Patent Reissue: Strategic Use for Pre- and Post-AIA
|
|
- Lionel Bryce Wilcox
- 5 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 Presenting a live 90-minute webinar with interactive Q&A Patent Reissue: Strategic Use for Pre- and Post-AIA Correcting Errors in Patents, Determining Whether and When to Pursue a Reissue Application, and Mastering the Recapture Rule TUESDAY, OCTOBER 21, pm Eastern 12pm Central 11am Mountain 10am Pacific Today s faculty features: Erika H. Arner, Partner, Finnegan Henderson Farabow Garrett & Dunner, Reston, Va. Thomas L. Irving, Partner, Finnegan Henderson Farabow Garrett & Dunner, Washington, D.C. Donna M. Meuth, Associate General Counsel - Intellectual Property, Eisai, Andover, Mass. Deborah M. Herzfeld, Of Counsel, Finnegan Henderson Farabow Garrett & Dunner, Washington, D.C. The audio portion of the conference may be accessed via the telephone or by using your computer's speakers. Please refer to the instructions ed to registrants for additional information. If you have any questions, please contact Customer Service at ext. 10.
2 FOR LIVE EVENT ONLY Sound Quality If you are listening via your computer speakers, please note that the quality of your sound will vary depending on the speed and quality of your internet connection. If the sound quality is not satisfactory, you may listen via the phone: dial and enter your PIN when prompted. Otherwise, please send us a chat or sound@straffordpub.com immediately so we can address the problem. If you dialed in and have any difficulties during the call, press *0 for assistance. Viewing Quality To maximize your screen, press the F11 key on your keyboard. To exit full screen, press the F11 key again.
3 FOR LIVE EVENT ONLY For CLE purposes, please let us know how many people are listening at your location by completing each of the following steps: In the chat box, type (1) your company name and (2) the number of attendees at your location Click the SEND button beside the box If you have purchased Strafford CLE processing services, you must confirm your participation by completing and submitting an Official Record of Attendance (CLE Form). You may obtain your CLE form by going to the program page and selecting the appropriate form in the PROGRAM MATERIALS box at the top right corner. If you'd like to purchase CLE credit processing, it is available for a fee. For additional information about CLE credit processing, go to our website or call us at ext. 35.
4 FOR LIVE EVENT ONLY If you have not printed the conference materials for this program, please complete the following steps: Click on the ^ symbol next to Conference Materials in the middle of the lefthand column on your screen. Click on the tab labeled Handouts that appears, and there you will see a PDF of the slides for today's program. Double click on the PDF and a separate page will open. Print the slides by clicking on the printer icon.
5 Patent Reissue: Strategic Use for Pre- and Post-AIA Correcting Errors in Patents, Determining Whether and When to Pursue a Reissue Application, and Mastering the Recapture Rule by Donna Meuth Erika Arner Deborah Herzfeld Tom Irving Copyright Finnegan, 2014
6 Disclaimer These materials are public information and have been prepared solely for educational and entertainment purposes to contribute to the understanding of U.S. intellectual property law and practice. These materials reflect only the personal views of the joint authors and are not individualized legal advice. It is understood that each case is fact-specific, and that the appropriate solution in any case will vary. Therefore, these materials may or may not be relevant to any particular situation. And not all views expressed herein are subscribed to by each joint author. Thus, the joint authors, Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP (including Finnegan Europe LLP, and Fei Han Foreign Legal Affairs Law Firm), and EISAI cannot be bound either philosophically or as representatives of various present and future clients to the comments expressed in these materials. The presentation of these materials does not establish any form of attorney-client relationship with the joint authors, Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP (including Finnegan Europe LLP, and Fei Han Foreign Legal Affairs Law Firm), or EISAI. While every attempt was made to insure that these materials are accurate, errors or omissions may be contained therein, for which any liability is disclaimed. 6
7 Key Questions What factors should be considered in evaluating the possibility of reissue? What are the risks and limitations of using reissue proceedings to resolve patent errors? How have patent reissue implications changed post-aia? If you have a pending patent application, how good an idea is reissue? When is supplemental examination a better idea than reissue and does reissue basically get the owner to the same place a supplemental examination would in a shorter time? 7
8 SNAPSHOT OF REISSUE APPLICATIONS: 64% GRANT RATE (5668/8845)( ) Reissue applications filed Reissue patents issued Source: USPTO 2013 Annual Report , reissue patents =.2% to 3% of total patent applications filed Volume is similar to that of plant patents. 8
9 Reissue Statute AIA 35 U.S.C. 251 (a) IN GENERAL. Whenever any patent is, through error, deemed wholly or partly inoperative or invalid, by reason of a defective specification or drawing, or by reason of the patentee claiming more or less than he had a right to claim in the patent, the Director shall, on the surrender of such patent and the payment of the fee required by law, reissue the patent for the invention disclosed in the original patent, and in accordance with a new and amended application, for the unexpired part of the term of the original patent. No new matter shall be introduced into the application for reissue. (d) REISSUE PATENT ENLARGING SCOPE OF CLAIMS. No reissued patent shall be granted enlarging the scope of the claims of the original patent unless applied for within two years from the grant of the original patent. without any deceptive intention removed by AIA 9
10 Factors To Consider In Evaluating Possibility Of Reissue Avoiding recapture. Mistakes/inaccuracies in specification or drawings. Claims are too broad or narrow: May broaden if filed within 2 years of patent grant May narrow if filed within patent term Missing or improper priority claim (U.S. or foreign). With petition to accept late priority claim. Inventorship (may also be by Certificate of Correction). 10
11 Factors To Consider In Evaluating Possibility Of Reissue (con t) Must be unexpired patent. Patent is reissued for the unexpired part of the term of the original patent. 35 U.S.C Different than reexamination, where proceeding continues after expiration, as long as patent is enforceable. Term of patent cannot be extended by eliminating 35 U.S.C. 120 priority benefits in a reissue; original term remains in effect. Can that be done if a copending application is still pending? Same invention double patenting? Disclaimer under 35 U.S.C. 253? Obviousness type double patenting? 11
12 Other Statutory Requirements Reissue is initiated by patentee or the patentee s assignee. Amended application, fee and offer to surrender original (by operation of law when reissue grants). There must be a statutory error. 12
13 Rules 37 C.F.R a) Contents of a reissue application. An application for reissue must contain the entire specification, including the claims, and the drawings of the patent. No new matter shall be introduced into the application. No reissue patent shall be granted enlarging the scope of the claims of the original patent unless applied for within two years from the grant of the original patent, pursuant to 35 U.S.C C.F.R a) The inventor s oath or declaration for a reissue application, in addition to complying with the requirements of 1.63, 1.64, or 1.67, must also specifically identify at least one error pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 251 being relied upon as the basis for reissue and state that the applicant believes the original patent to be wholly or partly inoperative or invalid by reason of a defective specification or drawing, or by reason of the patentee claiming more or less than the patentee had the right to claim in the patent. 13
14 Error According to 35 U.S.C. 251 While we have acknowledged that 251 is based on fundamental principles of equity and fairness, and should be construed liberally we have also stated that the remedial function of the statute is not without limits.. Indeed, [t]he reissue statute was not enacted as a panacea for all patent prosecution problems, nor as a grant to the patentee of a second opportunity to prosecute de novo his original application. Thus, not every event or circumstance that might be labeled error is correctable by reissue. In re Serenkin, 479 F.3d 1359, 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2007) Prior to 1952, the reissue statute specifically provided that defects correctible through reissue were those that had resulted from inadvertence, accident, or mistake. 35 U.S.C. 64 (1946); When it enacted section 251, the current reissue provision, Congress intended to retain the inadvertence, accident, or mistake standard that had existed under the earlier statute. In re Rosuvastatin Calcium Patent Litigation, 703 F.3d 511, (Fed. Cir. 2012) 14
15 Failure to File Divisional Is Not an Error Under 251 If claims were non-elected in the application (that became the patent) and the non-elected claims were not re-filed in a divisional, they cannot be recovered via reissue. Rationale: Failure to file a divisional application on the nonelected claims is not considered to be an error correctable under 35 U.S.C. 251 by reissue of the original patent. In re Orita, 550 F.2d 1277, 1280 (CCPA 1977) and In re Watkinson, 900 F.2d 230 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Cited by In re Serenkin, 479 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2007): The distinction is between a genuine error, or mistake, and a deliberate, but subsequently found to be disadvantageous, choice. 15
16 Withdrawing Terminal Disclaimer Not an Error In re Dinsmore, 757 F.3d 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2014) During prosecution of 568 patent, recorded a TD to overcome a ODP rejection. Reissue application to modify the recorded terminal disclaimer to delete the common-ownership provision, and to modify the claims that gave rise to the disclaimer, because the two patents are not and never have been commonly owned. A FC: Affirmed rejection of application; no error within the meaning of statute. 16
17 Withdrawing Terminal Disclaimer Not an Error Dinsmore (con t) FC: Section 251 requires not only that the original patent be wholly or partly inoperative or invalid, and that the inoperativeness or invalidity be by reason of a defective specification or drawing or unduly broad or narrow claiming, but that error be the cause of the infirmity. Section 251 often applies to applicants' choices, i.e., their deliberate decisions about what to say in their patents, not just slips of the pen. But not every choice that produces inoperativeness or invalidity by reason of a specification, drawing, or claiming problem (within the meaning of section 251) can qualify. Only choices based on error count. Most reissue cases involve no dispute about this basis of error the court has noted that the typical situations are (for a broadening reissue) the post-issuance discovery of attorney error in understanding the scope of the invention and (for a narrowing reissue) the belated discovery of partially invalidating prior art. On the other hand, we have held reissue unavailable in several cases where the applicants identified no deficient understanding behind a choice,. In such cases, the reissue application was held inadequate as being no more than an effort to reverse a later-regretted choice made in obtaining the original patent. 17
18 Reissue Cannot Be Used To Withdraw Terminal Disclaimer In re Yamazaki, 702 F.3d 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2012) Yamazaki filed terminal disclaimer to overcome obviousness-type double patenting rejection. Amended claims. Yamazaki filed to withdraw TD, but PTO did not decide before patent issued. Petition dismissed Recorded terminal disclaimer could not be withdrawn after a patent has issued. Yamazaki sought to rescind by filing a reissue application. "error" identified was applicant's failure to ensure the proper disposition of the Petition to Withdraw during prosecution, failure to withdraw the application from issuance before and/or after payment of the issue fee. During pendency of the reissue application, both patents expired. 18
19 Reissue Cannot Be Used To Withdraw Terminal Disclaimer Yamazaki (con t) Reissue was rejected as premised on a defective basis for reissue. Board rejected for lack of error correctable under 35 U.S.C. 251; reissue proceedings cannot be used to withdraw a terminal disclaimer from an issued patent. terminal disclaimer s effect on patent term must apply to the term of the original patent, as recited in 251 (prohibits the reissue of an expired patent and precludes expanding a reissued patent's term beyond the original term set at issuance). 253 interpreted as meaning that disclaimed claims never existed in the original patent, the same holds true for Yamazaki s disclaimer of patent term. 19
20 Reissue Cannot Be Used To Withdraw Terminal Disclaimer Yamazaki (con t) FC: Upheld Board's decision. "...when the '991 patent issued with its terminal disclaimer in effect, that disclaimer became part of the original '991 patent and served to define its term, regardless of any further term that might have been otherwise available in the absence of the disclaimer." 20
21 What If You Forget A Claim? In re Tanaka, 640 F.3d 1246 (Fed. Cir. 2011) Tanaka filed a reissue declaration containing the original claims plus an added claim dependent on original claim 1. Examiner rejected the claims because there was no error identified that broadened or narrowed the scope of the issued claims. Board held that it is not reissue error under 35 U.S.C. 251 to add a subgeneric claim where all existing claims in the patent are maintained, both broader and narrower than the added claim. FC: Reversed and remanded. adding dependent claims as a hedge against possible invalidity of original claims is a proper reason for asking that a reissue be granted. In re Handel, 50 CCPA 918, 312 F.2d 943, 946 n. 2 (1963). the omission of a narrower claim from a patent can render a patent partly inoperative by failing to protect the disclosed invention to the full extent allowed by law. 21
22 What Are The Risks And Limitations Of Using Reissue Proceedings To Resolve Patent Errors? New Narrow Claims New prior art discovered, e.g., in pre-litigation diligence Old prior art not disclosed during original examination, e.g., to hedge inequitable conduct (AIA changes) New Dependent Claims New prior art; hedge against possible invalidity attack New Broader Claims New products (patent owner or third-party) Unclaimed embodiments or species 22
23 What Are The Risks And Limitations Of Using Reissue Proceedings To Resolve Patent Errors? Provoke Interference Add new claims to reissue application. Still need to identify an error; which can be the addition of the new claims. Cannot re-file patent claims and suggest an interference If broadened; must be filed within 2 years. Intervening Rights Applies to past infringement. Consider scope of likely amendment. The greater the difference between patent claims and reissue claims the more likely intervening rights will be triggered. 23
24 BROADENING REISSUE Only allowed within two years from patent grant. Reissue application filed within two years for reasons other than broadening may not be later broadened during prosecution outside of two years. Intent to broaden must be established in the reissue application within two years In re Graff, 111 F.3d 874, 877 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Subject also to 112 written description requirement. But if you are driven to reissue by IPR/PGR, broadening may not be at issue. 24
25 CONTINUATION AFTER 2-YEAR BROADENING DEADLINE In re Staats, 671 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2012) Issue: Does 251 allow a continuing reissue application to add broadened claims after 2-year limit where the broadened claims are unrelated to the broadened claims filed within the 2-year limit? 1996 file patent application 2 embodiments described, claims only to 1st patent issues 2001 timely filed first broadening reissue application relating to 1 st embodiment May nd broadening reissue application filed as continuation of first broadening reissue application, relating to 1 st embodiment Oct 2004 RE38,641 issues (from first broadening reissue application) Aug 11, 2006 Third broadening reissue application filed as continuation of second broadening reissue application, relating to 2 nd embodiment Aug 2007 RE39,763 (from second broadening reissue application) Note: each reissue application filed while previously filed one still pending. 25
26 CONTINUATION AFTER 2-YEAR BROADENING DEADLINE Staats (con t) Board: Rejected third reissue application because new broadened claims were not related in any way to what was covered in the original broadening reissue. PTO: the language of the statute does not suggest that the first broadening reissue can serve as a kind of placeholder for later applications. FC: Reverse rejection. Case controlled by In re Doll, 419 F.2d 925 (CCPA 1970): 251's 2-year time limit applies to the filing date only of the first broadening reissue application. No distinction between related and unrelated claims. [N]o basis for limiting Doll to situations where later broadened claims are related to, or are directed to the same embodiment as in the original application. 26
27 Effect of Reissue Patent is deemed wholly or partly invalid or inoperable due to at least one error: the benefits of Tanaka. Unexpired term of the patent: no additional PTA or PTE, but also reissue doesn t adversely affect either. Effective date of claims. Intervening rights. 27
28 Effect of Reissue Opening up design-around possibilities. Delicate balance between avoiding prior art and avoiding patent owner estoppel and still being able to prove infringement. Notice what claims Petition did not challenge in IPG/PGR. Probably didn t challenge claims that raised no infringement concerns. Effects of reissue prosecution history. 28
29 Effect of Reissue Combined with PGR Opening up design-around possibilities particularly since discovery in IPR/PGR is not likely to be robust. Discovery is available but limited. Routine discovery Exhibits cited in paper or testimony; Cross examination of declarants; Relevant information that is inconsistent with a position advanced by a party. 29
30 Non-Routine, Additional Discovery For additional discovery, has as to meet the five Garmin factors: Request is based on more than a mere possibility of finding something useful. Request does not seek the litigation positions of the other party. Information is not reasonably available from other sources. Request is easily understood. Request is not overly burdensome. Very few motions for additional discovery granted through twoyear anniversary of IPR: the signal is that PTAB cannot resolve cases within twelve month requirement if additional discovery is granted. 30
31 AIA Makes No Difference on Doctrine of Intervening Rights No 3 rd party intervening rights for claims substantially identical to original patent. May be 3 rd party intervening rights for changed claims if: Alleged infringer made, used, sold, offered for sale or imported prior to the grant of the reissue. Alleged infringer made substantial preparation to make, use, sale, offer for sale or import prior to the grant of the reissue. Where intervening rights are at issue, going for a reissue in view of an IPR/PGR may not have any practical benefit. 31
32 AIA Does Not affect Existing Rules Against Recapture Precluding Reissue Federal Circuit recapture test. Interplay of the recapture rule and the Orita doctrine. MPEP will be most important to PTO but Federal Circuit decisions could mean more to PTAB. 32
33 Traditional Recapture Subject matter surrendered to obtain the original patent cannot be recaptured by filing a reissue. Consider effect of broadest reasonable claim construction? Surrendered subject matter : 1. The claim scope of the application claims that were canceled/amended in order to obtain the allowance of the patent; or 2. The right to a claim that does not include (in any form) a particular limitation that had been added/argued to overcome a prior art rejection. 33
34 MPEP Recapture of Canceled Subject Matter A reissue will not be granted to "recapture" claimed subject matter which was surrendered in an application to obtain the original patent. THREE STEP TEST FOR RECAPTURE: 1) first, we determine whether, and in what respect, the reissue claims are broader in scope than the original patent claims; 2) next, we determine whether the broader aspects of the reissue claims relate to subject matter surrendered in the original prosecution; A. determine whether applicant surrendered any subject matter in the prosecution of the original application that became the patent to be reissued. B. If yes, determine whether any of the broadening of the reissue claims is in the area of the surrendered subject matter. 3) finally, we determine whether the reissue claims were materially narrowed in other respects, so that the claims may not have been enlarged, and hence avoid the recapture rule. 34
35 Recapture Must Relate To Change In re Youman, 679 F.3d 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2012) Board upheld examiner rejection for improper recapture of subject matter surrendered in the original application. 3-step recapture rule analysis 1. determine whether and in what aspect the reissue claims are broader than the patent claims. 2. determine whether the broader aspects of the reissue claims relate to surrendered subject matter. 3. determine whether the surrendered subject matter has crept into the reissue claim. FC: Vacate and remand for Board to perform 3 rd step. 35
36 Violate Rule Against Recapture MBO Labs., Inc. v. Becton, Dickinson & Co., 602 F.3d 1306 (Fed. Cir. 2010) RE 885 patent teaches a syringe that protects against needle-stick injuries by sheathing a contaminated needle in a flange-covered guard. MBO argued that it never surrendered a guard body that could move relative to the syringe's fixed needle. DC: MBO violated rule against recapture. 36
37 Violate Rule Against Recapture MBO Labs. (con t) FC: Affirm. MBO clearly and unmistakably surrendered claiming a guard body that moved relative to a fixed needle. MBO twice overcame the examiner's rejections by emphasizing that the prior art disclosed a type of guard that moved relative to a fixed needle. In contrast, MBO stressed that its needle moved relative to the guard by slidably retracting. Also, note: a patentee may violate the rule against recapture by claiming subject matter in a reissue patent that the patentee surrendered while prosecuting a related patent application. 37
38 More on Reissue-Recapture AIA Engineering Ltd. v. Magotteaux Intern. S/A, 657 F.3d 1264 (Fed. Cir. 2011) Magotteaux replaced homogeneous solid solution in original claim 1 with homogeneous ceramic composite in reissue claims. DC: reissue claims had broader scope than original claims, and are invalid under 35 U.S.C. 251 for impermissibly recapturing subject matter surrendered during reissue examination. FC: Reverse and remand. Error in claim construction lead to error in conclusion of impermissible recapture. With the correct construction (two phrases are synonymous according to patentee s lexicography) there was no broadening, and therefore recapture issue is moot. 38
39 More on Reissue-Recapture In re Mostafazadeh, 643 F.3d 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2011) FC: Affirmed. the reissue application impermissibly attempted to recapture subject matter surrendered during prosecution of the original patent application Parties agree that the reissue claims are broader than the patented claims and that the broader aspects relate to the surrendered subject matter. Did the surrendered subject matter creep into the reissue claim? Violation of the rule against recapture may be avoided under this final step of the analysis if the reissue claims materially narrow the claims relative to the original claims such that full or substantial recapture of the subject matter surrendered during prosecution is avoided. To avoid violation of the rule against recapture in this way, the narrowing must relate to the subject matter surrendered during the original prosecution. Here, the reissue claims are broader than the patented claims. Where this is the case, the recapture rule is avoided only if the claims are materially narrowed in a way that avoids recapture of the surrendered subject matter. While these limitations certainly narrow the reissue claims relative to the original claims, the narrowing limitations are unrelated to the surrendered subject matter and thus insufficient to avoid recapture. 39
40 How Have Patent Reissue Implications Changed Post-AIA? Reissue applications can be merged with ex parte reexaminations. Reissue rules govern merged proceeding. Timing with concurrent PGR/IPR. PGR/IPR instituted before reissue reissue likely stayed. PGR/IPR filed before reissue reissue likely stayed. PGR/IPR filed/instituted after reissue reissue likely stay. PGR/IPR PGR applicable for 9 months after reissue on new reissue claims. Reissue effective filing date is patent filing date. IPR is available as normal. What may the role of reissue be in these PGR/IPR proceedings? 40
41 Reissue In View of AIA Post-Grant Options Other Than Supplemental Examination Ex Parte Reexam Post-Grant Review When After grant Within nine months of grant (only AIA patents) Threshold showing Grounds SNQ Patents/printe d publications 102, 103 More likely than not claim is unpatentable or novel legal question 101, 102, 103, 112 Covered Business Methods PGR After grant, for covered business method patents More likely than not PLUS sued or charged with infringement Inter Partes Review After 9 months of grant (AIA patents) or terminated PGR Reasonable likelihood of success 101, 102, 103, 112 Patents/printed publications 102, 103 Time at PTO Years months months months Anonymity Yes No No No 41
42 Reissue in View of AIA Post-Grant Options Other Than Supplemental Examination Ex Parte Reexam Post-Grant Review Covered Business Methods PGR Inter Partes Review Estoppel None Issues raised or reasonably could have been raised Before whom Discovery/ evidence Appeal PTO: raised or could have raised Dist Ct: raised Issues raised or reasonably could have been raised CRU PTAB PTAB PTAB Declaration Only patent owner may appeal to PTAB then Federal Circuit Declaration and discovery Both parties may appeal to Federal Circuit Declaration and discovery Both parties may appeal to Federal Circuit Declaration and discovery Both parties may appeal to Federal Circuit 42
43 But: IPR/PGR Weighted Against the Patent Owner Burden of proof ISSUE PGR/TPGR/IPR DISTRICT COURT Preponderance of the evidence Clear and convincing evidence Presumption of Validity? No Yes Claim construction Broadest reasonable construction Philips/Markman framework: analyze claims, specification, and prosecution history to determine how claims would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art Decision maker Patent Trial and Appeal Board (APJs) District court judge or jury 43
44 Rocket Docket Procedure/Timeline for Post-Grant Options: An Opening for Reissue? months Petition PO Prelim. Response Decision/ Institution PO Response/ Motion to Amend Petitioner Reply/ Opposition PO Reply Oral Hearing Final Written Decision PO Discovery on Real Parties in Interest (3 months) PO Discovery (3 months) Petitioner Discovery (3 months) PO Discovery (1 month) Period for Observation & Motions (2 months) Sample timeline from USPTO. 44
45 Statistics: Post-Grant Options (as of Oct. 2, 2014) Petitions filed Inter partes review Trials instituted Petition denied Settlements Final Written Decisions Source: 74% of petitions granted (731/983). 45
46 PGR/IPR/Reissue Timing Requirements Related to Litigation Cannot file if challenger also filed civil action challenging validity of patent. Petitioner, real party, or privy of petitioner. Does not include counterclaim. Cannot file IPR more than 12 months after the petitioner is served with a complaint alleging infringement of patent. No such timing requirements on Reissue other than the normal ones. 46
47 Petitioner Estoppel: PGR and IPR PGR and IPR Becomes effective once the Board issues a final written decision Applies to any ground that petitioner raised or reasonably could have raised Estoppel applies in subsequent proceedings before the PTO, in civil actions, and in ITC proceedings 47
48 No Estoppel On Petitioner if 317(a) and 327(a). IPR/PGR Is Settled If IPR/PGR is terminated with respect to a petitioner in view of a settlement, no estoppel attaches to petitioner. If no petitioner remains in the IPR/PGR, then Office may terminate the IPR or proceed to final written decision. 48
49 But: Patent Owner Estoppel Could Make Reissue Interesting Patent owner estoppel. Substantive rule making? 42.73(d)(3) A patent applicant or owner is precluded from taking action inconsistent with the adverse judgment, including obtaining in any patent: i. A claim that is not patentably distinct from a finally refused or canceled claim; or ii. An amendment of a specification or of a drawing that was denied during the trial proceeding, but this provision does not apply to an application or patent that has a different written description. 49
50 In IPR/PGR, Patent Owner Can Theoretically Make Limited Amendments Once Patent Owner must confer with the Board before filing a motion to amend the claims. Motion to Amend requirements Only get a reasonable number of substitute claims one-to-one correspondence. Identify the patentable distinction Provide technical facts and reasoning. Provide any construction for any new claim terms. Some representation should be made about the specific technical disclosure of the closest prior art known to the patent owner. 50
51 Restrictions on Patent Owner Claim Amendments in IPR/PGR Motion to Amend requirements (con t) For amended claims, citations to the specification for written description support for not only the patent-at-issue, but also all parent applications. Address basic skill set possessed by one with ordinary skill in the art [I]f a feature Z is proposed to be added to an independent claim to render it patentably distinct from the prior art,... it would be helpful for the patent owner to first focus on feature Z and indicate whether feature Z was known in any context, and if so, then explain why that context is so remote or different from that of the claimed invention that one with ordinary skill in the art would not have applied that teaching to arrive at the claimed invention. IPR , Oracle v. Clouding IP, LLC, paper 15 (July 15, 2013). 51
52 Claim Amendments in PGR/IPR International Flavors & Fragrances Inc. v. The United States Of America, As Represented By The Secretary Of Agriculture, IPR , Paper 12 (PTAB May 20, 2014) No Preliminary Response filed. IPR instituted. No Patent Owner Response, instead Motion to Amend. (unopposed) cancel all claims substitute new claims First ever motion to amend granted (not just canceled). 52
53 Let s Look at the Old Claims Old claim 1: A method for repelling arthropods, said method comprising treating an object or area with an arthropod repelling effective amount of at least one isolongifolenone analog and optionally a carrier or carrier material; wherein said at least one isolongifolenone analog has the following formula: wherein. Old claim 8: The method according to claim 1, wherein said at least one isolongifolenone analog is selected from the group consisting of [6 specific analogs] and mixtures thereof. 53
54 Let s Look at the New Claims 54
55 Int l Flavors (con t) PTAB: Motion to Amend Granted Patent Owner showed written description support for amended claims. We conclude that Patent Owner has made a sufficient showing that each of proposed independent claims 27 and 45, as well as each of proposed dependent claims 28-44, as a whole, has written description support in the application as filed. Patent Owner must overcome prima facie case of obviousness patent owner bears the burden of proof to demonstrate patentability of the proposed claims over the prior art in general, and thus entitlement to the proposed claims. the patent owner should discuss, as well as present evidence, if appropriate, as to the level of ordinary skill in the art, and what was known regarding the features being relied upon to demonstrate patentability of the proposed claims. 55
56 Int l Flavors (con t) PTAB: Motion to Amend Granted Patent Owner provides several publications, as well as the Declaration of Dr. Aijun Zhang (Ex. 2005; Zhang Declaration ), to demonstrate the level of ordinary skill in the art, as well as the unobviousness of features being relied upon to demonstrate patentability of the proposed claims. Although Patent Owner s statement that Behan is the apparent closest prior art may appear conclusory, Patent Owner goes beyond that statement to demonstrate the level of ordinary skill in the art, as well as providing evidence regarding what would have been understood by the ordinary artisan as to those features being relied upon to demonstrate patentability of the proposed claim. 56
57 Int l Flavors (con t) PTAB: Motion to Amend Granted Specifically, Dr. Zhang concludes, based on the results presented in the Declaration, that the ordinary artisan would not expect that minor structural changes to a known insect, tick, or mite repellent would result in a modified compound having the same repellency as the parent compound. Ex According to Dr. Zhang, such activity cannot be predicted based on structure alone, but must be determined by experiment. Because the prior art does not provide a reason to modify isolongifolanone to arrive at the modified isolongifolanone compounds of proposed claim 27, nor does it provide a reasonable expectation that such modifications would result in a compound having the desired insect repellent activity, we conclude that the preponderance of the evidence supports the patentability of claim 27. As to dependent claims 28-44, because those claims incorporate all of the limitations of claim 27, they would be patentable for the same reasons. 57
58 Int l Flavors (con t) Motion to Amend Granted Comments Use case as guide in ex parte matters Way to win on nonobviousness at the PTO in ex parte matters, which of course should be strongly guided by PTAB. The claim: selected from the group consisting of but better to say wherein said at least one analog is chosen from and mixtures thereof is strange in juxtaposition with at least one in context of this case 58
59 So, Consider Having Patent Owner in IPR/PGR Go to Reissue As seen, only able in IPR/PGR to amend once, and only if Motion to Amend requirements are met. As seen, Patent Owner Estoppel can be quite severe, reminiscent of the body of law of interference estoppel. Bad environment in inter partes IPR/PGR. Particularly the inter partes part of it and the PTOimposed patent owner estoppel. 59
60 So, Consider Having Patent Owner in IPR/PGR Go to Reissue So maybe Patent Owner doesn t amend claims in IPR/PGR and rather provides a patentably distinct but useful claim amendment in reissue. Reissue likely stayed pending disposal of IPR/PGR within the one year period from institution. If claims of patent canceled in IPR/PGR, look for patentably distinct claims in reissue that are enforceable and still infringed. 60
61 So, Consider Having Patent Owner in IPR/PGR Go to Reissue In other words, pursue reissue to get Orange Book listable claims that are separately patentable over patent claims lost in the IPR/PGR. Generic has to certify against claims. Institute new Hatch Waxman litigation with narrower claims. But how realistic will this be, particularly if PGR/IPR patent owner estoppel sticks? Would the reissue be stayed? 61
62 Litigation and Reissue Litigation A reissue application will be stayed if there is concurrent litigation unless The litigation is stayed The litigation is terminated There are no significant overlapping issues The applicant requests examination to continue Will that last point generally be quite likely? If reissue examination continues, NO extension of times are permitted. See MPEP A reissue can be needed because of litigation, irrespective of any AIA considerations. 62
63 USPTO Claim Construction Standard MPEP 2111: Applies to Both IPR/PGR and Reissue During patent examination, the pending claims must be given their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification. The Federal Circuit s en banc decision in Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 75 USPQ2d 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2005) expressly recognized that the USPTO employs the broadest reasonable interpretation standard: The Patent and Trademark Office ( PTO ) determines the scope of claims in patent applications not solely on the basis of the claim language, but upon giving claims their broadest reasonable construction in light of the specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art. (Citation omitted.) Because applicant has the opportunity to amend the claims during prosecution, giving a claim its broadest reasonable interpretation will reduce the possibility that the claim, once issued, will be interpreted more broadly than is justified. (Citations omitted.) 63
64 BuT USPTO Standard For Both IPR/PGR and Reissue Has Limits In re Suitco Surface, Inc., 603 F.3d 1255, 1260 (Fed. Cir. 2010): The PTO's construction here, though certainly broad, is unreasonably broad. The broadestconstruction rubric coupled with the term comprising does not give the PTO an unfettered license to interpret claims to embrace anything remotely related to the claimed invention. Rather, claims should always be read in light of the specification and teachings in the underlying patent. 64
65 How Does The Federal Circuit Review PTAB Claim Constructions? Deferential review: is the Board s decision reasonable in light of all of the evidence? See, e.g., In re Suitco Surface, Inc., 603 F.3d at 1259 (citing In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1055 (Fed. Cir. 1997) De novo review; see, In re Baker Hughes, 215 F.3d 1297 (Fed. Cir. 2000) ( [A]lthough the PTO gives claims the broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the written description... claim construction by the PTO is a question of law that we review de novo,... just as we review claim construction by a district court ). 65
66 Remember: Different Results Are A Very Real Possibility Baxter In re Baxter Int l, 678 F.3d 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2012)(LOURIE, Moore)(Newman, dissenting) Board s decision of invalidity affirmed despite earlier opposite finding in district court and affirmance by Federal Circuit Considered Federal Circuit s earlier affirmance of validity, but nevertheless upheld rejections. PTO and courts take different approaches in determining validity and on the same evidence could quite correctly come to different conclusions Different claim construction standards; Different burdens of proof; and Different records. Because the two proceedings necessarily applied different burdens of proof and relied on different records, PTO did not err in reaching different conclusion than district court./fed. Cir. Congress has provided for reexamination system that permits challenges to patents by third parties, even those who have lost in prior judicial proceedings. 66
67 And End of Litigation May Not Be End of Case Fresenius II Fresenius USA, Inc. v. Baxter Int l., Inc., (Fresenius II), 721 F.3d 1330 (Fed. Cir. 2013)(DYK, Prost)(Newman, dissenting) Pending infringement suit must be dismissed as moot after PTO finding of invalidity during reexamination; wipes out $24 M damage award. USPTO s cancellation of the claims divested Baxter of a cause of action for infringement. Patentee argued that earlier final judgment by district court on damages operated as res judicata, precluding challenging district court s underlying holding of validity (upheld in Fresenius I) Majority disagreed, distinguishing between final judgments for the purposes of appeal and final judgments for the purposes of preclusion. Since scope of relief remained to be determined, there was no final judgment binding on the parties or the court. 67
68 Reissue and Supplemental Examination When is supplemental examination a better idea than reissue and does reissue basically get the owner to the same place a supplemental examination would in a shorter time? Would one use a combination of Reissue and Supplemental Examination to insulate reissued claims from allegation of inequitable conduct? 68
69 Supplemental Examination vs. Reissue? Reissue Cure May show prior art is not but-for material AIA eliminated the without deceptive intent requirement Examination Similar to ex parte prosecution RCE s and EOT s endless opportunity to amend Supplemental Examination (ex parte reexamination) Complete cure ex parte reexam if prior art raises a substantial new question of patentability but-for material? 2 Office actions before appeal No RCE s EOT s in limited situations only one opportunity to amend Examiner Regular examination corps Central Reexam Unit 3-examiner panel Timing with special dispatch Similar to ex parte prosecution Costs $3040 initial filing $1780 to issue Control Applicant PTO Error Must admit an error; dependent claim sufficient, see In re Tanaka Initial determination 3 mos Then ex parte reexam $4400 initial filing $12,200 if ex parte reexam No error needed 69
70 Supplemental Examination vs. Reissue IN GENERAL. A patent shall not be held unenforceable on the basis of conduct relating to information that had not been considered, was inadequately considered, or was incorrect in a prior examination of the patent if the information was considered, reconsidered, or corrected during a supplemental examination of the patent. The making of a request under subsection (a), or the absence thereof, shall not be relevant to enforceability of the patent under section 282. [ 257(c)(1), 125 STAT. 326] Is this a holy grail of a pre-lit purge of inequitable conduct under a but-for materiality standard? 70
71 Supplemental Examination vs. Reissue 3 months for PTO to indicate whether or not submitted information raises a SNQP. [ 257(a), 125 STAT. 325] If no SNQP, subject to exceptions on previous slide, patent cannot be held unenforceable on considered information ; isn t that but-for materiality? If yes, can trigger reexam But patentee cannot make submissions regarding the art or claims before first Office Action. Assuming the patentee establishes patentability of the claim (either in original or amended form) in the reexamination over the SNQ raised by the information reviewed, the patentee is insulated in subsequent litigation from a charge of inequitable conduct based on that information [ 257(c)(1), 125 STAT. 326], subject to exceptions noted previously. 71
72 Supplemental Examination vs. Reissue America Invents Act, SEC. 12 [125 STAT. 325] Allows submission of prior art in your own patents But SE effect does not apply against allegations already raised in district court or ANDA notice para. IV before date of filing request ( 257(c)(2)(A)), [125 STAT. 326] or SE effect shall not apply to any defenses raised in ITC litigation/district court litigation unless SE and any reexam ordered therefrom is finished before the date on which the action is brought ( 257(c)(2)(B)). [125 STAT. 326] New 257(a): A patent owner may request supplemental examination of a patent in the Office to consider, reconsider, or correct information believed to be relevant to the patent[.] [125 STAT. 325] Prior art? Inconsistent positions? Errors? Therasense: Rule 56? 72
73 Supplemental Examination vs. Reissue 257(f), 125 STAT. 327: Nothing in this section shall be construed (1) to preclude the imposition of sanctions based upon criminal or antitrust laws (including section 1001(a) of title 18, the first section of the Clayton Act, and section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act to the extent that section relates to unfair methods of competition); (2) to limit the authority of the Director to investigate issues of possible misconduct and impose sanctions for misconduct in connection with matters or proceedings before the Office; or (3) to limit the authority of the Director to promulgate regulations under chapter 3 relating to sanctions for misconduct by representatives practicing before the Office. Do (1)-(3) compel full disclosure as discussed in Therasense majority and dissent? Are they adequate brakes on affirmative egregious misconduct? 73
74 Supplemental Examination vs. Reissue Fraud exception [ 257(e), 125 STAT ] (e) FRAUD. If the Director becomes aware, during the course of a supplemental examination or reexamination proceeding ordered under this section, that a material fraud on the Office may have been committed in connection with the patent that is the subject of the supplemental examination, then in addition to any other actions the Director is authorized to take, including the cancellation of any claims found to be invalid under section 307 as a result of a reexamination ordered under this section, the Director shall also refer the matter to the Attorney General for such further action as the Attorney General may deem appropriate. What is fraud and what investigation is needed? Is that an attempt to compel full disclosure? Does this make Supp Exam a non-starter? See the next slide: may be useful during litigation 74
75 Source: 75
76 If You Have A Pending Patent Application, How Good An Idea Is Reissue? 76
77 Donna M. Meuth Associate General Counsel Intellectual Property Eisai, Inc. 4 Corporate Drive Andover, MA Donna_Meuth@eisai.com Thank you. Erika Arner Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP Two Freedom Square Freedom Drive Reston, VA erika.arner@finnegan.com Deborah Herzfeld Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP 901 New York Avenue, NW Washington, DC deborah.herzfeld@finnegan.com Tom Irving Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP 901 New York Avenue, NW Washington, DC tom.irving@finnegan.com 77
Leveraging Patent Reissue for Patent Portfolio Management
Presenting a live 90-minute webinar with interactive Q&A Leveraging Patent Reissue for Patent Portfolio Management Strengthening Patent Portfolios, Correcting Patents, and Understanding the Risks and Limitations
More informationStrategic Use of Patent Reissue: Whether and When to Pursue a Reissue Application
Presenting a live 90-minute webinar with interactive Q&A Strategic Use of Patent Reissue: Whether and When to Pursue a Reissue Application Correcting Errors, Responding to an IPR Challenge and Mastering
More informationThese materials are public information and have been prepared solely for educational and entertainment purposes to contribute to the understanding of
May 14, 2013 These materials are public information and have been prepared solely for educational and entertainment purposes to contribute to the understanding of U.S. intellectual property law. These
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 informationPreparing for and Navigating PTAB Appeals Before the Federal Circuit
Presenting a live 90-minute webinar with interactive Q&A Preparing for and Navigating PTAB Appeals Before the Federal Circuit Conducting PTAB Trials With Eye to Appeal, Determining Errors for Appeal, Understanding
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 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 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 informationInequitable Conduct Judicial Developments
Inequitable Conduct Judicial Developments Duke Patent Law Institute May 16, 2013 Presented by Tom Irving Copyright Finnegan 2013 Disclaimer These materials are public information and have been prepared
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 informationUSPTO Post Grant Trial Practice
Bill Meunier, Member Michael Newman, Member Peter Cuomo, Of Counsel July 18, 2016 Basics: Nomenclature "IPRs" = Inter partes review proceedings "PGRs" = Post-grant review proceedings "CBMs" = Post-grant
More informationReexamination, Reissue, Certificate of Correction and New America Invents Act Proceedings: Substantive and Strategic Overview
Reexamination, Reissue, Certificate of Correction and New America Invents Act Proceedings: Substantive and Strategic Overview Eugene T. Perez, Esq. Birch, Stewart, Kolasch & Birch, LLP February 3, 2012
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 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 informationLeveraging Post-Grant Patent Proceedings Before the PTAB
Presenting a live 90-minute webinar with interactive Q&A Leveraging Post-Grant Patent Proceedings Before the PTAB Best Practices for Patentees and Third Parties in Inter Partes Review, Post-Grant Review
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 informationPatent Licensing: Advanced Tactics
Presenting a live 90-minute webinar with interactive Q&A Patent Licensing: Advanced Tactics for Licensees Post-AIA Structuring Contractual Protections and Responding When Licensed Patents Are Challenged
More informationAmerica Invents Act (AIA) Post-Grant Proceedings. Jeffrey S. Bergman Kevin Kuelbs Laura Witbeck
America Invents Act (AIA) Post-Grant Proceedings Jeffrey S. Bergman Kevin Kuelbs Laura Witbeck What is included in Post-Grant Reform in the U.S.? Some current procedures are modified and some new ones
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 informationPatents and the Protection of Proprietary Biotechnology Information
Patents and the Protection of Proprietary Biotechnology Information Susan Haberman Griffen Anna Tsang Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP May 20, 2005 Page 1 2005 DISCLAIMER These materials
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 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 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 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 informationCORRECTION OF ISSUED PATENTS
CORRECTION OF ISSUED PATENTS 2012 IP Summer Seminar Peter Corless Partner pcorless@edwardswildman.com July 2012 2012 Edwards Wildman Palmer LLP & Edwards Wildman Palmer UK LLP Types of Correction Traditional
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 informationPTAB Trial Proceedings and Parallel Litigation: Impact, Strategy & Consequences
Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP PTAB Trial Proceedings and Parallel Litigation: Impact, Strategy & Consequences 2015 National CLE Conference Friday, January 9, 2015 Presented by Denise
More informationAIA Post-Grant Proceedings: Lessons Learned from PTAB and Federal Circuit Decisions
AIA Post-Grant Proceedings: Lessons Learned from PTAB and Federal Circuit Decisions Christopher Persaud, J.D., M.B.A. Patent Agent/Consultant Patent Possibilities Tyler McAllister, J.D. Attorney at Law
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 informationPresenting a live 90-minute webinar with interactive Q&A. Today s faculty features:
Presenting a live 90-minute webinar with interactive Q&A Preparing for and Navigating PTAB Appeals Before the Federal Circuit Conducting PTAB Trials With Eye to Appeal, Determining Errors for Appeal, Understanding
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 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 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 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 informationChemical Patent Practice. Course Syllabus
Chemical Patent Practice Course Syllabus I. INTRODUCTION TO CHEMICAL PATENT PRACTICE: SETTING THE STAGE FOR DISCUSSING STRATEGIES FOR REDUCING RISK OF UNENFORCEABILITY AND ENHANCING CHANCES OF INFRINGEMENT,
More informationPatent Resources Group. Chemical Patent Practice. Course Syllabus
Patent Resources Group Chemical Patent Practice Course Syllabus I. INTRODUCTION II. USER GUIDE: Overview of America Invents Act Changes with Respect to Prior Art III. DRAFTING CHEMICAL CLAIMS AND SPECIFICATION
More informationThe use of prosecution history in post-grant patent proceedings
Question Q229 National Group: United States Title: The use of prosecution history in post-grant patent proceedings Contributors: ADAMO, Kenneth R. ARROYO, Blas ASHER, Robert BAIN, Joseph MEUNIER, Andrew
More informationFriend or Foe: the New Patent Challenge Procedures at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board
Friend or Foe: the New Patent Challenge Procedures at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board Asserting rights are no longer the province of pencil-pushing technology companies. Many businesses, big and small
More informationCorrection of Patents
Correction of Patents Seema Mehta Kelly McKinney November 9, 2011 Overview: Three Options Certificate of Correction Reissue Reexamination in view of the America Invents Act (AIA) Certificate of Correction
More informationNavigating Section 112 Issues in IPR Proceedings: Using Section 112 as a Sword or a Shield
Presenting a live 90-minute webinar with interactive Q&A Navigating Section 112 Issues in IPR Proceedings: Using Section 112 as a Sword or a Shield Addressing Section 112 Issues in IPR Petitions, Establishing
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 informationSummary Judgment Motions: Advanced Strategies for Civil Litigation
Presenting a live 90-minute webinar with interactive Q&A Summary Judgment Motions: Advanced Strategies for Civil Litigation Weighing the Risk of Showing Your Hand, Leveraging Discovery Tools and Timing,
More informationChapter 1400 Correction of Patents
Chapter 1400 Correction of Patents 1400.01 Introduction 1401 Reissue 1402 Grounds for Filing 1403 Diligence in Filing 1404 Submission of Papers Where Reissue Patent Is in Litigation 1405 Reissue and Patent
More informationUSPTO Implementation of the America Invents Act. Janet Gongola Patent Reform Coordinator Direct dial:
USPTO Implementation of the America Invents Act Janet Gongola Patent Reform Coordinator Janet.Gongola@uspto.gov Direct dial: 571-272-8734 Three Pillars of the AIA 11/30/2011 2 Speed Prioritized examination
More informationDISCLAIMER PETITIONS FILED SalishanPatent Law Conference
For 2016 SalishanPatent Law Conference Enhancing The Possibilities Of Success For The Patent Owner In AIA Post-Grant Proceedings: Lessons From PTAB Denials Of Institution by Deb Herzfeld Copyright Finnegan
More informationUS reissue procedure can fix failure to include dependent claims
US reissue procedure can fix failure to include dependent claims Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice, 2011 Author(s): Charles R. Macedo In re Tanaka, No. 2010-1262, US Court of Appeals for
More informationNavigating Section 112 Issues in IPR Proceedings: Using Section 112 as a Sword or a Shield
Presenting a live 90-minute webinar with interactive Q&A Navigating Section 112 Issues in IPR Proceedings: Using Section 112 as a Sword or a Shield Addressing Section 112 Issues in IPR Petitions, Establishing
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 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 informationA Practical Guide to Inter Partes Review. Strategic Considerations Relating To Termination
A Practical Guide to Inter Partes Review Strategic Considerations Relating To Termination Webinar Guidelines Participants are in listen-only mode Submit questions via the Q&A box on the bottom right panel
More informationFirst-Inventor-to-File
First-Inventor-to-File Duke Patent Law Institute May 14, 2013 Presented by Tom Irving Copyright Finnegan 2013 Disclaimer These materials are public information and have been prepared solely for educational
More informationBest Practices Patent Prosecution and Accusations of Inequitable Conduct
PRESENTATION TITLE Best Practices Patent Prosecution and Accusations of Inequitable Conduct David Hall, Counsel dhall@kilpatricktownsend.com Megan Chung, Senior Associate mchung@kilpatricktownsend.com
More informationVenue Differences. Claim Amendments During AIA Proceedings 4/16/2015. The Patent Trial and Appeal Board
The Patent Trial and Appeal Board Created by statute, and includes statutory members and Administrative Patent Judges Claim Amendments During AIA Proceedings The PTAB is charged with rendering decisions
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 informationDesign Patents and IPR: Challenging and Defending Validity at the PTAB
Presenting a live 90-minute webinar with interactive Q&A Design Patents and IPR: Challenging and Defending Validity at the PTAB Navigating Prior Art and Obviousness Analyses, Leveraging IPR for Design
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 informationGlobal IP Management Hot-Topic Round-Up
Global IP Management Hot-Topic Round-Up 1 Panelist Dr. Rouget F. (Ric) Henschel, Partner, Chemical, Biotechnology & Pharmaceutical Practice, and Co-Chair, Life Sciences Industry Team, Foley & Lardner Sven
More informationUS Patent Prosecution Duty to Disclose
July 12, 2016 Terri Shieh-Newton, Member Therasense v. Becton Dickinson & Co., (Fed. Cir. en banc May 25, 2011) Federal Circuit en banc established new standards for establishing both 10 materiality and
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 informationHOW TO EVALUATE WHEN A REISSUE VIOLATES THE RECAPTURE RULE:
HOW TO EVALUATE WHEN A REISSUE VIOLATES THE RECAPTURE RULE: #8 Collected Case Law, Rules, and MPEP Materials 2004 Kagan Binder, PLLC How to Evaluate When a Reissue violates the Recapture Rule: Collected
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 informationPart IV: Supplemental Examination
Strategic Considerations in View of the USPTO s Proposed Rules Part IV: Supplemental Examination Presented By: Sam Woodley & Irene Hudson Fish & Richardson AIA Webinar Series Date March 27, 2012 April
More informationPart V: Derivation & Post Grant Review
Strategic Considerations in View of the USPTO s Proposed Rules Part V: Derivation & Post Grant Review Presented By: Karl Renner, Sam Woodley & Irene Hudson Fish & Richardson AIA Webinar Series Date March
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 informationPatent Prosecution Update
Patent Prosecution Update July 2010 After Bilski: The USPTO Response and Claim Drafting The Supreme Court recently announced its greatly anticipated decision in Bilski v. Kappos, No. 08-964, 2010 WL 2555192
More informationUnited States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit IN RE SHUNPEI YAMAZAKI 2012-1086 (Serial No. 10/045,902) Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark Office, Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences.
More informationPatent Procedures Amendment Act of 2016
Patent Procedures Amendment Act of 2016 Harold C. Wegner * Foreword, Lessons from Japan 2 The Proposed Legislation 4 Sec. 1. Short Title; Table Of Contents 5 Sec. 101. Reissue Proceedings. 5 Sec. 102.
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 informationPatent Prosecution Under The AIA
Patent Prosecution Under The AIA A Practical Guide For Prosecutors William R. Childs, Ph.D., J.D. August 22, 2013 DISCLAIMER These materials are public information and have been prepared solely for educational
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 informationHow To Fix The Amendment Fallacy
Intellectual Property How To Fix The Amendment Fallacy This article was originally published in Managing Intellectual Property on April 28, 2014 by Patrick Doody Patrick A. Doody Intellectual Property
More informationDrafting Trademark Settlement Agreements to Resolve IP Disputes
Presenting a live 90-minute webinar with interactive Q&A Drafting Trademark Settlement Agreements to Resolve IP Disputes Negotiating Exhaustion of Infringing Materials, Restrictions on Future Trademark
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 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 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 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 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 informationPresented by Karl Fink, Nikki Little, and Tim Maloney. AIPLA Corporate Practice Committee Breakfast Meeting May 18, 2016
Presented by Karl Fink, Nikki Little, and Tim Maloney AIPLA Corporate Practice Committee Breakfast Meeting May 18, 2016 2016 Fitch, Even, Tabin & Flannery LLP Overview Introduction to Proceedings Challenger
More informationIntroduction. 1 These materials are public information and have been prepared solely for educational and entertainment purposes to contribute
Introduction Patent Prosecution Under The AIA William R. Childs, Ph.D., J.D. Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP 1500 K Street, N.W. Washington, DC 20005-1209 (202) 230-5140 phone (202) 842-8465 fax William.Childs@dbr.com
More informationDeposing Rule 30(b)(6) Corporate Witnesses
Presenting a live 90-minute webinar with interactive Q&A Deposing Rule 30(b)(6) Corporate Witnesses Preparing the Deposition Notice, Questioning the Corporate Representative, Raising and Defending Objections,
More informationAIA and Patent Due Diligence
Presenting a live 90-minute webinar with interactive Q&A AIA and Patent Due Diligence Understanding the AIA Impact and Best Practices for the Due Diligence Process WEDNESDAY, MAY 29, 2013 1pm Eastern 12pm
More informationUSPTO Post Grant Proceedings
Post-Grant Proceedings Are You Ready to Practice Before the New PTAB? Bryan K. Wheelock January 30, 2013 USPTO Post Grant Proceedings The AIA created three post grant proceedings for challenging the validity
More informationPost-Grant for Practitioners
Part XII: Inter Partes Review Highlights From the First Year+ Dorothy Whelan and Karl Renner Principals and Co-Chairs of Post-Grant Practice Webinar Series January 8, 2014 Agenda @FishPostGrant I. Overview
More informationLeveraging the AIA's Expanded Prior Use Defense for Patent Infringement Claims
Presenting a live 90-minute webinar with interactive Q&A Leveraging the AIA's Expanded Prior Use Defense for Patent Infringement Claims THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 21, 2013 1pm Eastern 12pm Central 11am Mountain
More informationChallenging Unfavorable ICANN Objection and Application Decisions
Presenting a live 90-minute webinar with interactive Q&A Challenging Unfavorable ICANN Objection and Application Decisions Leveraging the Appeals Process and Courts to Overcome ICANN Determinations Absent
More information1~~~rew OFFICE OF PETITIONS RELEVANT BACKGROUND OCT UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE Commissioner for Patents United States Patent and Trademark Office P.O. Box 1450 Alexandria, VA 22313-1450 www.uspto.gov OLIFF PLC P.O. BOX 320850 ALEXANDRIA VA
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 informationStandards Related Patents and Standard Setting Organizations Navigating the Challenges of SSOs: Licensing, Disclosure and Litigation
Presenting a live 90 minute webinar with interactive Q&A Standards Related Patents and Standard Setting Organizations Navigating the Challenges of SSOs: Licensing, Disclosure and Litigation WEDNESDAY,
More informationThe Changing Landscape of AIA Proceedings
The Changing Landscape of AIA Proceedings Presented by: Gina Cornelio, Partner, Patent Clint Conner, Partner, Intellectual Property Litigation June 20, 2018 The Changing Landscape of AIA Proceedings Gina
More informationINTER PARTES REEXAMINATION MECHANICS AND RESULTS
INTER PARTES REEXAMINATION MECHANICS AND RESULTS Eugene T. Perez Birch, Stewart, Kolasch & Birch, LLP Gerald M. Murphy, Jr. Birch, Stewart, Kolasch & Birch, LLP Leonard R. Svensson Birch, Stewart, Kolasch
More informationComparing And Contrasting Standing In The Bpai And The Ttab 1. Charles L. Gholz 2. and. David J. Kera 3
Comparing And Contrasting Standing In The Bpai And The Ttab 1 By Charles L. Gholz 2 and David J. Kera 3 Introduction The members of the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences (hereinafter referred to
More informationFederal Circuit Addresses Recapture Rule in Patent Reissue Proceedings
May 21, 2012 Practice Group: IP Procurement and Portfolio Management Federal Circuit Addresses Recapture Rule in Patent By Mark R. Leslie and Christopher G. Wolfe In its May 8 opinion In re Youman 1, the
More informationDrafting and Prosecuting Patent Applications to Withstand PTAB Scrutiny
Presenting a live 90-minute webinar with interactive Q&A Drafting and Prosecuting Patent Applications to Withstand PTAB Scrutiny Building Reasonable Claim Construction to Avoid Unpatentability and Using
More informationAfter Final Practice and Appeal
July 15, 2016 Steven M. Jensen, Member Why is a Final Rejection Important? Substantive prosecution is closed Filing a response to a Final Office Action does not stop the time for responding Application
More informationThe New PTAB: Best Practices
The New PTAB: Best Practices Los Angeles Intellectual Property Law Association Washington in the West Conference January 29, 2013 Los Angeles, California Jeffrey B. Robertson Administrative Patent Judge
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 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 information$2 to $8 million AMERICA INVENTS ACT MANAGING IP RISK IN THE NEW ERA OF POST GRANT PROCEEDINGS 7/30/2013 MANAGING RISK UNDER THE AIA
AMERICA INVENTS ACT MANAGING IP RISK IN THE NEW ERA OF POST GRANT PROCEEDINGS John B. Scherling Antony M. Novom Sughrue Mion, PLLC July 30, 2013 1 $2 to $8 million 2 1 $1.8 billion $1.5 billion $1.2 billion
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 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 information