Chemical Patent Practice. Course Syllabus
|
|
- Reynold Anthony
- 5 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 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, PATENTABILITY, AND VALIDITY II. DRAFTING CHEMICAL CLAIMS AND SPECIFICATION A. Disclosure of the Invention B. Guidelines for Preparing Disclosure to Set the Stage for Claims 1. Define and consistently use terms 2. More may be better to provide written description support and enablement 3. Use patent profanity judiciously 4. Focus on claims that will be literally infringed and yet are still patentable before both the USPTO examining corps and PTAB and valid in district courts and the ITC C. Claiming the Chemical Invention 1. Determine how the invention differs from prior art and the probable scope of the invention 2. A complete understanding of the invention and the prior art will aid in determining how best to claim it in view of the objectives of patentability, validity, and infringement 3. Make sure the claim describes the invention, being neither overly narrow nor overly broad! 4. Take into account enablement and written description (particularly possession in drafting claims) 5. Consider induced infringement particularly in Orange Book-listed patents in the pharmaceutical arts D. Parts of the Claim 1. The Preamble 2. Transition Terms Comprising, Consisting of, Consisting Essentially of 3. Whereby 4. Jepson Claims 5. Drafting Process Claims in View of 35 U.S.C. 271(g) 6. Means plus function claims in view of 35 U.S.C. 112(f) 7. What About Metabolites? E. Specific Claiming Suggestions 1
2 F. Recent PTAB cases highlight the difficulty of challenging patents using arguments that were considered when the patent was examined, and may aid patent owners in getting inter partes review petitions denied II. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION: THINK IT THROUGH DURING INITIAL DRAFTING AND CERTAINLY IN PROSECUTION TO GIVE PATENTEE BASIS FOR DESIRABLE CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BEFORE PTAB, DISTRICT COURTS, AND THE ITC A. Different standards during litigation, PTAB, and prosecution (proposed rule issued May 9, 2018 to make claim construction the same at PTAB and in litigation) B. Practical considerations 1. Ordinary meaning of claim 2. Construing the preamble 3. Construing transition terms comprising, consisting of, consisting essentially of C. Doctrine of Equivalents 1. Prosecution history estoppel: presumption of surrender 2. All elements rule 3. Insubstantial differences 4. Narrow claim language 5. Prior art as a limitation on equivalents 6. Disclosed but unclaimed subject matter D. Prosecution History Estoppel 1. When does prosecution history estoppel arise? 2. The significant distinction between prosecution history in claim interpretation and in the doctrine of equivalents 3. Effect of prosecution history on claim interpretation 4. Effect of prosecution history estoppel on scope of equivalents under the doctrine of equivalents E. Acts That Give Rise to Prosecution History Estoppel 1. Classical prosecution history estoppel: amendments in response to prior art rejections 2. Estoppel by admission: arguments made to examiners without amendment 3. Amendments in response to non-art rejections 4. Remarks made after allowance 5. Multiple arguments to overcome prior art may or may not create multiple separate estoppels 6. Failure to continue prosecution 7. Representations to foreign patent offices? 8. Examiner estoppel? 2
3 F. Effect of Estoppel 1. Effect of estoppel on other claims in same patent 2. Effect of estoppel on related applications 3. Effect of estoppel on same claims G. Specific Suggestions to Avoid and/or Minimize Chances of Prosecution History Estoppel IV. 35 U.S.C. 112 A. The Second Paragraph, now called (b) under AIA 1. General Considerations 2. The Precision and Definiteness Requirement a. Supreme Court s Decision in Nautilus v. Biosig and Federal Circuit on Remand b. Understood By One of Ordinary Skill in the Art c. Must be Able to Tell Who Would Infringe and How d. Words of Degree e. Too Many Possible Definitions = Indefinite f. Lack of Antecedent Support Not Necessarily Indefinite g. Breadth is Not Automatically Indefiniteness h. Summary 3. Defining What the Applicant Regards as the Invention B. The First Paragraph (now called (a) under AIA) to Support the Claims 1. General Considerations 2. The Written Description Requirement a. General Considerations b. Development of Requirement c. Written Description Guidelines and particularly the concept of possession d. Proving Written Description Support i. General Considerations ii. Use of Knowledge of Those Skilled in the Art iii. Support for Broad Claims iv. Support for Narrowed Claims v. Using CCPA 112 cases to help you e. Lack of Written Description Support f. Reissue for Invention Unclaimed in Original Application i. Broadening and Attendant Issues ii. Narrowing and Attendant Issues iii. Reissue recapture g. Clarifying the Written Description as Understood by the POSITA as to What the Inventors Reasonably Convey (During Prosecution Also?) i. Expert Testimony ii. Inherency: Chen v. Bouchard h. New Matter: an Issue of Written Description i. Biological Deposits 3. The Enablement Requirement a. Some Essentials i. Core Requirements 3
4 ii. No Need for Production Blueprint b. Procedural Aspects of the Enablement Inquiry i. Shifting Burdens ii. Enablement is Judged as of an Applications Filing Date iii. Enablement is a Question of Law c. Mechanics of the How to Make and the How to Use Requirements d. Supplementing the Written Description (During Prosecution Also?) i. Expert Testimony ii. Inherency C. The Fourth Paragraph, now called (d) under AIA D. The Sixth Paragraph ( 112(f)): Means plus function E. 112 Issues in chemical AIA post-grant proceedings V. 112: BEST MODE IS STILL A STATUTORY REQUIREMENT OF 112 A. Comment on Best Mode Post-AIA: Continue to Satisfy this Statutory Requirement B. Purpose of the Best Mode Requirement C. Best Mode Distinguished From Enablement D. Determining a Best Mode Violation 1. Legal Standard 2. Relevant Time for Disclosing the Best Mode 3. Subjective Knowledge of the Best Mode a. Contemplation of a Best Mode b. No Imputed Knowledge Within a Corporation c. Claim Scope Limitations to the Best Mode Inquiry d. Specificity of Disclosure to Those Skilled in the Art e. Best Mode Indiscriminately Disclosed f. Trade Secrets of Others Used in the Best Mode 4. Deposit of Biological Materials E. Effect of a Best Mode Violation 1. Proceedings initiated before AIA 2. Proceedings initiated after AIA VI. INEQUITABLE CONDUCT AND UNCLEAN HANDS: DO NOT MISTAKENLY THINK THAT THERASENSE MOOTED THESE ISSUES A. Inequitable Conduct Doctrine Before Therasense 1. Intent: The Inconsistent Precedent 2. Materiality: Multiple Standards 3. Review of Case Law Leading Up to Therasense and Cases Cited by The Supreme Court in Therasense 4
5 B. Therasense: Federal Circuit En Banc C. Post-Therasense 1. Post-Therasense Federal Circuit Decisions 2. Post-Therasense District Court Decisions 3. How Will Practitioners Respond in Prosecution? 4. What is the role of Supplemental Examination? 5. What is the effect of AIA s derivation proceedings on inequitable conduct? D. USPTO s Proposed Revision to Rule 56 E. Unclean Hands Federal Circuit Decisions: the Revival in Gilead v. Merck of the Supreme Court Trilogy in the 1930 s and 1940 s 1. Differences from inequitable conduct. 2. What is the role of Supplemental Examination? 3. What is the effect of AIA s derivation proceedings on inequitable conduct? VII. 35 U.S.C. 102 A. Pre-AIA Section 102: Defining What Constitutes Prior Art and Determining Novelty until at Least Pre-AIA 35 U.S.C Pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 What Constitutes Prior Art a. 35 U.S.C. 102(a): Acts or Works of Those Other Than the Applicant b. 35 U.S.C. 102(b): The Statutory Bar Provision i. Patents and Printed Publications ii. Public Use iii. On-Sale Activity iv. The Test v. Inherent Qualities vi. Printed Publications in IPRs, particularly with respect to non-patent literature (NPL) c. 35 U.S.C. 102(c): Abandonment d. 35 U.S.C. 102(d): Foreign Patenting e. 35 U.S.C. 102(e): Prior Art of Another f. 35 U.S.C. 102(f): Derivation g. 35 U.S.C. 102(g): Prior Invention of Another 3. What Constitutes Anticipation? a. Generally b. Reference Must Be Enabled c. Using Extrinsic Evidence/Multiple References d. Compounds and Compositions e. Genus-Species f. No Teaching Away g. Anticipating Range Limitations i. Prior Art Teaches Species Falling Within the Claimed Range 5
6 ii. Prior Art Teaches a Range Overlapping the Claimed Range iii. Prior Art Teaches a Range Falling Within the Claimed Range vi. Prior Art Teaches a Range Sharing an Endpoint With the Claimed Range h. Inherency B. AIA 35 U.S.C Definitions of Prior Art in AIA 102(a)(1) and (a)(2) 2. Statutory Exceptions in AIA 102(b)(1) and (b)(2), Including Expansion of The CREATE Act and Common Ownership as Exceptions 3. Transition Provisions AIA Sections 3(n)(1) and 3(n)(2) 4. Case law developing on AIA Prior Commercial Use VIII. 35 U.S.C. 103 A. The Factual Inquiries and Indicia of Graham 1. Scope and Content of Prior Art a. Analogous Art Requirements b. A Reference Must Enable What It Discloses c. Admissions of Prior Art 2. The Differences Between the Prior Art and the Claimed Invention a. Consideration of the Prior Art in Its Entirety b. Consideration of the Claimed Invention as a Whole i. The Properties and Advantages of the Invention Are Part of the Invention as a Whole ii. Functional Language in a Claim Must Not Be Ignored iii. The Preamble as a Limitation 3. The Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art 4. Objective Indicia of Nonobviousness, including balancing the prima facie case with the objective evidence B. The Prima Facie Case of Obviousness: A Procedural Tool of Examination But Also Appears Highly Relevant in PTAB Institution/Denial of IPR/PGR Petitions C. Responding to an Alleged Prima Facie Case by Attacking Its Premise 1. Prima Facie Obviousness in Chemical Cases 2. The Requisite Motivation Supporting the Modification a. The Prior Art Must Provide a Basis For the Modification b. Conclusion of Obviousness Cannot Derive From Applicants Specification c. Basis in the Art Need Not Be Explicit and Can Be Implied d. Inherency of a Claimed Element or Advantage of the Invention Is Immaterial e. Reason for Combining and Modifying Prior Art Can Differ From That Relied on by Applicant 6
7 f. Recognition of Problem Different From Recognition of Solution g. Prior Art Teaches Away h. Asserted Prior Art References Need Not Show That Claimed Combination is Preferred Alternative i. No Obviousness Where Proposed Modification Would Destroy Intended Function of Reference j. Conflict in Teachings of the Prior Art References k. Prior Art and Claimed Invention Do Not Share the Same Utility 3. The Prior Art Must Provide a Reasonable Expectation That the Proposed Modification Will Succeed a. Obvious to Try b. Nonrecognition of Result-Effective Variable c. Evidence Showing a Lack of Expectation of Success 4. Chemical Compounds: The Issue of Structural Similarity a. Thwarting the Presumption i. Showing the Unexpected ii. The Prior Art Must Disclose a Method of Making a Structurally Similar Compound b. Homologs i. N-methyl Derivatives ii. Methyl Substituted Aromatics iii. Aromatics iv. Alkylene Homologs c. Isomers i. Aliphatics ii. Aromatic Substitution iii. Esters iv. Optical Isomers d. Analogs i. Esters ii. Substitution of Hydrogen for Hydroxy of Ethenyl For Ethyl iii. Halogen Substitutes iv. Substitution of Sulfur For Oxygen v. Substitutions of Ring Systems vi. Substitutions on Ring Systems e. Isosterism f. Patentability of a Species Within a Genus g. Prior Art Intermediates h. Purer Forms of Old Compounds 5. Compositions and Formulations a. Claimed Compounds Plus a Carrier b. Patentability of Ranges c. Combining Equivalents Known For the Same Purpose d. Substituting Equivalents Known For the Same Purpose 6. Method of Use Claims 7. Product-by-Process Claims 8. Methods of Making Claims a. Patentability of Otherwise Routine Processes Using Patentable Starting Materials or Final Products b. Sequence of Steps c. Temperature and Concentration Limitations 7
8 d. Making the Process Continuous e. Producing Expected or Unexpected Results From the Process D. Rule 132 Affidavits E. Proof of Unobviousness 1. Unexpected Results a. Compare to Closest Prior Art and/or to the Lead Compound? b. Need Not Be Art Relied Upon by Examiner c. What if Closest Art Not Available? d. Closest Embodiment Within Closest Prior Art e. Maintain Comparison f. Closest Prior Art Need Not Be Commercial Standard g. Indirect Comparisons h. Nexus to Claimed Invention 2. Commensurate in Scope With the Claims, as defined in CCPA Hollingsworth 3. Other Objective Indicia of Nonobviousness a. Commercial Success b. Long-Felt Need c. Failure By Others d. Copying e. Teaching Away f. Initial Disbelief/Skepticism g. Subsequent Acclaim by Experts h. Nexus to Claimed Invention 4. Considerations Prosecution Declarations in Context of Shoring Up Claims to Survive IPR IX. DOUBLE PATENTING A. Introduction 1. Statutory Double Patenting: Same Invention Type 2. Nonstatutory Double Patenting: Obviousness Type B. 35 U.S.C. 121 and Double Patenting C. 35 U.S.C. 303 and Double Patenting D. Comparison of Earlier-Filed to Later-Filed E. Recent Chemical Double-Patenting Cases F. PTA and ODP and Common Ownership? X. PATENT TERM ADJUSTMENT/PATENT TERM EXTENSION XI. CHEMICAL PATENT CASE STUDIES 8
9 A. Using the Prosecution History of the Cited Prior Art to Rebut Motivation to Combine References B. Use of Prior Art Reference, an Interview, and the Statement of Reasons for Allowance to Attack Prima Facie Case of Obviousness C. Establishing Knowledge of Those Skilled in the Art by a Declaration From the Author of the Prior Art D. Showing Deficiency in Prior Art References 9
Patent 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 informationPatent Resources Group Federal Circuit Law Course Syllabus
I. Novelty and Loss of Right to a Patent II. III. IV. A. Anticipation 1. Court Review of PTO Decisions 2. Claim Construction 3. Anticipation Shown Through Inherency 4. Single Reference Rule Incorporation
More informationDesigning Around Valid U.S. Patents Course Syllabus
Chapter 1: COOKBOOK PROCEDURE AND BLUEPRINT FOR DESIGNING AROUND : AVOIDING LITERAL INFRINGEMENT Literal Infringement Generally Claim Construction Under Markman 1. Claim Interpretation Before Markman 2.
More informationThe patentability criteria for inventive step I nonobviousness. The Groups are invited to answer the following questions under their national laws:
Question Q217 National Group: United States Title: The patentability criteria for inventive step I nonobviousness Contributors: Marc V. Richards Chair Alan Kasper Drew Meunier Joshua Goldberg Dan Altman
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 informationCOMPARATIVE STUDY REPORT INVENTIVE STEP (JPO - KIPO - SIPO)
COMPARATIVE STUDY REPORT ON INVENTIVE STEP (JPO - KIPO - SIPO) CONTENTS PAGE COMPARISON OUTLINE COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS I. Determining inventive step 1 1 A. Judicial, legislative or administrative criteria
More informationDetailed Table of Contents
Detailed Table of Contents Foreword... vii Preface... ix vii Summary Table of Contents... xi ix I. Introduction 1. Introduction to Pharmaceutical Patents... 3 3 I. The Drug Patent Debate... 4 II. Overview
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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 informationPatent Prosecution. A. For a determination of obviousness of the subject matter under 35 U.S.C
Patent Prosecution Decisions Relating to Obviousness Reiections Under 35 U.S.C. 61 03(a) 1) Graham v. John Deere (148 USPQ 459) A. For a determination of obviousness of the subject matter under 35 U.S.C
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 informationPATENT DISCLOSURE: Meeting Expectations in the USPTO
PATENT DISCLOSURE: Meeting Expectations in the USPTO Robert W. Bahr Acting Associate Commissioner for Patent Examination Policy United States Patent and Trademark Office 11/17/2016 1 The U.S. patent system
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 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 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 informationPatent Prosecution. Decisions Relating to Obviousness Rejections Under 35 U.S.C. 103
Patent Prosecution Decisions Relating to Obviousness Rejections Under 35 U.S.C. 103 1) Graham v. John Deere (148 USPQ 459) A. For a determination of obviousness of the subject matter under 35 U.S.C 103,
More informationCrafting & Drafting Winning Patents. Course Syllabus
I. OVERVIEW CHAPTER A. Crafting and Drafting a Winning Patent Is Shockingly More Difficult to Achieve Than Ever Before B. The Major Source of the Aggravated Difficulty de novo Review of Claim Construction
More informationDuh! Finding the Obvious in a Patent Application
Duh! Finding the Obvious in a Patent Application By: Tom Bakos, FSA, MAAA Co-Editor, Insurance IP Bulletin Patents may be granted in the U.S. for inventions that are new and useful. The term new means
More informationProsecuting Patent Applications: Establishing Unexpected Results
Page 1 of 9 Prosecuting Patent Applications: Establishing Unexpected Results The purpose of this article is to provide suggestions on how to effectively make a showing of unexpected results during prosecution
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 informationPatent Exam Fall 2015
Exam No. This examination consists of five short answer questions 2 hours ******** Computer users: Please use the Exam4 software in take-home mode. Answers may alternatively be hand-written. Instructions:
More information2013 International Series Korea U.S. IP Judicial Conference. Patentability of Chemical/Pharmaceutical Inventions. Isomers/Enantiomers
2013 International Series Korea U.S. IP Judicial Conference Patentability of Chemical/Pharmaceutical Inventions October 22, 2013 Nicholas M. Cannella, Esq. 1 Chemical Structure: Stereochemistry The three-dimensional
More informationCOMPARATIVE STUDY REPORT TRILATERAL PROJECT 12.4 INVENTIVE STEP - 1 -
COMPARATIVE STUDY REPORT ON TRILATERAL PROJECT 12.4 INVENTIVE STEP - 1 - CONTENTS PAGE COMPARISON OUTLINE COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS I. Determining inventive step 1 1 A. Judicial, legislative or administrative
More information(Serial No. 29/253,172) IN RE TIMOTHY S. OWENS, SHEILA M. KELLY, ROBERT M. LYNCH, IV, JASON C. CAMPBELL, and PHILIP E.
Case: 12-1261 CASE PARTICIPANTS ONLY Document: 38 Page: 1 Filed: 08/24/2012 2012-1261 (Serial No. 29/253,172) UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT IN RE TIMOTHY S. OWENS, SHEILA M. KELLY,
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 information2010 KSR Guidelines Update, 75 FR (September 1, 2010) Updated PTO guidelines on obviousness determinations in a post KSR World
2010 KSR Guidelines Update, 75 FR 54643-60 (September 1, 2010) Updated PTO guidelines on obviousness determinations in a post KSR World ROY D. GROSS Associate St. Onge Steward Johnston & Reens LLC Stamford,
More informationDetailed Table of Contents
Detailed Table of Contents Preface... vii Preface to the First Edition... ix Summary Table of Contents... xiii Glossary of Abbreviations... xxxiii I Patentability 1 Patents... 3 1.1 The Patent Grant...
More informationUnited States Patent and Trademark Office Registration Examination for Patent Attorneys and Agents October 16, Morning Session Model Answers
United States Patent and Trademark Office Registration Examination for Patent Attorneys and Agents October 16, 2002 1. ANSWER: Choice (C) is the correct answer. MPEP 409.03(a), and 37 C.F.R. 1.47(a). 37
More informationPATENT LAW DEVELOPMENTS
PATENT LAW DEVELOPMENTS Patentable Subject Matter, Prior Art, and Post Grant Review Christine Ethridge Copyright 2014 by K&L Gates LLP. All rights reserved. DISCLAIMER The statements and views expressed
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 informationPatent System. University of Missouri. Dennis Crouch. Professor
State of the Patent System Dennis Crouch Professor University of Missouri History O'Reilly v. Morse, 56 U.S. 62 (1854) The Telegraph Patent Case waves roll over time courts crash volcanos erupt next
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 informationWorking Guidelines Q217. The patentability criteria for inventive step / non-obviousness
Working Guidelines by Thierry CALAME, Reporter General Nicola DAGG and Sarah MATHESON, Deputy Reporters General John OSHA, Kazuhiko YOSHIDA and Sara ULFSDOTTER Assistants to the Reporter General Q217 The
More informationThe Same Invention or Not the Same Invention? Thorsten Bausch
The Same Invention or Not the Same Invention? Thorsten Bausch FICPI World Congress Munich 2010 CONTENTS The Same Invention or Not the Same Invention? Practical Problems The standard of sameness the skilled
More informationReviewing Common Themes in Double Patenting. James Wilson, SPE 1624 TC
Reviewing Common Themes in Double Patenting James Wilson, SPE 1624 TC 1600 James.Wilson@uspto.gov 571-272-0661 What is Double Patenting (DP)? Statutory DP Based on 35 USC 101 An applicant (or assignee)
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 informationTHE SUPREME COURT'S DECISION IN
THE SUPREME COURT'S DECISION IN June 20, 2002 On May 28, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its longawaited decision in Festo Corporation v. Shoketsu Kinzoku Kogyo Kabushiki Co., Ltd., 1 vacating the landmark
More informationRule 130 Declarations for First-Inventor-to-File Applications
10/18/2016 1 Rule 130 Declarations for First-Inventor-to-File Applications Biotech/Chem/Pharma Customer Partnership Meeting October 19, 2016 Kathleen Kahler Fonda Senior Legal Advisor Office of Patent
More informationInter Partes Review: A New Tool for Challenging Patent Validity. Dorothy Whelan and Karl Renner
Inter Partes Review: A New Tool for Challenging Patent Validity By Dorothy Whelan and Karl Renner Principals and Co-Chairs of Post-Grant Practice, Fish & Richardson Gwilym Attwell Principal, Fish & Richardson
More informationSughrue Mion, PLLC Washington, Tokyo, San Diego, Silicon Valley 7/2/2012
Sughrue Mion, PLLC Washington, Tokyo, San Diego, Silicon Valley www.sughrue.com This presentation is for educational purposes only, and it does not provide legal advice or comment on the application of
More informationpatents grant only the right to stop others from making, using and selling the invention
1 I. What is a Patent? A patent is a limited right granted by a government (all patents are limited by country) that allows the inventor to stop other people or companies from making, using or selling
More informationDiscovery and Fact Investigation: New Patent Office Procedures under America Invents Act
2013 Korea-US IP Judicial Conference (IPJC) Seminar 1 Discovery and Fact Investigation: New Patent Office Procedures under America Invents Act Nicholas Groombridge Discovery in District Court Litigations
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 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 information10 Strategic Drafting of Applications for U.S. Patents by Japanese Companies from an Enforcement Perspective
10 Strategic Drafting of Applications for U.S. Patents by Japanese Companies from an Enforcement Perspective It has become more and more important for Japanese companies to obtain patents in Europe and
More informationTitle: The patentability criterion of inventive step / non-obviousness
Question Q217 National Group: China Title: The patentability criterion of inventive step / non-obviousness Contributors: [Heather Lin, Gavin Jia, Shengguang Zhong, Richard Wang, Jonathan Miao, Wilson Zhang,
More informationWe Innovate Healthcare 1
Kimberly J. Prior Hoffmann-La Roche Inc. December 5, 2012 We Innovate Healthcare 1 The doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting is intended to prevent the extension of the term of a patent by prohibiting
More informationFenner Investments, Ltd. v. Cellco Partnership Impact on IPR Practice and District Court Practice
Where Do We Go from Here? - An Analysis of Teva s Impact on IPR Practice and How the Federal Circuit Is Attempting to Limit the Impact of Teva By Rebecca Cavin, Suzanne Konrad, and Michael Abernathy, K&L
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 informationAmendments in Europe and the United States
13 Euro IP ch2-6.qxd 15/04/2009 11:16 Page 90 90 IP FIT FOR PURPOSE Amendments in Europe and the United States Attitudes differ if you try to broaden your claim after applications, reports Annalise Holme.
More informationFEDERAL CIRCUIT DECISIONS FOR WEEK ENDING AUGUST 25, 2017
P+S FEDERAL CIRCUIT SUMMARIES VOL. 9, ISSUE 35 FEDERAL CIRCUIT DECISIONS FOR WEEK ENDING AUGUST 25, 2017 Icon Health & Fitness, Inc. v. Octane Fitness, LLC, No. 2016-1047, 2016-1101 (August 25, 2017) (nonprecedential)
More informationUnited States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
CORRECTED: OCTOBER 29, 2003 United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit 99-1421 TALBERT FUEL SYSTEMS PATENTS CO., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. UNOCAL CORPORATION, UNION OIL COMPANY OF CALIFORNIA,
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 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 informationNew Patent Application Rules Set to Take Effect November 1, 2007
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY October 2007 New Patent Application Rules Set to Take Effect November 1, 2007 The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) has issued new rules for the patent application
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 informationCase 1:12-cv JSR Document 129 Filed 12/02/13 Page 1 of 13
Case 1:12-cv-09002-JSR Document 129 Filed 12/02/13 Page 1 of 13 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK JDS THERAPEUTICS, LLC; NUTRITION 21, LLC, Plaintiffs, -v- PFIZER INC.; WYETH LLC;
More informationSection 102: A Dead Letter For Qualifying Claims
Portfolio Media. Inc. 860 Broadway, 6th Floor New York, NY 10003 www.law360.com Phone: +1 646 783 7100 Fax: +1 646 783 7161 customerservice@law360.com Section 102: A Dead Letter For Qualifying Claims Law360,
More informationDetailed Table of Contents
Detailed Table of Contents Contributors... v v Foreword... vii vii Preface... ix ix Author Biographies... xi xi Summary Table of Contents... xix xvii Chapter 1. The State of the Law of Claim Construction
More informationUSPTO Trials: Understanding the Scope and Rules of Discovery
Client Alert August 21, 2012 USPTO Trials: Understanding the Scope and Rules of Discovery By Bryan P. Collins Discovery may perhaps be one of the most difficult items for clients, lawyers, and their adversaries
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 informationTraversing Art Rejections in Nanotechnology Patent Applications No Small Task
Traversing Art Rejections in Nanotechnology Patent Applications No Small Task Mark Williamson and James Carpenter Abstract Courts have long held that merely changing the scale of a prior art device does
More informationDETAILED TABLE OF CONTENTS
DETAILED TABLE OF CONTENTS Preface... v v About the Authors... xiii vii Summary Table of Contents... xv ix Chapter 1. European Patent Law as International Law... 1 I. European Patent Law Arises From Multiple
More informationRECENT DEVELOPMENTS IN CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
The University of Texas School of Law 22nd ANNUAL ADVANCED PATENT LAW INSTITUTE RECENT DEVELOPMENTS IN CLAIM CONSTRUCTION November 2-3, 2017 Four Seasons Hotel Austin, Texas Kenneth R. Adamo* Kirkland
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 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 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 informationFEDERAL CIRCUIT DECISIONS FOR WEEK ENDING May 25, 2018
P+S FEDERAL CIRCUIT SUMMARIES VOL. 10, ISSUE 18 FEDERAL CIRCUIT DECISIONS FOR WEEK ENDING May 25, 2018 Artrip v. Ball Corp., Case No. 2018-1277 (May 23, 2018) (non-precedential) Patent Nos. 5,660,516,
More informationDEVELOPMENTS IN CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
The University of Texas School of Law 16th ANNUAL ADVANCED PATENT LAW INSTITUTE DEVELOPMENTS IN CLAIM CONSTRUCTION October 27-28, 2011 Austin, Texas Kenneth R. Adamo* Kirkland & Ellis LLP 300 N. LaSalle
More informationInternational Prosecution Strategy after Therasense: What You Need to Know Now
International Prosecution Strategy after Therasense: What You Need to Know Now Shawn Gorman and Christopher Swickhamer, Banner & Witcoff, Ltd. I. Introduction The Plague of Inequitable Conduct Allegations
More informationExam Number: 7195 Patent Law Final Exam Spring I. Section 101 Patentable Subject Matter
QUESTION 1 I. Section 101 Patentable Subject Matter Section 101 provides that patent protection may be afforded to a new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any... improvement
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 informationUnited States Patent and Trademark Office Registration Examination for Patent Attorneys and Agents April 18, Morning Session Model Answers
United States Patent and Trademark Office Registration Examination for Patent Attorneys and Agents April 18, 2001 1. ANSWER: (A) is the most correct answer because there is compliance with 37 C.F.R. 1.195.
More informationPatent Claim Construction: Phillips v. AWH (Fed. Cir., July 12, 2005) (en banc) Edward D. Manzo August Patent in Suit
Patent Claim Construction: Phillips v. AWH (Fed. Cir., July 12, 2005) (en banc) Edward D. Manzo August 2005 Patent in Suit 1 Patent in Suit Claim 1 1. Building modules adapted to fit together for construction
More informationIP CONCLAVE 2010, MUMBAI STRATEGIES WITH US PATENT PRACTICE NAREN THAPPETA US PATENT ATTORNEY & INDIA PATENT AGENT BANGALORE, INDIA
IP CONCLAVE 2010, MUMBAI STRATEGIES WITH US PATENT PRACTICE NAREN THAPPETA US PATENT ATTORNEY & INDIA PATENT AGENT BANGALORE, INDIA www.iphorizons.com Not legal Advise! Broad Organization A. Pre filing
More information2015 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.
Page 1 Only the Westlaw citation is currently available. United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit. SOUTH ALABAMA MEDICAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION, Appellant v. GNOSIS S.P.A., Gnosis Bioresearch S.A.,
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 informationPATENTING: A Guidebook For Patenting in a Post-America Invents Act World. by Beth E. Arnold. Foley Hoag ebook
PATENTING: A GUIDEBOOK FOR PATENTING IN A POST-AMERICA INVENTS ACT WORLD PATENTING: A Guidebook For Patenting in a Post-America Invents Act World by Beth E. Arnold Foley Hoag ebook 1 Contents Preface...1
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 informationCOMPARATIVE STUDY REPORT REQUIREMENTS FOR DISCLOSURE AND CLAIMS - 1 -
COMPARATIVE STUDY REPORT ON REQUIREMENTS FOR DISCLOSURE AND CLAIMS - 1 - CONTENTS Comparison Outline (i) Legal bases concerning the requirements for disclosure and claims (1) Relevant provisions in laws
More informationIn Re Dillon: Prima Facie Obviousness of Chemical Claims
Golden Gate University Law Review Volume 22 Issue 2 Notes and Comments Article 2 January 1992 In Re Dillon: Prima Facie Obviousness of Chemical Claims Gregory L. Bradley Follow this and additional works
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 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 informationFEDERAL CIRCUIT DECISIONS FOR WEEK ENDING February 5, 2016
P+S FEDERAL CIRCUIT SUMMARIES VOL. 8, ISSUE 6 FEDERAL CIRCUIT DECISIONS FOR WEEK ENDING February 5, 2016 Site Update Solutions, LLC v. CBS Corp., No. 2015-1448, February 1, 2016 (nonprecedential); Patent
More informationBELIZE PATENTS ACT CHAPTER 253 REVISED EDITION 2003 SHOWING THE SUBSIDIARY LAWS AS AT 31ST MAY, 2003
BELIZE PATENTS ACT CHAPTER 253 REVISED EDITION 2003 SHOWING THE SUBSIDIARY LAWS AS AT 31ST MAY, 2003 This is a revised edition of the Subsidiary Laws, prepared by the Law Revision Commissioner under the
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 informationPreparing For The Obvious At The PTAB
Portfolio Media. Inc. 860 Broadway, 6th Floor New York, NY 10003 www.law360.com Phone: +1 646 783 7100 Fax: +1 646 783 7161 customerservice@law360.com Preparing For The Obvious At The PTAB Law360, New
More informationPATENTING: A Guidebook For Patenting in a Post-America Invents Act World. by Beth E. Arnold. Foley Hoag ebook
PATENTING: A GUIDEBOOK FOR PATENTING IN A POST-AMERICA INVENTS ACT WORLD PATENTING: A Guidebook For Patenting in a Post-America Invents Act World by Beth E. Arnold Foley Hoag ebook 1 Contents Preface...1
More informationWinning a Non-Obviousness Case at the Board
Winning a Non-Obviousness Case at the Board Michael Messinger Director, Electrical and Clean Tech April 22, 2010 Obvious Not Obvious 2 Ratcheting Up a Non-Obviousness Position Attack with Argument Only
More informationDetailed Table of Contents Mueller on Patent Law Vol. 2: Enforcement
Detailed Table of Contents Mueller on Patent Law Vol. 2: Enforcement (Last revised 15 January 2017; Incorporates 2017Annual Update) Chapter 13 JURISDICTION AND PROCEDURE 13.01 U.S. District Courts Subject
More informationCrafting & Drafting Winning Patents Course Syllabus
Crafting & Drafting Winning Patents Course Syllabus I. PROFESSOR KAYTON S OVERVIEW CHAPTER A. Crafting and Drafting a Winning Patent Is Shockingly More Difficult to Achieve Than Ever Before B. The Major
More informationKSR INTERNATIONAL CO. v. TELEFLEX INC.: Analysis and Potential Impact for Patentees
KSR INTERNATIONAL CO. v. TELEFLEX INC.: Analysis and Potential Impact for Patentees Keith D. Lindenbaum, J.D. Partner, Mechanical & Electromechanical Technologies Practice and International Business Industry
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 informationApplication Drafting and Provisional Applications
Application Drafting and Provisional Applications Scott W. Cummings Partner T +1 202 408 6400 scott.cummings@dentons.com dentons.com What is the Goal of a Patent Application? To obtain a patent for the
More information