AMERICA INVENTS ACT. Changes to Patent Law. Devan Padmanabhan Shareholder, Winthrop & Weinstine

Similar documents
America Invents Act (AIA) The Patent Reform Law of 2011 Initial Summary

Newly Signed U.S. Patent Law Will Overhaul Patent Procurement, Enforcement and Defense

America Invents Act H.R (Became Law: September 16, 2011) Michael K. Mutter Birch, Stewart, Kolasch & Birch October 11-12, 2011

America Invents Act: Patent Reform

America Invents Act (AIA) Post-Grant Proceedings

TECHNOLOGY & BUSINESS LAW ADVISORS, LLC

U.S. Patent Law Reform The America Invents Act

Presented to The Ohio State Bar Association. May 23, 2012

America Invents Act: Patent Reform

Patent Prosecution in View of The America Invents Act. Overview

The America Invents Act : What You Need to Know. September 28, 2011

February, 2010 Patent Reform Legislative Update 1

STATUS OF. bill in the. Given the is presented. language. ability to would be. completely. of 35 U.S.C found in 35. bills both.

Considerations for the United States

2011 Foley & Lardner LLP Attorney Advertising Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome Models used are not clients but may be representative

Congress Passes Historic Patent Reform Legislation

Post-Grant Patent Practice: Review & Reexamination Course Syllabus

2012 Winston & Strawn LLP

The America Invents Act: Key Provisions Affecting Inventors, Patent Owners, Accused Infringers and Attorneys

USPTO Implementation of the America Invents Act. Janet Gongola Patent Reform Coordinator Direct dial:

Post-Grant Patent Proceedings

PROCEDURES FOR INVALIDATING, CLARIFYING OR NARROWING A PATENT IN THE PATENT OFFICE UNDER THE AMERICA INVENTS ACT (AIA)

10 THINGS YOU NEED TO KNOW ABOUT PATENT REFORM. W. Edward Ramage Chair, IP Group Baker Donelson

America Invents Act September 19, Matt Rainey Vice President/Chief IP Policy Counsel

PATENT REFORM. Did Patent Reform Level the Playing Field for Foreign Entities? 1 Leahy-Smith America Invents Act, Pub. L. No.

July 12, NPE Patent Litigation. The AIA s Impact on. Chris Marchese. Mike Amon

POST GRANT REVIEW PROCEEDINGS IN THE PTO STEPHEN G. KUNIN PARTNER

Post-Grant Proceedings at the Patent Office After Passage of the America Invents Act

SENATE PASSES PATENT REFORM BILL

POST-GRANT REVIEW UNDER THE AMERICA INVENTS ACT GERARD F. DIEBNER TANNENBAUM, HELPERN, SYRACUSE & HIRSCHTRITT LLP

BCLT Back to School: The New Patent Law Explained (Post-Grant Procedures) Stuart P. Meyer

Impact of the Patent Reform Bill

America Invents Act of 2011 Part 1: Impact on Litigation Strategy Part 2: Strategic Considerations of the FTF Transition

Patent Reform Act of 2007

Policies of USPTO Director Kappos & U.S. Patent Law Reform

THE AMERICA INVENTS ACT

Sughrue Mion, PLLC Washington, Tokyo, San Diego, Silicon Valley 7/2/2012

U.S. Patent and Trademark Office Issues Proposed Rules for Post-Issuance Patent Review under the America Invents Act

Part V: Derivation & Post Grant Review

T he landscape for patent disputes is changing rapidly.

Strategic Use of Post-Grant Proceedings In Light of Patent Reform

America Invents Act Implementing Rules. September 2012

The Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (AIA)

America Invents Act (AIA) Post-Grant Proceedings. Jeffrey S. Bergman Kevin Kuelbs Laura Witbeck

AIA Post-Grant Implementation Begins - Is Your Business Strategy Aligned? August 27, A Web conference hosted by Foley & Lardner LLP

US Patent Reform Act (AIA) Selected amendments of the AIA compared to European Regulations

America Invents Act: The Practical Effects of the New USPTO Post-Grant Proceedings

Pre-Issuance Submissions under the America Invents Act

The Scope and Ramifications of the New Post-Grant and Inter Partes Review Proceedings at the USPTO

A New World (Patent) Order. How the US Patent Reform Act (AIA) Compares with European Patent Regulations

SEC. 6. AIA: POST-GRANT REVIEW PROCEEDINGS

Derived Patents and Derivation Proceedings: The AIA Creates New Issues In Litigation And PTO Proceedings

Patent Prosecution Under The AIA

Inequitable Conduct Judicial Developments

PATENT PROSECUTION STRATEGIES IN AN AIA WORLD: SUCCEEDING WITH THE CHANGES

The New Post-AIA World

Global IP Management Hot-Topic Round-Up

Changes at the PTO. October 21, 2011 Claremont Hotel. Steven C. Carlson Fish & Richardson P.C. Bradley Baugh North Weber & Baugh LLP

Can I Challenge My Competitor s Patent?

IP CONCLAVE 2010, MUMBAI STRATEGIES WITH US PATENT PRACTICE NAREN THAPPETA US PATENT ATTORNEY & INDIA PATENT AGENT BANGALORE, INDIA

New Patent Application Rules Set to Take Effect November 1, 2007

SPECIAL REPORT May 2018 SURPREME COURT FINDS USPTO S ADMINISTRATIVE PATENT TRIALS CONSTITUTIONAL AND SETS GROUND RULES FOR THEIR CONDUCT BY THE PTAB

The America Invents Act, Its Unique First-to-File System and Its Transfer of Power from Juries to the United States Patent and Trademark Office

18-MONTHS POST-AIA: HOW HAS PATENT LITIGATION. Rebecca Hanovice, Akarsh Belagodu, Lauren Bruzzone and Clay Holloway

A Practical Guide to Inter Partes Review. Strategic Considerations Relating To Termination

Patent Reform State of Play

Il brevetto USA alla luce delle nuove regole e dei nuovi scenari competitivi

CORRECTION OF ISSUED PATENTS

K&L Gates Webinar Current Developments in Patents. Peggy Focarino Commissioner for Patents September 13 th, 2012

Latham & Watkins Litigation Department

New Post Grant Proceedings: Basics by

Innovation Act (H.R. 9) and PATENT Act (S. 1137): A Comparison of Key Provisions

USPTO Post Grant Proceedings

United States Patent and Trademark Office. Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Intersection of Automotive, Aerospace, & Transportation: Practical Strategies for Resolving IP Conflicts in Multi-Supplier Sourcing

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE. REPORT TO CONGRESS on INTER PARTES REEXAMINATION. Executive Summary

Chapter 1. Introduction

AIA Post-Grant Proceedings: Lessons Learned from PTAB and Federal Circuit Decisions

USPTO PUBLISHES FINAL RULES FOR DERIVATION PROCEEDINGS UNDER AMERICA INVENTS ACT

Terminating Inter Partes Review Proceedings Before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board

PATENT DISCLOSURE: Meeting Expectations in the USPTO

IPRs and CBMs : The Good, the Bad, and the Unknown. Seattle Intellectual Property Inn of Court A Presentation by Group 6 April 17, 2014

Intellectual Property/Legislative ADVISORY

196:163. Executive summary for clients regarding US patent law and practice. Client Executive Summary on U.S. Patent Law and Practice

Case 2:04-cv TJW Document 424 Filed 03/21/2007 Page 1 of 5

Post-Grant Proceedings in the USPTO

POST GRANT PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD. Oblon Spivak

USPTO Post Grant Trial Practice

These materials are public information and have been prepared solely for educational and entertainment purposes to contribute to the understanding of

Where to Challenge Patents? International Post Grant Practice Strategic Considerations Before the USPTO, EPO, SIPO and JPO

New Law Creates a Patent Infringement Defense and Restructures the Patent and Trademark Office Pat Costello

Chapter 13 Enforcement and Infringement of Intellectual Property Rights

Inter Partes Review vs. District Court Litigation

September Media Law Update. Regulation On 1 October, Ofcom assumed a new role as the UK s postal services regulator from Postcomm.

The Limited Ability of a Patent Owner to Amend Claims and Present New Claims in Post-Grant and Inter Partes Reviews

OLIVE & OLIVE, P.A. INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW

Do-Overs: Overviewing the Various Mechanisms for Reevaluating an Issued Patent and How They Have Changed Over the Last Five Years +

Post-Grant Reviews Before The USPTO

PTAB Trial Proceedings and Parallel Litigation: Impact, Strategy & Consequences

$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

Transcription:

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 16, 2012 Generally applies to patents filed on or after the effective date Notable exceptions: False marking: retroactive First-to-file: March 16, 2013

Major Provisions: Pre-Grant Converts U.S. from First-to-Invent to First-to-File system Extends time period for third-party submission of prior art during application

Major Provisions: Post-Grant Creates new inter partes review proceedings, replacing reexamination Creates new post-grant review proceedings option Creates patent owner supplemental examination procedures Establishes a transitional business method patent review program

Major Provisions: Litigation Limits false-marking suits to U.S. government or parties suffering competitive injury Permits virtual marking by Internet link Eliminates best mode as a defense Inequitable conduct generally may not be asserted as to information considered in a patent owner s supplemental examination request Precludes use of infringer s failure to obtain/offer advice of counsel as evidence of willful infringement Court cannot stay preliminary injunction based on post-grant reviews Prohibits raising invalidity arguments on same grounds raised in post-grant review after decision is rendered

Pre-Grant Provisions

First-to-File System First inventor to file application generally is entitled to patent Prior art dates to application filing date Prior art includes public use or sale in a foreign country Cannot swear behind prior art Conception, diligence, reduction to practice, and abandonment no longer relevant to priority

First-to-File System One year grace period for inventor-related disclosures of the invention Includes derived disclosures Incentive to disclose during grace period: any subsequent third party disclosure is not prior art Interference proceedings replaced by derivation proceedings to determine whether the applicant of an earlier-filed application was the proper applicant Effective: Eighteen months after enactment (March 16, 2013)

First-to-File System: Practical Considerations Race to the Patent Office Added Costs? Prior art considerations in obviousness determinations can remain different in foreign examination U.S. filing date vs. Foreign publication date What constitutes a disclosure for prior art and exceptions? Non-public sales & commercialization?

Prior Art Submission Third parties may currently submit prior art in published applications within two months of publication of application AIA extends time period to earlier of (i) notice of allowance or (ii) later of 6 months after publication or date of first rejection Submission must include description of relevance

Post-Grant Provisions

Inter Partes Review Replaces current inter partes reexamination An inter partes post-grant proceeding may be instituted only if: The Petition is filed after the later of 9 months from patent issuance or termination of a post-grant review; Must be anticipation or obviousness based on patents or printed publications Cannot be initiated if: Petitioner filed a civil action challenging validity; or It has been more than six months since the petitioner was served with a Complaint

Inter Partes Review The standard of review for initiation is a substantial new question of patentability Review proceeding would be conducted by a patent judge, not examiner Includes discovery and oral hearing Appeal directly to Federal Circuit Final determination is mandated to be not later than one year after the proceeding is instituted, or eighteen months for good cause Prior to decision, parties may file written settlement and request termination Effective: September 16, 2012 (Current reexaminations will continue)

Post-Grant Review Additional option to current ex parte reexamination Within nine months of patent issuance, third party may request cancellation of any claims on any grounds Same petition requirements Similar procedure and effect as inter partes review

Supplemental Examination Patent owner may request supplemental examination to consider, reconsider or correct information relevant to patent USPTO must decide within 3 months whether to order reexamination based on substantial new question of patentability Patent may not be held unenforceable based on information that is considered or reconsidered

Transitional Business Method Review Program Accused infringers may institute post-grant review of business method claims Generally subject to new post-grant procedures without time and firstto-file restrictions Estoppel from reasserting invalidity claim on same grounds after final decision Four-year sunset Effective: September 16, 2012

Litigation Provisions

False Marking Only the United States or a person suffering competitive injury may file civil action for damage adequate to compensate for injury Qui tam actions of any person are eliminated Effective: Upon enactment, including pending suits

Virtual Marking Instead of listing patent numbers, the designation of Patent or Pat. may be used with Internet domain name address that includes relevant patents Beneficial where it is undesirable to include a long list of patent numbers on products Effective: Suits commenced after enactment

Multiple Defendants Can t sue multiple based solely on the allegation that each party infringes the same patent

Best Mode Failure to disclose best mode cannot be used to invalidate patent Effective: Upon enactment, including pending suits

Advice of Counsel: Willfulness The failure of an infringer to obtain the advice of counsel with respect to any allegedly infringed patent or the failure of the infringer to present such advice to the court or jury may not be used to prove that the accused infringer willfully infringed the patent or that the infringer intended to induce infringement of the patent. Codifies In re Seagate Technology

Stays, Estoppel & Damages Court may not stay preliminary injunction motion based on a petition for ex parte post-grant review if the patent owner files suit within three months of patent issuance Post-grant final written decisions estop claiming invalidity of subject patent (except as to grounds that could not otherwise have been reasonably raised)

Stays, Estoppel & Damages Supplemental review insulates patent owners from unenforceability on remedied deficiencies (with noted FDA and defense exceptions) All limitations on damages struck