIALS CONSTITUTIONAL AND SETS GROUND RULES FOR THEIR CONDUCT BY THE PTAB On April 24, 2018, the United State Supreme
More informationCase 1:12-cv GMS Document 60 Filed 12/27/13 Page 1 of 5 PageID #: 1904
Case 1:12-cv-00617-GMS Document 60 Filed 12/27/13 Page 1 of 5 PageID #: 1904 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE AIP ACQUISITION LLC, Plaintiff, v. C.A. No. 12-617-GMS LEVEL
More informationChapter 1. Introduction
Chapter 1 Introduction 1:1 Evolution of the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act 1:1.1 Recommendations for Patent System Reform [A] The FTC Report and NRC Report [B] Patent Reform Bills 1:1.2 The Patent Reform
More informationCase 2:05-cv DF-CMC Document 364 Filed 06/26/2007 Page 1 of 9
Case 2:05-cv-00163-DF-CMC Document 364 Filed 06/26/2007 Page 1 of 9 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT OF THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MARSHALL DIVISION EPICREALM, LICENSING, LLC v No. 2:05CV163 AUTOFLEX
More informationTerry Guerrero. PROCEEDINGS: (IN CHAMBERS) ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS MOTION TO STAY THE CASE (Doc. 23)
Case 8:12-cv-01661-JST-JPR Document 41 Filed 05/22/13 Page 1 of 6 Page ID #:1723 Present: Honorable JOSEPHINE STATON TUCKER, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Terry Guerrero Deputy Clerk ATTORNEYS PRESENT FOR
More informationVolume Two Issue 11. In This Issue: Inherent Anticipation. g A Non-Limiting Claim Preamble is Irrelevant to the Anticipation Analysis
Federal Circuit Review Anticipation Volume Two Issue 11 October 2010 In This Issue: g Inherent Anticipation g A Non-Limiting Claim Preamble is Irrelevant to the Anticipation Analysis g When References
More informationPost-Grant Proceedings in the USPTO
Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP Post-Grant Proceedings in the USPTO Erika Arner Advanced Patent Law Institute, Palo Alto, CA December 12, 2013 0 Post-Grant Proceedings New AIA proceedings
More information