USPTO Releases “Official” Effective Dates for AIA Provisions

The below link provides a useful chart that lists the provisions that take effect in order, and groups together provisions that take effect on the same date.

AIA Effective Dates

Posted in Patent Reform Legislation | Tagged , | Leave a comment

Duties And Responsibilities Of A Corporate Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(B)(6) Witness

The following is from the Robins, Kaplan, Miller & Ciresi newsletter BuLITS and written by Ron Schutz

Case: In re Neurontin Antitrust Litigation, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 62032, MDL No. 1479, Master File No. 02-1390 (D.N.J. 6/9/2011).

Facts:

Direct purchasers of the drug Neurontin brought an antitrust lawsuit claiming that the drug’s two manufacturers took part in a scheme to delay market entry of a generic version of the drug. Part of the alleged scheme included defendants’ illegal promotion of Neurontin for off-label uses. Both defendants denied the off-label promotion in their Answers to the plaintiffs’ Complaint, but defendant Pfizer had previously pled guilty to the illegal marketing in a separate criminal case.

Continue reading

Posted in Litigation Issues | Tagged , , , , , | Leave a comment

Myriad Petition For Rehearing Denied

On September 13, 2011, the Fed. Cir. panel in AMP v. Myriad denied AMP’s (read ACLU’s) petition for rehearing by the panel. (A copy of the petition can be found at the end of this post.) In challenging the holding that the  claimed isolated DNA molecules are not products of nature, AMP argued that “the language of the patents defines the function, not the structure of the patented genes and gene fragments…the composition claims in the patents are not defined by chemical structure. They are defined by function.” The success of this argument would require the panel to read the term, “[a]n isolated DNA” out of claim 1 of the ‘282 patent:

  1. An isolated DNA coding for a BRCA1 polypeptide, said polypeptide having the amino acid sequence set forth in SEQ ID NO:2.

Clearly, that was not going to happen, although it appears to be an attempt to riff on dissenter Bryson’s conclusion: “What is claimed in the BRCA genes is the genetic coding material, and that material is the same, structurally and functionally, in both the native gene and the isolated form of the gene.” Slip op. at 13.  However, even “markedly different”  Judge Moore, who presented the best “chemical” analysis of the claims, had no reason to change her views.

AMP’s second argument was hard to follow, but seemed to be based on its opinion that the claimed BRCA1 and 2 gene fragments are inherently present in the body  e.g., in the blood of cancer patients, and so are patent-ineligible natural products. This may be an attempt to reopen the purification vs. isolation argument that held appeal for some of the panel, but arguing that the claimed fragments must arise in vivo “at least some of the time” is not going to carry the day as an inherent anticipation argument, much less as a product of nature argument.

The panel left pending Myriad’s petition for rehearing that challenges AMP et al.’s standing to bring suit, although AMP argued that the American College of Medical Genetics has organizational standing and an additional plaintiff, Ellen Matloff, had conversations about possible infringement with Myriad. AMP may not be in the bottom of the 9th inning yet, but they are in the bottom of the 8th. The panel did such a thorough analysis of the issues that I just don’t see a petition for rehearing en banc getting on base.

Myriad Petition for Panel Rehearing

Posted in Patent Eligible Subject Matter | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

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

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.

Posted in Patent Reform Legislation | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment