Aligning claim drafting and filing strategies to optimize protection in the EPO, GPTO and USPTO February 25, 2011 Presented by Sean P. Daley and Jan-Malte Schley
Outline ~ Motivation Claim drafting Content and purpose of the description Impact on filing strategy 2
Motivation ~ Legal requirements in the US and before the EPO or GPTO are different Assume that the non-us priority application is part of the prosecution history of the counterpart US patent application Statements desirable for an EP or DE application may negatively impact the US family member 3
Motivation ~ Cost saving A well drafted priority filing will not only optimize protection around the world, it will also facilitate prosecution down the road in your targeted jurisdictions 4
Claim drafting - Goals ~ Cover all aspects of the invention Cover entire stream of commerce No room for designing around Uphold validity in litigation or opposition 5
Claim drafting Independent claims Only a single independent claim per category is usually allowed Rules 43(2) and 62a EPC Unless there is one of the exceptions to Rule 43(2) EPC, multiple independent claims per category will not fly and just cause additional objections during prosecution 6
Claim drafting Independent claims Not as much emphasis in finding the one and only perfect wording to describe your invention Be open to consider multiple ways or take different views to describe your invention Consider drafting several independent claims different independent claims being narrower in some aspects and broader in other aspects 7
Claim drafting Independent claims ~ Draft claims as appropriate for European or German practice Make sure to cover all instances of the invention e.g. solar cell, panel including solar cells Work with US practitioner to include claims appropriate for US practice 8
Claim drafting Number of Claims Maximum 15 claims total EPO claim fees are very high GPTO claim fees are much more moderate 9
Claim drafting Number of Claims Don t restrict your thoughts too much by formal requirements Especially with multiple independent claims a total of 15 claims is likely not enough to describe all aspects of your invention 10
Claim drafting Number of Claims ~ Draft as many claims as seems appropriate to cover all aspects of the invention don t restrict yourself to 15 Article 123(2) EPC original disclosure To optimize protection in the US in most cases you want to get more than 15 claims granted 11
Claim drafting Two-Part Form Two-part form Rule 43(1) EPC Start with the presumably closest prior art available during preparation of the application and put the distinguishing features into the characterizing portion 12
Claim drafting Two-Part Form Two-part form might have legal and factual drawbacks Features mentioned in the preamble might be regarded as admission that they were known The preamble might contain unnecessary features limiting the claim 13
Claim drafting Two-Part Form ~ Don t use two-part form Two-part form can still be added in Europe later on if necessary Focus on the invention optimize claims in view of the invention, closest prior art is likely to change during prosecution 14
Claim drafting - Summary ~ Draft claims as appropriate for European or German practice Avoid two-part form Don t restrict yourself to 15 claims Consider putting claims as embodiments into the description see example on the next slide Work with US practitioner to include claims appropriate for US practice 15
Claim drafting - Summary ~ Claims as embodiments in the description: detailed description In addition or as an alternative to the above, the following embodiments are described: Embodiment 1 is directed to [claim 1]. Embodiment 2 is directed to embodiment 1, wherein [claim 2]. Embodiment 3 is directed to embodiment 1 or 2, further comprising [claim 3]. 16
Description Content and Purpose ~ Provide detailed description of all aspects of the invention Facilitate prosecution Provide as many details as possible for additional fall back position (such that incorporating such features into the claims would be in line with original disclosure requirements) Satisfy written description, enablement and best mode requirements 17
Description - Background section It is common practice in Europe to acknowledge the prior art in the background section It is good practice to be very careful about any statements which characterize the prior art negative statements should generally be avoided 18
Description - Background section No requirement to characterize the prior art Statements made in the background can be considered admissions regarding the prior art Inaccurate, incomplete or misleading statements may serve as a basis for an allegation of inequitable conduct 19
Description - Background section ~ Consider drafting a very brief background section with only general statements regarding known technologies Minimize characterization of prior art List prior art without comment Use direct quotations Avoid noting any shortcomings of prior art 20
~ Sidebar Information Disclosure Statements While focusing on the invention, make sure that all relevant prior art known by the inventors or searched in the course of preparing the application gets properly cited in the US later on. 21
Description - Technical Effects recent EPO opposition case technical advantages not explicitly mentioned in the originally filed application were argued Quote from the interlocutory decision: These claimed advantages have been thus accorded a very low level of credibility due to this lack of basis. To do otherwise would be to accord the inventiveness of the representative a level of importance equal to the principle of first filing and thus render the latter a nonsense. 22
Description - Technical Effects Provide technical effects and advantages to improve position to argue inventive step Link effects and advantages to features Technical effects become more and more important for prosecution and during opposition proceedings Especially for computer-implemented inventions it is of utmost importance to show that a technical problem is solved 23
Description - Technical Effects Statements about technical advantages might lead to a narrower claim construction during litigation Carefully drafted statements about advantages are unlikely to help during prosecution but may help during litigation 24
Description - Technical Effects ~ Carefully provide technical advantages and effects Use non-binding language Generally try to avoid linking specific advantages to specific features Consider providing technical advantages in a non-binding general manner at the end of the summary section and using non-binding language when stating advantages in the detailed description 25
Description - Detailed Description Having European original disclosure requirements (Art. 123(2) EPC) in mind, the detailed description is frequently written using language and formulations close to that of claims. The detailed description is important but may sometimes not be within the primary focus of European application drafting. 26
Description - Detailed Description Significantly more flexibility in amending the claims Rich resource for additional fall back positions No issues like inadmissible intermediate generalization Make sure to satisfy enablement and best mode requirements 27
Description - Detailed Description ~ Describe as many details as possible while staying flexible Avoid discussing embodiments as separate or alternatives; keep possibility to combine Avoid using language like preferred or preferably which may narrow claim construction Disclose all aspects of the technology Cover competitors at various points along the stream of commerce Support for additional fall back positions 28
Description - Figures In Europe it is generally difficult to take features for claim amendments from the figures The EPO is more restrictive in this respect than the German case law The figures are important but may sometimes not be within the primary focus of European application drafting. 29
Description - Figures Significantly more flexibility in amending claims Figures may serve as a good basis for claim amendments Good technical drawings may explain an invention more clearly than many words can do Formal requirements for drawings are stricter in the US compared to Europe 30
Description - Figures ~ Provide well prepared and technically meaningful drawings consider providing more drawings than necessary under European practice Drawings (e.g. a circuit diagram) are helpful to explain the invention Drawings can be very useful to serve as a basis for claim limitations in the US Good technical drawings are relatively immune to shortcomings of translations (consider German -> English -> Japanese) 31
Filing strategy ~ The universe of possibilities for your patent family is defined by your priority filing. A well drafted priority filing will not only lead to better protection in the jurisdictions you target, but it will also facilitate prosecution for all family members and thus save costs. 32
Filing strategy ~ Being aware of different legal requirements of targeted jurisdictions can allow for a filing strategy for most areas of technology (mechanics, electronics, materials) to be based on a single well prepared priority filing. The earlier you define the target jurisdictions, the better the priority application can be tailored to these jurisdictions. 33
Filing strategies ~ There are exceptions to using a single priority filing for an invention like: Computer-implemented inventions including non-technical features (Is still a technical problem solved?) Consider drafting separate priority applications for US and other jurisdictions Consider carefully where to file maybe no DE/EP filing at all 34
Sean P. Daley Sean P. Daley is a Principal in the Boston office of Fish & Richardson P.C. He has a Ph.D. in physical chemistry from MIT. His practice emphasizes patent portfolio development, strategy and analysis, including prosecution, opinion and due diligence work, primarily in the areas of chemistry, materials science, physics and mechanics. He has significant additional experience in patent litigation. Dr. Daley works with clients of all different sizes, and has particular expertise in working with European-based companies in developing strategies for optimizing US patent rights.
Jan-Malte Schley Jan-Malte Schley is a Principal in the Munich office of Fish & Richardson P.C. He has a Dr.-Ing. in electrical engineering and information technology. His practice emphasizes patent litigation and patent prosecution, especially opposition and appeal proceedings. Dr. Schley has special technical expertise in the areas of software, telecommunications, optics, semiconductors, electronics as well as medical devices.