Posts Tagged ‘US Congress’

Prioritized Examination Available For A Limited Number Of New Qualifying Applications As Of September 26, 2011

Wednesday, September 28th, 2011

One of the many changes introduced by the new America Invents Act (“AIA”) is an option for “prioritized examination.”  Under the AIA, effective today, September 26, 2011, a new utility or plant patent application (which may also be a new continuing application) can be filed with a request for prioritized examination.  The PTO issued rules just last Friday, September 23, clarifying the prioritized examination process under the AIA. 

The PTO goal for prioritized examination is to provide a “final disposition” of the application within 12 months of prioritized status being granted.  Such final disposition is achieved with an action ending prosecution before the examiner (such as mailing of a final Office Action or a Notice of Allowance, filing a Notice of Appeal, etc.).  Prioritized examination, therefore, does not apply to any appeal or Request for Continued Examination.

Prioritized examination is limited to applications having no more than four independent claims and 30 total claims; and requires a request fee of $4,800 ($2,400 for small entities), and that the application be complete (with the declaration and all fees) at the time of filing.   If an applicant at any point files a petition for an extension of time, prioritized examination is terminated.

Requests for prioritized examination are statutorily limited to a maximum of 10,000 applications in any PTO fiscal year, until the PTO issues rules establishing a different limit.  PTO FY 2011 ends this Friday, September 30, and PTO FY 2012 begins October 1.  We anticipate that there will be a strong demand for prioritized examination, and therefore the quota of 10,000 applications for FY 2012 could be reached fairly quickly.  In view of this possibility, if you are considering prioritized examination for any applications, or need additional information regarding the process, you may wish to contact us soon.

Fifty Ways To Leave Your Lover And Nine Ways To Attack Patents

Tuesday, September 13th, 2011

As a “quick guide” to the Patent Reform Bill, H.R. 1249, that will soon become law, these are the sections of the Act and of the present statute that will all be, or remain effective, upon enactment, to facilitate blocking the issuance of applications or cancellation of objectionable claims. I will try to be brief, but it is not easy. Section references are to section of the Bill; “s.” references are to sections of 35 U.S.C.

1.  Sec. 3: Derivation proceedings (This replaces s. 291 – Interfering patents)

2.  Sec. 6: Citation of prior art and written statements  (Modifies s. 301 – Citation of prior art in an issued patent).

3.  S. 302-307 – “Old” ex parte reexamination is not affected by Bill. (But, remember, ex parte reexamination is essentially unused now.)

4.  S. 251-253. Reissue section is unscathed.

5.  Sec. 6: Inter partes review (Substantially modifies inter partes reexamination – must wait to file until after “opposition period” for post-grant review).

6.  Sec. 6: s. 321: Post-grant review (This is the new “opposition” section – must be filed within 9 mos. of issuance.)

7.   Sec. 8: Adds s. 122(e)   to permit preissuance submissions of art by third parties.

8.  Sec. 12: Adds s. 257: “Supplemental examination to consider, reconsider, or correct information.” Commentators have noted that these proceedings will permit patent owners to purge “fraud,” but there are exceptions.

9.   Sec. 18: Transitional post-grant review proceeding  for review of validity of business method patents – Can be initiated by defendant in civil suit.

Since reissue, ex parte reexamination, and supplemental examination are owner-initiated, perhaps I should have titled this post, “Nine Ways to Limit Patent Protection”, but then I would have had to list sections involving limiting false marking suits and  the ban on patenting human organisms.  I hope that this will help you locate specific parts of the Bill and of 35 USC as the commentary begins to pile up. As Prof. Hal Wegner summarizes this array:

“A major feature of the [Bill] is the creation of a variety of new post-grant review procedures. The difficulty with both the current and the new procedures results in part from the fact that essentially nothing is being  taken away while time consuming procedures are added to the burden of the upper end professionals at the Patent Office, all at a time when the Board is slowly sinking into an ever greater backlog.” (H.C. Wegner, The 2011 Patent Law: Law and Practice, Version 5.0, Sept. 8, 2011).

Hear! Hear! And, by the way, the Patent Office Board of Appeals and Interferences  is now “The Patent Trial and Appeal Board.” Check out its duties at Section 6 of the Bill.

Judge Michel Takes “Patent Reform” Bills To Task

Friday, July 15th, 2011

In an interview with Intellectual Property Watch, former Chief Judge Paul R. Michel set forth, in one place, all of the most problematic (Ed.: read, “worst”) features of the Leahy Smith America Invents Act, versions of which have been passed by the House and the Senate.

The interview focuses both on the special interest features of the Senate bill such as those invalidating tax strategy patents and expanding prior user rights. He also notes the weaknesses in the House bill potentially limiting PTO full access to all the user fees it collects. He notes the flaws in the one-year grace period for inventor-generated disclosures and opposes the additional burdens on patentees imposed by post-grant review.

Wearing my patent prosecutor hat, I see little to like about this bill. Its roots are in oft-parroted but flawed analyses that suggest the U.S. economy is somehow being damaged by “flawed patents.” However, almost every feature of the bill simply makes patent protection more difficult to obtain, or weakens patent protection, for small start-ups and universities, as well as for mega-industries. Coupled with anti-patent decisions such as KSR, Bilski and Ariad, (the “jury” is still out on Prometheus, Myriad and Classen) pioneering inventions, particularly in early-stage technologies, are in for a very bumpy ride.

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.