Posts Tagged ‘America Invents Act’

PTO Proposes Supplemental Examination Rules – Extremely Expensive and Incredibly Complex

Thursday, January 26th, 2012

On January 25, 2012, the USPTO published proposed rules to implement the supplemental examination provisions of the America Invents Act (“AIA”). This procedure is intended to be utilized by patent owners to “clean up” patents of iffy validity before, say, asserting them in litigation or selling them. 77 Fed. Reg. 3666. This provision has been widely characterized as a way to purge inequitable conduct – or even an innocent failure to bring forth relevant information – that may have occurred during prosecution, by setting the record straight ex parte. If the petition for supplemental examination is accepted by the PTO as raising a substantial new question of patentability, the PTO will go on to order ex parte reexamination, which may, or may not result in the cancellation of claims. Alternatively, the PTO can refuse to order reexamination on the basis of the submitted information, and a certificate to that effect is attached to the patent. This sounds pretty straightforward but, or course, it is anything but.

To begin with, the fee for simply processing and treating a request for supplemental examination (“SA”) will be $5180. At the same time, the owner must pay a fee of $16,120 for an ex parte reexamination proceeding that may not occur. If reexamination is not ordered, the owner gets this fee refunded. There is no comment regarding any reduction for small or micro entities that I could find in my first read-through.

(more…)

Top 2011 IP Stories on Patents4Life

Saturday, December 31st, 2011

I spent a day or two looking back over the breaking IP news that resulted in posts on Patents4Life. I wrote most of them, but want to take a pause to thank regular contributors Paul Cole, Ron Schutz and Stefan Danner for their help. Patents4Life was originally intended to be a “blawg” focused on IP developments affecting the Life Sciences and, as 2011 comes to a close, I have put together a “top ten” list of stories to which attention had to be paid – by all of us in most cases – litigators, prosecutors and tech transfer professionals in the U.S. and abroad. The single most-apparent trend in IP last year was the increasing globalization of IP law – consider inter-office work-sharing and the prosecution highway. But I don’t want this column to go on into 2012, so here, in reverse order, are the “legal events” that dominated the netwaves in 2011. (I apologize for what I hope will be minor errors of fact and spelling – I am writing this from notes I made while back-tracking through the year.)

10. The Stem Cell Suits. In Sherley v. Sebelius, the district court finally dismissed the suit which had resulted in a ban on Federal funding for stem cell research, after the Court of appeals reversed its initial decision. (See Post, July 28th). However, in October, the Court of Justice of the EU ruled that claims to embryonic stem cells or even to cells that could become sources for embryonic stem cells were not patentable. (See post, Oct. 18th). Some types of gene therapy were indicated to be allowable. The future of embryonic stem cells is cloudy with a chance of further retreats like Geron’s.

9. On October 18th, Saint-Gobain petitioned for cert., urging the Supreme Court to answer a burden of proof question that comes down to: “Does holding a patent on an improvement on a patented invention that does not literally infringe insulate the accused infringer from infringement under the doctrine of equivalents?” This question has been simmering under the surface of infringement law for decades, the Fed. Cir. is clearly divided and the Supreme Court might bite. See Post of March 8, 2011 as well as October 14th post.

(more…)

H.R. 1249 Voted Out Of Committee: No Grace Period For You!

Monday, April 18th, 2011

You may well be tired of hearing about the contending amendments, but I must note that the House version of the America Invents Act was voted out of Committee after being amended to reinstate the section of 102 that limits the exceptions for inventor activity within one year of filing to publications and disclosures, while not including the inventor’s “public use” or “on sale” activity in the grace period. The upshot is that the bill that will reach the House floor for a vote is identical in this section as it appears in S. 23, which the Senate passed. Amendments can still be made before the House votes, but the odds of having a broadly protective grace period are getting long. As Hal Wegner has repeatedly noted and Matt Osenga have pointed out in his useful note, “(Lack of) Grace Period in America Invents Act”, 102(b) currently provides that public use or sale (by anyone) is only a problem if it takes place more than one year prior to the date of application for the patent. Under the amended bill, an inventor’s (or anyone else’s) offer for sale one day prior to filing a patent application would be a bar to obtaining a patent (even if the inventor had made an “excepted disclosure” 363 days earlier).  This is getting as hard to follow as a double-jointed rattle snake, but it may be as dangerous to early-stage developers. At least there is some rattling going on.

Patent Reform Bills – Grace Period A Mixed Blessing

Monday, April 11th, 2011

Hal Wegner writes to summarize the “holes” in the grace period for activities by the inventor, as present in both bills. If you support these reform bills, at least be sure you know what you and your clients will be getting and what protections will vanish. I remain surprised that organizations that represent university inventors and tech transfer offices remain committed to passage of the current bills. I guess that a grace period for “printed publications” (including posters) is better than none, but what about slideshows and other primarily oral presentations given at meetings (often with brief, uninformative abstracts)? What about the oral thesis defense or grad school seminar that is legally open to the public? In other words, when does a “disclosure” by an inventor that is not a printed publication become a “public use”?Policing disclosures originating at universities is about to  get a lot more difficult.

According to Mr. Wegner, the chart shown below — and also available as a PDF – ”only represents the tip of the grace period iceberg which is analyzed in more detail in a study to be released for the Fordham University School of Law Nineteenth Annual Conference,  International Intellectual Property Law & Policy, April 28-29, 2011. ”

GracePeriodChartApr11