SlideShare a Scribd company logo
1 of 47
PATENTS IN THE U.S.A.:
PRACTICAL
CONSIDERATIONS
DISCLAIMER: THIS PRESENTATION HAS BEEN PREPARED FOR
GENERAL INFORMATION PURPOSES ONLY TO PERMIT YOU
TO LEARN MORE ABOUT OUR FIRM, OUR SERVICES AND THE
EXPERIENCE OF OUR ATTORNEYS. THE INFORMATION
PRESENTED IS NOT LEGAL ADVICE, IS NOT TO BE ACTED ON
AS SUCH, MAY NOT BE CURRENT AND IS SUBJECT TO
CHANGE WITHOUT NOTICE.
Jonathan M. Blanchard, Ph.D.
W. John Keyes, Ph.D. © 2015 Blanchard & Associates, Chicago
PCT National Stage vs. “Bypass”
 Traditional PCT route for entering U.S. national
stage: completing the requirements for entry into
the national stage under 35 U.S.C. § 371(c),
including:
 Oath or declaration of the inventor. It may be
sometimes difficult to procure by the filing deadline.
For applications filed after September 16, 2012, the
national filing date is no longer the date the oath or
declaration is received – it is when the filing fee is
paid and the English translation is filed.
2
PCT National Stage vs. “Bypass”
 Copy of the PCT application or literal translation.
No revisions or additions allowed.
 PCT applications entering the national stage must
include a copy of the application or a “correct”, i.e.
exact and literal translation.
See PCT Article 46, 35 U.S.C. 375(b) and MPEP § 1893.01
35 U.S.C. § 371(d): The applicant may present
amendments to the specification, claims, and
drawings of the application after the national
stage has commenced.
3
Amendments
 Amendments, for example to remove
impermissible multiple dependent claims, may be
presented in the form of a Preliminary
Amendment filed together with the required
nationalization filings.
 However, the application is usually published
without the amended claims from the Prel. Amd.
 This may lead to substantial financial losses due to
diminished provisional rights.
4
Claims and New Matter
 Sometimes, it is not clear which claims are pending
due to amendments made in the course of the
international phase (PCT Article 19 amendments
before the international bureau).
 Claims may require amendments to conform to US
laws and regulations, e.g. multiple dependencies
must be removed.
 No new matter allowed, so no “continuation-in-
part” applications.
5
Restriction
 Nationalized PCT application claims are restricted
according to the “unity of invention standard”.
 This usually results in fewer independent claims
making it past restriction.
 US examiners are usually not very familiar with the
“unity of invention” standard and may erroneously
issue rejections according to US restriction
practice.
6
Advantages of “Bypass” Approach
 It is possible to file a U.S. national application
under 35 U.S.C. § 111(a) without completing the
requirements for entering the national stage
under 35 U.S.C. 371(c), i.e. as a continuation,
divisional, or continuation of a PCT application
designating the U.S.
See 35 U.S.C. §§ 363, 365(c), and 120.
Discussed in MPEP §§ 1895, 1896.
7
Advantages of “Bypass” Approach
 Originally used in instances where there was
difficulty in obtaining a signed oath or
declaration by the expiration of the time for
entry into the national stage. Because these
continuation applications historically resulted
from a need to bypass the requirements of 35
U.S.C. 371 , they became known as “bypass”
applications.
8
Advantages of “Bypass” Approach
 In a bypass application, the amended claims may
be incorporated in the body of the application, as
opposed to via a Preliminary Amendment.
 As such, they will be published, eliminating the
problem of lost provisional rights.
 Remarks may also be submitted to address any
new matter questions.
 Addition of new matter allowed (CIP), see MPEP
1895.
9
Advantages of “Bypass” Approach
 Bypass applications are subject to US-type claim
restriction practice, which is based on claims being
“independent and distinct”.
 On average, fewer claims are restricted out than
when the PCT “unity of invention” standard is
applied.
 US examiners are more familiar with the standard.
10
Preliminary Amendment – Use It!
 The filing fee covers 20 claims (3 independent claims).
 Each independent claim in excess of 3 - $420.00.
 Each claim in excess of 20 - $80.00.
 What if you need, for instance, 40 claims, 6 of which independent,
to fully claim all aspects of the invention?
(a)File a first application with a first set of 20 claims.
(b)File a continuation of the first application featuring the claims that
were left out of the first application.
Problem: The claims in the continuation application may be
challenged as lacking sufficient support in the parent application.
11
Preliminary Amendment – Use It!
 However:
An amendment canceling claims accompanying the papers
constituting the application will be effective to diminish the
number of claims to be considered in calculating the filing
fees to be paid. A preliminary amendment filed concurrently
with a response to a Notice To File Missing Parts of
Application that required the fees set forth in 37 CFR 1.16,
which preliminary amendment cancels or adds claims, will be
taken into account in determining the appropriate fees due
in response to the Notice To File Missing Parts of Application.
See MPEP § 607 (III).
12
Preliminary Amendment – Use It!
 Alternative Strategy:
File the application with all 40 claims, but no filing fee.
The USPTO will issue a Notice To File Missing Parts.
Together with the filing fee, submit a Preliminary Amendment
cancelling 20 of the claims. As per MPEP § 607 (III), you will
only be charged for the 20 remaining claims.
If you later decide to file a continuation application featuring
the claims that were cancelled with the Preliminary
Amendment, such claims will be supported in the application
as originally filed.
13
US Restriction-Election Practice
 37 C.F.R. § 1.142
(a)If two or more independent and distinct inventions are claimed in
a single application, the examiner in an Office action will require
the applicant in the reply to that action to elect an invention to
which the claims will be restricted, this official action being called a
requirement for restriction (also known as a requirement for
division). Such requirement will normally be made before any
action on the merits; however, it may be made at any time before
final action.
(b)Claims to the invention or inventions not elected, if not canceled,
are nevertheless withdrawn from further consideration by the
examiner by the election, subject however to reinstatement in the
event the requirement for restriction is withdrawn or overruled.
14
US Restriction-Election Practice
 Typically, the Restriction Requirements will have at least two
set of claims that the Examiner contends are independent
and distinct inventions, e.g. product and process, and that
there would be a serious burden on the Examiner if the
restriction were not made.
 The applicant MUST elect one of the sets of claims. Non-
elected sets may be pursued in “divisional” applications.
 An applicant may choose to “traverse”, i.e. challenge, or “not
traverse” the rejection.
 Traversing a restriction requirement is usually not successful
–dividing a case into two or more applications is a source of
revenue for the USPTO. An Examiner’s refusal cannot be
appealed –only petitioned.
15
US Restriction-Election Practice
 Reasons not to traverse:
 Arguments brought against the traversal may generate
prosecution “estoppel” that may limit the scope and strength
of a granted patent, especially if they amount to an
admission that the claimed inventions are obvious over each
other.
 Claims left out by the Restriction Requirement may be
pursued in a “divisional application” with safe harbor.
 “[A]n application filed as a result of such a requirement, shall
not be used as a reference either in the Patent and
Trademark Office or in the courts against a divisional
application” in a double patenting rejection.
See 35 U.S.C. § 121, MPEP § 804.
16
Restriction ≠ Election of Species
 Unfortunately, Election of Species and Restriction
Requirement are oftentimes confused by examiners and
attorneys alike.
 An election of species contends that there are different
species of the same invention, e.g. a propeller-driven, turbo-
prop, or jet aircraft. A claim is not a species; a claim may
encompass two or more patentably indistinct species
(generic or genus claim).
See MPEP 806.04(e).
 The Examiner is seeking to limit the scope of work to be done
during examination. Once the elected species is found
allowable, the examiner will examine the claims directed to
non-elected species.
17
Restriction ≠ Election of Species
 Examiners tend to confuse an Election of Species with a
Restriction Requirement, thereby trying to restrict out claims
directed to species that are not patentably distinct from the
elected species.
 Call up the Examiner: “You are attempting to restrict
between species that are not patentably distinct from each
other, that is, you are trying to split apart species belonging
to the same genus. This will compel us to file a new claim
that is generic to all species of the genus”.
18
Restriction ≠ Election of Species
 Example:
Claim 1. A method of preventing fuel tank depletion, comprising:
measuring a fuel level in a fuel tank to determine a fuel level reading,
comparing the fuel level reading to a threshold,
if the fuel level reading is below the threshold, then displaying a
warning.
Claim 2. The method of claim 1, where the warning is displayed on an
automobile dashboard.
Claim 3. The method of claim 1, where the warning is displayed in an
aircraft cockpit.
The Examiner requires restriction between “car” and “aircraft”, not
understanding that this should be framed as an election.
19
Restriction ≠ Election of Species
 Solution:
Claim 1. A method of preventing fuel tank depletion, comprising:
measuring a fuel level in a fuel tank of a engine-powered means
of transportation, to determine a fuel level reading,
comparing the fuel level reading to a threshold,
if the fuel level reading is below the threshold, then displaying a
warning.
Claim 2. The method of claim 1, where the means of transportation is an
automobile.
Claim 3. The method of claim 1, where the means of transportation is an
aircraft.
The “automobile” and “aircraft” warning are now part of the same
genus, thereby forestalling an unwarranted restriction of the claims.
20
Patent Eligibility Analysis
 Recent Supreme Court rulings have broadened and deepened the impact
of 35 U.S.C. § 101, heightening the prominence of patent eligibility, as
opposed to patentability, as a threshold question in patent prosecution
and litigation.
 Patent eligibility is now determined according to a two-part test:
(1)Determine whether the claims at issue are directed to one of those
“patent-ineligible concepts”: laws of nature, natural phenomena,
abstract ideas.
(2)If the claims are directed to one of those patent-ineligible concepts, are
there “additional elements”? Is there an “inventive concept” that
ensures that the patent in practice amounts to “significantly more” than
a patent pre-empting the ineligible concept itself?
Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 132 S. Ct. 1289
(2012).
Alice Corp. Pty. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 134 S. Ct. 2347, 2360 (2014).
21
Test as currently
implemented by the USPTO
“Abstract idea” a threshold
patent eligibility issue for
business method and
software patents and
applications.
Problem: Supreme Court
not very clear on what
constitutes an “abstract
idea”.
What “significantly more” is
considered sufficient to
avoid pre-emption of the
“abstract idea” is not very
clear either.
Subsequent court rulings
provide illustrative
examples.
22
Patent Eligibility Analysis
 Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, No. 2010-1544 (Fed. Cir. Nov. 14, 2014)
Under the patented process, a consumer receives a copyrighted product at
no cost in exchange for viewing an advertisement. The advertiser pays for
the media and the user selects an advertisement to view.
 First step of patent-eligibility analysis: abstract idea?
According to the Court, the process of receiving copyrighted media, selecting
ads, offering media in exchange for watching ads, and establishing a
payment scheme, describes an abstract idea “devoid of a concrete or
tangible application”.
The Court did not explain how it established that the claims embody an
abstract idea. Instead, the Court simply reiterated its conclusion that the
patent was directed to the abstract idea of “using advertising as an
exchange of currency”.
23
Patent Eligibility Analysis
 Second step of patent eligibility analysis:
The Court found the inclusion of updating activity logs, permitting users to
select advertisements, using of the Internet, and restricting user access
are no more than routine, conventional “data-gathering” and “pre-
solution” activities ineligible for patent protection. which are “insufficient
to transform the patent-ineligible subject matter into patent-eligible
subject matter. That some of the eleven steps were not previously
employed in this art is not enough—standing alone—to confer patent
eligibility upon the claims at issue”.
The Court did not explain how “not previously employed”, that is, novel
features can fairly constitute a “routine, conventional” activity. Arguably,
Ultramercial stands for the proposition that what constitutes a “routine”
or “conventional” practice under § 101 is a distinct inquiry from the
novelty and nonobviousness questions.
24
Patent Eligibility Analysis
 DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245 (Fed. Cir. 2014)
The Court characterized the invention as follows:
[The system] instructs an Internet web server of an “outsource provider” to
construct and serve to the visitor a new, hybrid web page that merges
content associated with the products of the third-party merchant with
the stored “visually perceptible elements” from the identified host
website:
25
Patent Eligibility Analysis
 The Court ruled that the claims are patent eligible because “they do not
merely recite the performance of some business practice known from the
pre-Internet world along with the requirement to perform it on the
Internet. Instead, the claimed solution is necessarily rooted in computer
technology in order to overcome a problem specifically arising in the
realm of computer networks”.
 The Court distinguished Ultramercial the claims here “specify how
interactions with the Internet are manipulated to yield the desired result
—a result that overrides the routine and conventional sequence of
events ordinarily triggered by the click of a hyperlink.”
 In sum: patent eligibility of “pure” software or internet applications,
without a “machine or transformation”, is still a viable option in certain
circumstances.
26
Patent Eligibility Analysis
 Example: Intellectual Ventures I v. Symantec (D.Del. 2013).
 Intellectual Ventures, a “mega-troll”, sued a number of software
companies on U.S. Patent Nos. 6,460,050 (the "'050 patent"), 6,073,142
(the '"142 patent"), and 5,987,610 (the '"610 patent").
 At trial, the jury awarded $17 million to Intellectual Ventures.
 Defendant argued in a post-trial motion that the claims failed to meet the
patent-eligibility test and "purport to extend their abstract ideas to the
world of electronic communications by invoking generic computer
software, hardware and networking concepts“.
’50 patent: claims 9, 16, and 22 are independent.
9. A method for identifying characteristics of data files…
16.A method of filtering an email message…
22. A method of providing a service on the Internet…
27
Patent Eligibility Analysis
 The Court ruled as follows:
Step 1: “the claims of ‘050 are directed to an abstract idea of receiving
identifying information, comparing it to other information, and
outputting an indication based on the identifying information”.
Step 2: The claims simply append conventional steps, specified at a high
level of generality, which is not enough to supply an “inventive concept”.
‘142 patent: claims 1, 17, 21, 22, 24, and 26 are independent.
1. A post office for receiving and redistributing e-mail messages on a
computer network…
17. A process for controlling the delivery of e-mail message in a business…
21. A process for deferring the delivery of selected e-mail messages…
22. A computer implemented process for reviewing an e-mail message…
28
Patent Eligibility Analysis
29
24. A post office for receiving and redistributing data objects on a computer
network…
26. A process for deferring the delivery of selected data objects…
Step 1: “The Court concludes that the asserted claims of the '142 patent are
directed to human-practicable [abstract idea] concepts, which could be
implemented in, for example, a brick-and-mortar post office”.
Step 2: “Intellectual Ventures does not, and cannot, point to any specific
machine used to implement any of the asserted claims”. “[T]he claims of the
'142 patent are in essence directed to generic computer implementation of
an abstract idea, which does not make the abstract idea patent eligible”.
They are not necessarily rooted in computer technology.
Patent Eligibility Analysis
30
‘610 Patent: claim 1 the only independent claim:
1. A virus screening method comprising the steps of:
routing a call between a calling party and a called party of a
telephone network;
receiving, within the telephone network, computer data from a first
party selected from the group consisting of the calling party and the
called party;
detecting, within the telephone network, a virus in the computer
data; and
in response to detecting the virus, inhibiting communication of at
least a portion of the computer data from the telephone network to
a second party selected from the group consisting of the calling
party and the called party.
Patent Eligibility Analysis
31
The Court found that “The '610 patent is not directed to screening generic "data" or
"information." Instead, the asserted claim specifically recites a computer virus,
which has computer-centric implications that cannot be abstracted away so broadly.
Furthermore, the human mind cannot perform the steps described in the
specification for implementing virus screening functionality in a telephone network.
Citing DDR Holdings, the Court further stated that “[t]he coordination between a
virus detecting computer, a sending computer, and a receiving computer is
something "necessarily rooted in computer technology in order to overcome a
problem specifically arising in the realm of computer networks."
In other words, the claimed subject matter is not an abstract idea similar to real-life
screenings such as “observing individuals for signs of intoxication, reading wartime
correspondence, or asking someone if she is having an emergency”.
Patent Eligibility Analysis
 Also, the Court of Appeal of the Federal Circuit- is not bound to explain
how it reaches its conclusions on patentability, unless one manages to
obtain review by the Supreme Court.
 However, USPTO patent examiners cannot get away with a patent
eligibility determination based on conclusory statements! Allegations of
non-statutory subject matter must be backed with evidence.
Example: U.S. Appl. No. 13/076,216:
The Examiner made the general allegation that “the claims, as a whole are
directed toward the concept of operating a data collection and analysis
system, which is considered a fundamental economic practice and is
simply a series of data gathering or collecting, mathematical formulation
and oparation; therefore the claims are drawn to an abstract idea. […] It
should be noted that the limitations of the current claims are performed
by the generically recited computer.
32
Patent Eligibility Analysis
 The Applicants replied by attacking the lack of evidentiary support
backing the Examiner’s statements:
“[…] the Examiner has provided no support in making this allegation and
thus fails to establish a prima facie case that the claim is for an abstract
idea. It appears that all the Examiner did was to take the language of the
preamble, call it an abstract idea (with no evidentiary proof), and ignore
the specific claims that the Examiner has found to be novel over the prior
art”.
“No evidentiary support has been provided for the conclusory statement
made by the Examiner that the […] claimed process is a fundamental
economic practice”.
“Applicants cannot imagine how this specific, detailed process [of the
claims], undertaken by several computers interoperating over a computer
network can be characterized as a mere “data collection and analysis
system” and thus a fundamental economic practice”.
33
Patent Eligibility Analysis
 The Applicants also explained how the claims pass muster under part two
of the Alice test:
“the claims provide an inventive concept since they have been found to be
allowable [by the Examiner] under sections 102 [novelty] and 103
[obviousness]”.
“the claims do not wholly pre-empt the field of data collection and analysis
due to numerous non-infringing alternatives that are significant and
substantial”.
The application was allowed on December 3, 2014.
34
Post-grant proceedings before the Patent
Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB)
 Thousands of claims invalidated in the last two-and-a-half-
years!
 What happened? No more inter partes reexaminations.
 Instead, new post-issuance, adversarial administrative (as
opposed to legal) proceedings for challenging patents
before the USPTO. Introduced by the “America Invents
Act”.
 Not cheap –just the filing fees in the neighborhood of
$30,000- but much cheaper and faster than litigation.
 Million-dollar scale litigation before a court of law no
longer necessary to invalidate a low-quality patent.
35
Types of post-grant proceedings
 Covered Business Method (CBM) Review
(a)Available until September 15, 2020.
(b)Allows validity challenges on any ground that is a condition for
patentability –including recently strengthened patent eligibility
requirements under § 101 (see Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Intl.)
(c)A petitioner may not file with the Office a petition to institute a CBM
patent review of the patent unless the petitioner, the petitioner's real
party-in-interest, or a privy of the petitioner has been sued for
infringement of the patent or has been charged with infringement under
that patent.
(d)Must be completed within 12 months from institution, with 6 months
good cause exception possible.
36
Types of post-grant proceedings
 Definition of a “covered business method patent”:
(a) Covered business method patent means a patent that claims a method or
corresponding apparatus for performing data processing or other operations
used in the practice, administration, or management of a financial product or
service, except that the term does not include patents for technological
inventions.
(b) Technological invention. In determining whether a patent is for a
technological invention solely for purposes of the Transitional Program for
Covered Business Methods (section 42.301(a)), the following will be
considered on a case-by-case basis: whether the claimed subject matter as a
whole recites a technological feature that is novel and unobvious over the
prior art; and solves a technical problem using a technical solution.
See 37 CFR § 42.301.
37
Types of post-grant proceedings
 Estoppel created in a CBM: “Grounds that were raised (or that reasonably
could have been raised) for any claim that results in a final written decision
are no longer available” to the petitioner, i.e., the party challenging the
patent (or real party-in-interest; privy).
 USPTO: Cannot challenge the patent on any ground that was raised or
reasonably could have been raised in the CBM proceeding. More expansive
than issue estoppel as traditionally applied.
 “Reasonably could have been raised” construed as “prior art which a skilled
searcher conducting a diligent search would reasonably [] have been
expected to discover”. A scorched-earth search reviewing all the prior art in
the world is not required.
 ITC or District Court: Cannot challenge the patent on any ground that was
actually raised in the CBM proceeding –less strict than estoppel applied to
proceedings before the USPTO.
38
Types of post-grant proceedings
 Post Grant Review (PGR)
 Available immediately and until 9 months after patent grant or reissue.
 Available for covered business method patents irrespective of their priority
date.
 For technologies other than covered business methods, post-grant review is
only available for patents with a priority date later than March 15, 2013.
 Must be filed within nine months of a patent’s issuance (or reissuance). Must
be filed before seeking a declaratory judgment challenging the validity of a
claim.
 Can be sought on any statutory grounds of invalidity under 35 U.S.C. § 282:
patents, printed publications, public use, on-sale activities, written
description, enablement, patent eligibility, statutory double patenting.
 Must be completed within 12 months from institution, with 6 months good
cause exception possible.
39
Types of post-grant proceedings
 PGR: Limited discovery is allowed, although not to the extent
typical of district court patent litigation.
 Estoppel created by post-grant review applies to all USPTO
proceedings, ITC proceedings, and district court litigations.
 Estoppel standard: Cannot challenge the patent on any ground that
was raised or reasonably could have been raised in the PGR
proceeding.
 In short, PGR estoppel applies to all grounds in all subsequent
USPTO proceedings and district court litigations.
 WARNING: Make sure that the PGR sets forth the very best
grounds of invalidity –if it fails, you will not be allowed to raise in
court any statutory grounds of invalidity that you raised or
reasonably could have raised in the PGR, art-based or otherwise.
40
Types of post-grant proceedings
 Problem: Limit of 80 pages for PGR petition.
 Problem: The USPTO may elect to consider only a subset of the
grounds raised in the petition, e.g. only 3 of, say, 10 grounds raised
in the petition.
 Solution: file more than one concurrent petitions in order to
preserve all grounds.
 Settlement agreements are allowed, which create no estoppel. For
estoppel to attach, there must a final written decision (on a claim-
by-claim basis). See 35 U.S.C. § 315(e).
 PGR can only be filed within 9 months of the issuance of the
patent. However, one can get early warning with the “Patent
Application Alert Service” (PAAS), a free electronic tool creating
automatic alerts of the publication of any U.S. patent application
meeting criteria set by the user.
41
Types of post-grant proceedings
 Inter Partes Review (IPR)
 Available for all patents, regardless of their filing date.
 For patents filed on or after March 16, 2013, available only after
the period for PGR has passed, i.e., after the nine-month window
immediately after patent issuance.
 WARNING: Must be filed within one year of being served with an
infringement complaint by the patentee. Must be filed before
seeking a declaratory judgment challenging the validity of a claim.
 The prior art available for IPR is limited relative to PGR. In IPR, art
limited to prior art grounds based on patents and printed
publications. On the bright side, this constraint limits the estoppel
effects of IPR relative to PGR.
42
Types of post-grant proceedings
 Must be completed within 12 months from institution, with 6
months good cause exception possible.
 IPR: Similarly to PGR, limited discovery is allowed, although not to
the extent typical of district court patent litigation.
 Estoppel created by post-grant review applies to all USPTO
proceedings, ITC proceedings, and district court litigations.
 Estoppel standard: Cannot challenge the patent on any ground that
was raised or reasonably could have been raised in the IPR
proceeding, i.e., novelty or obviousness grounds based on patents
and printed publications.
43
Types of post-grant proceedings
 Problem: Limit of 60 pages for IPR petition, 20 pages less than for
PGR.
 Problem: The USPTO may elect to consider only a subset of the
grounds raised in the petition, e.g. only 3 of, say, 10 grounds raised
in the petition.
 Solution: file more than one concurrent petitions in order to
preserve all grounds.
 Settlement agreements are allowed, which create no estoppel. For
estoppel to attach, there must a final written decision (on a claim-
by-claim basis). See 35 U.S.C. § 315(e).
44
A WORD FROM OUR SPONSOR
 Patent Boutique – Located Downtown Chicago
 Patent Preparation & Prosecution, Opinion Work, & Due-
Diligence Assessments
 Highly Experienced Patent Attorneys
 Top Law Firms And Corporate Backgrounds
 Experience Wide Array Of Technologies
 Pharmaceuticals, Biotechnology, Chemical, Mechanical,
Electrical, Computer Software/Hardware
 Attorneys Average Seventeen Years Of Experience
45
QUALITY
 Prosecution Techniques
 Solicit Details Of The Invention
 Focus Claims On Direct Infringers
 Keep Abreast Of The Law
 Interview Virtually Every Case
 High Allowance Rate
 Opinions / Due-Diligence Assessments
 Discussing New Case Law on a Daily Basis, instead of “monthly
meetings”
 Two Experienced Patent Lawyers Sign Off On Every Opinion
46
The End
 Thank You!
 Questions?
47

More Related Content

What's hot

Paragraph IV Disputes NYC
Paragraph IV Disputes NYCParagraph IV Disputes NYC
Paragraph IV Disputes NYCRachel Hamilton
 
Murphy v. Dulay stricks down med mal law
 Murphy v. Dulay stricks down med mal law Murphy v. Dulay stricks down med mal law
Murphy v. Dulay stricks down med mal lawmzamoralaw
 
Intellectual Property Strategies
Intellectual Property StrategiesIntellectual Property Strategies
Intellectual Property Strategiesstantolin
 
Client Attorney Privilege
Client Attorney PrivilegeClient Attorney Privilege
Client Attorney Privilegekhirayama
 
PruvIt Ventures VS ForeverGreen International Lawsuit filed
PruvIt Ventures VS ForeverGreen International Lawsuit filedPruvIt Ventures VS ForeverGreen International Lawsuit filed
PruvIt Ventures VS ForeverGreen International Lawsuit filedPruvit
 
Lang van v. Vng Corp - Order granting Vng's motion to dismiss
Lang van v. Vng Corp  - Order granting Vng's motion to dismissLang van v. Vng Corp  - Order granting Vng's motion to dismiss
Lang van v. Vng Corp - Order granting Vng's motion to dismissRobert Scott Lawrence
 
Things to Consider Before You File (Series: IP 301 Post-Grant Review Trials 2...
Things to Consider Before You File (Series: IP 301 Post-Grant Review Trials 2...Things to Consider Before You File (Series: IP 301 Post-Grant Review Trials 2...
Things to Consider Before You File (Series: IP 301 Post-Grant Review Trials 2...Financial Poise
 

What's hot (13)

Federal Circuit Review | September 2013
Federal Circuit Review | September 2013Federal Circuit Review | September 2013
Federal Circuit Review | September 2013
 
Paragraph IV Disputes NYC
Paragraph IV Disputes NYCParagraph IV Disputes NYC
Paragraph IV Disputes NYC
 
Federal Circuit Review | August 2013
Federal Circuit Review | August 2013Federal Circuit Review | August 2013
Federal Circuit Review | August 2013
 
Federal Circuit Review | November 2012
Federal Circuit Review | November 2012Federal Circuit Review | November 2012
Federal Circuit Review | November 2012
 
Discussion of the changes in the fourth revision to the Chinese patent law
Discussion of the changes in the fourth revision to the Chinese patent lawDiscussion of the changes in the fourth revision to the Chinese patent law
Discussion of the changes in the fourth revision to the Chinese patent law
 
Murphy v. Dulay stricks down med mal law
 Murphy v. Dulay stricks down med mal law Murphy v. Dulay stricks down med mal law
Murphy v. Dulay stricks down med mal law
 
Intellectual Property Strategies
Intellectual Property StrategiesIntellectual Property Strategies
Intellectual Property Strategies
 
Client Attorney Privilege
Client Attorney PrivilegeClient Attorney Privilege
Client Attorney Privilege
 
Recent Developments in Patent Law for Medical Device Companies
Recent Developments in Patent Law for Medical Device CompaniesRecent Developments in Patent Law for Medical Device Companies
Recent Developments in Patent Law for Medical Device Companies
 
PruvIt Ventures VS ForeverGreen International Lawsuit filed
PruvIt Ventures VS ForeverGreen International Lawsuit filedPruvIt Ventures VS ForeverGreen International Lawsuit filed
PruvIt Ventures VS ForeverGreen International Lawsuit filed
 
Federal Circuit Review | April 2013
Federal Circuit Review | April 2013Federal Circuit Review | April 2013
Federal Circuit Review | April 2013
 
Lang van v. Vng Corp - Order granting Vng's motion to dismiss
Lang van v. Vng Corp  - Order granting Vng's motion to dismissLang van v. Vng Corp  - Order granting Vng's motion to dismiss
Lang van v. Vng Corp - Order granting Vng's motion to dismiss
 
Things to Consider Before You File (Series: IP 301 Post-Grant Review Trials 2...
Things to Consider Before You File (Series: IP 301 Post-Grant Review Trials 2...Things to Consider Before You File (Series: IP 301 Post-Grant Review Trials 2...
Things to Consider Before You File (Series: IP 301 Post-Grant Review Trials 2...
 

Similar to Prosecution Primer Talk 2015_May

USPTO Examiner Guidelines Post - Alice v. CLS Bank
USPTO Examiner Guidelines Post - Alice v. CLS BankUSPTO Examiner Guidelines Post - Alice v. CLS Bank
USPTO Examiner Guidelines Post - Alice v. CLS BankUSPatentsNMore
 
Five major differences between IPRs and invalidation proceedings
Five major differences between IPRs and invalidation proceedingsFive major differences between IPRs and invalidation proceedings
Five major differences between IPRs and invalidation proceedingsAlexandraPuYang
 
Important Provisions of The America Invents Act Take Effect in September
Important Provisions of The America Invents Act Take Effect in SeptemberImportant Provisions of The America Invents Act Take Effect in September
Important Provisions of The America Invents Act Take Effect in SeptemberPatton Boggs LLP
 
SKGF_Advisory_Real World Impacts of Reexamination Practice and Procedure_2008
SKGF_Advisory_Real World Impacts of Reexamination Practice and Procedure_2008SKGF_Advisory_Real World Impacts of Reexamination Practice and Procedure_2008
SKGF_Advisory_Real World Impacts of Reexamination Practice and Procedure_2008SterneKessler
 
Claiming Strategies for Medical Device Patent Application PLUS - Bonus Update...
Claiming Strategies for Medical Device Patent Application PLUS - Bonus Update...Claiming Strategies for Medical Device Patent Application PLUS - Bonus Update...
Claiming Strategies for Medical Device Patent Application PLUS - Bonus Update...Patterson Thuente IP
 
Quick Costs Qwocs, disapplication, fundamental dishonesty, set off and multip...
Quick Costs Qwocs, disapplication, fundamental dishonesty, set off and multip...Quick Costs Qwocs, disapplication, fundamental dishonesty, set off and multip...
Quick Costs Qwocs, disapplication, fundamental dishonesty, set off and multip...QuickCostsCostsCompa
 
Federal Procurement Updates June 2010
Federal Procurement Updates June 2010Federal Procurement Updates June 2010
Federal Procurement Updates June 2010fkenniasty
 
A guide-to-patent-litigation-in-fed-court-2016
A guide-to-patent-litigation-in-fed-court-2016A guide-to-patent-litigation-in-fed-court-2016
A guide-to-patent-litigation-in-fed-court-2016Larry Kolodney
 
SKGF_Advisory_Strategies for Life Under the New USPTO Rules on Continuation a...
SKGF_Advisory_Strategies for Life Under the New USPTO Rules on Continuation a...SKGF_Advisory_Strategies for Life Under the New USPTO Rules on Continuation a...
SKGF_Advisory_Strategies for Life Under the New USPTO Rules on Continuation a...SterneKessler
 
Pleading Healthcare Fraud and Abuse Rule 9b 12 b 6 Merritt Rose 05 13
Pleading Healthcare Fraud and Abuse Rule 9b 12 b 6 Merritt Rose 05 13Pleading Healthcare Fraud and Abuse Rule 9b 12 b 6 Merritt Rose 05 13
Pleading Healthcare Fraud and Abuse Rule 9b 12 b 6 Merritt Rose 05 13Martin Merritt
 
Sample motion for judgment on the pleadings under Rule 12(c) of the Federal R...
Sample motion for judgment on the pleadings under Rule 12(c) of the Federal R...Sample motion for judgment on the pleadings under Rule 12(c) of the Federal R...
Sample motion for judgment on the pleadings under Rule 12(c) of the Federal R...LegalDocsPro
 
Creat Act Talk 2015_Jan
Creat Act Talk 2015_JanCreat Act Talk 2015_Jan
Creat Act Talk 2015_JanW. John Keyes
 
Are My Patents Still Valid
Are My Patents Still ValidAre My Patents Still Valid
Are My Patents Still Validinsightc5
 
MBHB-Webinar-PTAB-Williams-Schafer-FINAL-02.25.15
MBHB-Webinar-PTAB-Williams-Schafer-FINAL-02.25.15MBHB-Webinar-PTAB-Williams-Schafer-FINAL-02.25.15
MBHB-Webinar-PTAB-Williams-Schafer-FINAL-02.25.15Andrew Williams
 

Similar to Prosecution Primer Talk 2015_May (20)

USPTO Examiner Guidelines Post - Alice v. CLS Bank
USPTO Examiner Guidelines Post - Alice v. CLS BankUSPTO Examiner Guidelines Post - Alice v. CLS Bank
USPTO Examiner Guidelines Post - Alice v. CLS Bank
 
"Patent Applications"
"Patent Applications""Patent Applications"
"Patent Applications"
 
Five major differences between IPRs and invalidation proceedings
Five major differences between IPRs and invalidation proceedingsFive major differences between IPRs and invalidation proceedings
Five major differences between IPRs and invalidation proceedings
 
Important Provisions of The America Invents Act Take Effect in September
Important Provisions of The America Invents Act Take Effect in SeptemberImportant Provisions of The America Invents Act Take Effect in September
Important Provisions of The America Invents Act Take Effect in September
 
Licensing of IP rights and competition law – HOVENKAMP – June 2019 OECD discu...
Licensing of IP rights and competition law – HOVENKAMP – June 2019 OECD discu...Licensing of IP rights and competition law – HOVENKAMP – June 2019 OECD discu...
Licensing of IP rights and competition law – HOVENKAMP – June 2019 OECD discu...
 
SKGF_Advisory_Real World Impacts of Reexamination Practice and Procedure_2008
SKGF_Advisory_Real World Impacts of Reexamination Practice and Procedure_2008SKGF_Advisory_Real World Impacts of Reexamination Practice and Procedure_2008
SKGF_Advisory_Real World Impacts of Reexamination Practice and Procedure_2008
 
Claiming Strategies for Medical Device Patent Application PLUS - Bonus Update...
Claiming Strategies for Medical Device Patent Application PLUS - Bonus Update...Claiming Strategies for Medical Device Patent Application PLUS - Bonus Update...
Claiming Strategies for Medical Device Patent Application PLUS - Bonus Update...
 
Quick Costs Qwocs, disapplication, fundamental dishonesty, set off and multip...
Quick Costs Qwocs, disapplication, fundamental dishonesty, set off and multip...Quick Costs Qwocs, disapplication, fundamental dishonesty, set off and multip...
Quick Costs Qwocs, disapplication, fundamental dishonesty, set off and multip...
 
Federal Procurement Updates June 2010
Federal Procurement Updates June 2010Federal Procurement Updates June 2010
Federal Procurement Updates June 2010
 
Side Bar Sprin 2012
Side Bar Sprin 2012Side Bar Sprin 2012
Side Bar Sprin 2012
 
A guide-to-patent-litigation-in-fed-court-2016
A guide-to-patent-litigation-in-fed-court-2016A guide-to-patent-litigation-in-fed-court-2016
A guide-to-patent-litigation-in-fed-court-2016
 
SKGF_Advisory_Strategies for Life Under the New USPTO Rules on Continuation a...
SKGF_Advisory_Strategies for Life Under the New USPTO Rules on Continuation a...SKGF_Advisory_Strategies for Life Under the New USPTO Rules on Continuation a...
SKGF_Advisory_Strategies for Life Under the New USPTO Rules on Continuation a...
 
Pleading Healthcare Fraud and Abuse Rule 9b 12 b 6 Merritt Rose 05 13
Pleading Healthcare Fraud and Abuse Rule 9b 12 b 6 Merritt Rose 05 13Pleading Healthcare Fraud and Abuse Rule 9b 12 b 6 Merritt Rose 05 13
Pleading Healthcare Fraud and Abuse Rule 9b 12 b 6 Merritt Rose 05 13
 
Sample motion for judgment on the pleadings under Rule 12(c) of the Federal R...
Sample motion for judgment on the pleadings under Rule 12(c) of the Federal R...Sample motion for judgment on the pleadings under Rule 12(c) of the Federal R...
Sample motion for judgment on the pleadings under Rule 12(c) of the Federal R...
 
Creat Act Talk 2015_Jan
Creat Act Talk 2015_JanCreat Act Talk 2015_Jan
Creat Act Talk 2015_Jan
 
IPR Presentation
IPR PresentationIPR Presentation
IPR Presentation
 
Are My Patents Still Valid
Are My Patents Still ValidAre My Patents Still Valid
Are My Patents Still Valid
 
Finding the earliest and least expensive exit
Finding the earliest and least expensive exitFinding the earliest and least expensive exit
Finding the earliest and least expensive exit
 
MBHB-Webinar-PTAB-Williams-Schafer-FINAL-02.25.15
MBHB-Webinar-PTAB-Williams-Schafer-FINAL-02.25.15MBHB-Webinar-PTAB-Williams-Schafer-FINAL-02.25.15
MBHB-Webinar-PTAB-Williams-Schafer-FINAL-02.25.15
 
WorkSample#2PARA -IV FILINGS
WorkSample#2PARA -IV FILINGSWorkSample#2PARA -IV FILINGS
WorkSample#2PARA -IV FILINGS
 

Prosecution Primer Talk 2015_May

  • 1. PATENTS IN THE U.S.A.: PRACTICAL CONSIDERATIONS DISCLAIMER: THIS PRESENTATION HAS BEEN PREPARED FOR GENERAL INFORMATION PURPOSES ONLY TO PERMIT YOU TO LEARN MORE ABOUT OUR FIRM, OUR SERVICES AND THE EXPERIENCE OF OUR ATTORNEYS. THE INFORMATION PRESENTED IS NOT LEGAL ADVICE, IS NOT TO BE ACTED ON AS SUCH, MAY NOT BE CURRENT AND IS SUBJECT TO CHANGE WITHOUT NOTICE. Jonathan M. Blanchard, Ph.D. W. John Keyes, Ph.D. © 2015 Blanchard & Associates, Chicago
  • 2. PCT National Stage vs. “Bypass”  Traditional PCT route for entering U.S. national stage: completing the requirements for entry into the national stage under 35 U.S.C. § 371(c), including:  Oath or declaration of the inventor. It may be sometimes difficult to procure by the filing deadline. For applications filed after September 16, 2012, the national filing date is no longer the date the oath or declaration is received – it is when the filing fee is paid and the English translation is filed. 2
  • 3. PCT National Stage vs. “Bypass”  Copy of the PCT application or literal translation. No revisions or additions allowed.  PCT applications entering the national stage must include a copy of the application or a “correct”, i.e. exact and literal translation. See PCT Article 46, 35 U.S.C. 375(b) and MPEP § 1893.01 35 U.S.C. § 371(d): The applicant may present amendments to the specification, claims, and drawings of the application after the national stage has commenced. 3
  • 4. Amendments  Amendments, for example to remove impermissible multiple dependent claims, may be presented in the form of a Preliminary Amendment filed together with the required nationalization filings.  However, the application is usually published without the amended claims from the Prel. Amd.  This may lead to substantial financial losses due to diminished provisional rights. 4
  • 5. Claims and New Matter  Sometimes, it is not clear which claims are pending due to amendments made in the course of the international phase (PCT Article 19 amendments before the international bureau).  Claims may require amendments to conform to US laws and regulations, e.g. multiple dependencies must be removed.  No new matter allowed, so no “continuation-in- part” applications. 5
  • 6. Restriction  Nationalized PCT application claims are restricted according to the “unity of invention standard”.  This usually results in fewer independent claims making it past restriction.  US examiners are usually not very familiar with the “unity of invention” standard and may erroneously issue rejections according to US restriction practice. 6
  • 7. Advantages of “Bypass” Approach  It is possible to file a U.S. national application under 35 U.S.C. § 111(a) without completing the requirements for entering the national stage under 35 U.S.C. 371(c), i.e. as a continuation, divisional, or continuation of a PCT application designating the U.S. See 35 U.S.C. §§ 363, 365(c), and 120. Discussed in MPEP §§ 1895, 1896. 7
  • 8. Advantages of “Bypass” Approach  Originally used in instances where there was difficulty in obtaining a signed oath or declaration by the expiration of the time for entry into the national stage. Because these continuation applications historically resulted from a need to bypass the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 371 , they became known as “bypass” applications. 8
  • 9. Advantages of “Bypass” Approach  In a bypass application, the amended claims may be incorporated in the body of the application, as opposed to via a Preliminary Amendment.  As such, they will be published, eliminating the problem of lost provisional rights.  Remarks may also be submitted to address any new matter questions.  Addition of new matter allowed (CIP), see MPEP 1895. 9
  • 10. Advantages of “Bypass” Approach  Bypass applications are subject to US-type claim restriction practice, which is based on claims being “independent and distinct”.  On average, fewer claims are restricted out than when the PCT “unity of invention” standard is applied.  US examiners are more familiar with the standard. 10
  • 11. Preliminary Amendment – Use It!  The filing fee covers 20 claims (3 independent claims).  Each independent claim in excess of 3 - $420.00.  Each claim in excess of 20 - $80.00.  What if you need, for instance, 40 claims, 6 of which independent, to fully claim all aspects of the invention? (a)File a first application with a first set of 20 claims. (b)File a continuation of the first application featuring the claims that were left out of the first application. Problem: The claims in the continuation application may be challenged as lacking sufficient support in the parent application. 11
  • 12. Preliminary Amendment – Use It!  However: An amendment canceling claims accompanying the papers constituting the application will be effective to diminish the number of claims to be considered in calculating the filing fees to be paid. A preliminary amendment filed concurrently with a response to a Notice To File Missing Parts of Application that required the fees set forth in 37 CFR 1.16, which preliminary amendment cancels or adds claims, will be taken into account in determining the appropriate fees due in response to the Notice To File Missing Parts of Application. See MPEP § 607 (III). 12
  • 13. Preliminary Amendment – Use It!  Alternative Strategy: File the application with all 40 claims, but no filing fee. The USPTO will issue a Notice To File Missing Parts. Together with the filing fee, submit a Preliminary Amendment cancelling 20 of the claims. As per MPEP § 607 (III), you will only be charged for the 20 remaining claims. If you later decide to file a continuation application featuring the claims that were cancelled with the Preliminary Amendment, such claims will be supported in the application as originally filed. 13
  • 14. US Restriction-Election Practice  37 C.F.R. § 1.142 (a)If two or more independent and distinct inventions are claimed in a single application, the examiner in an Office action will require the applicant in the reply to that action to elect an invention to which the claims will be restricted, this official action being called a requirement for restriction (also known as a requirement for division). Such requirement will normally be made before any action on the merits; however, it may be made at any time before final action. (b)Claims to the invention or inventions not elected, if not canceled, are nevertheless withdrawn from further consideration by the examiner by the election, subject however to reinstatement in the event the requirement for restriction is withdrawn or overruled. 14
  • 15. US Restriction-Election Practice  Typically, the Restriction Requirements will have at least two set of claims that the Examiner contends are independent and distinct inventions, e.g. product and process, and that there would be a serious burden on the Examiner if the restriction were not made.  The applicant MUST elect one of the sets of claims. Non- elected sets may be pursued in “divisional” applications.  An applicant may choose to “traverse”, i.e. challenge, or “not traverse” the rejection.  Traversing a restriction requirement is usually not successful –dividing a case into two or more applications is a source of revenue for the USPTO. An Examiner’s refusal cannot be appealed –only petitioned. 15
  • 16. US Restriction-Election Practice  Reasons not to traverse:  Arguments brought against the traversal may generate prosecution “estoppel” that may limit the scope and strength of a granted patent, especially if they amount to an admission that the claimed inventions are obvious over each other.  Claims left out by the Restriction Requirement may be pursued in a “divisional application” with safe harbor.  “[A]n application filed as a result of such a requirement, shall not be used as a reference either in the Patent and Trademark Office or in the courts against a divisional application” in a double patenting rejection. See 35 U.S.C. § 121, MPEP § 804. 16
  • 17. Restriction ≠ Election of Species  Unfortunately, Election of Species and Restriction Requirement are oftentimes confused by examiners and attorneys alike.  An election of species contends that there are different species of the same invention, e.g. a propeller-driven, turbo- prop, or jet aircraft. A claim is not a species; a claim may encompass two or more patentably indistinct species (generic or genus claim). See MPEP 806.04(e).  The Examiner is seeking to limit the scope of work to be done during examination. Once the elected species is found allowable, the examiner will examine the claims directed to non-elected species. 17
  • 18. Restriction ≠ Election of Species  Examiners tend to confuse an Election of Species with a Restriction Requirement, thereby trying to restrict out claims directed to species that are not patentably distinct from the elected species.  Call up the Examiner: “You are attempting to restrict between species that are not patentably distinct from each other, that is, you are trying to split apart species belonging to the same genus. This will compel us to file a new claim that is generic to all species of the genus”. 18
  • 19. Restriction ≠ Election of Species  Example: Claim 1. A method of preventing fuel tank depletion, comprising: measuring a fuel level in a fuel tank to determine a fuel level reading, comparing the fuel level reading to a threshold, if the fuel level reading is below the threshold, then displaying a warning. Claim 2. The method of claim 1, where the warning is displayed on an automobile dashboard. Claim 3. The method of claim 1, where the warning is displayed in an aircraft cockpit. The Examiner requires restriction between “car” and “aircraft”, not understanding that this should be framed as an election. 19
  • 20. Restriction ≠ Election of Species  Solution: Claim 1. A method of preventing fuel tank depletion, comprising: measuring a fuel level in a fuel tank of a engine-powered means of transportation, to determine a fuel level reading, comparing the fuel level reading to a threshold, if the fuel level reading is below the threshold, then displaying a warning. Claim 2. The method of claim 1, where the means of transportation is an automobile. Claim 3. The method of claim 1, where the means of transportation is an aircraft. The “automobile” and “aircraft” warning are now part of the same genus, thereby forestalling an unwarranted restriction of the claims. 20
  • 21. Patent Eligibility Analysis  Recent Supreme Court rulings have broadened and deepened the impact of 35 U.S.C. § 101, heightening the prominence of patent eligibility, as opposed to patentability, as a threshold question in patent prosecution and litigation.  Patent eligibility is now determined according to a two-part test: (1)Determine whether the claims at issue are directed to one of those “patent-ineligible concepts”: laws of nature, natural phenomena, abstract ideas. (2)If the claims are directed to one of those patent-ineligible concepts, are there “additional elements”? Is there an “inventive concept” that ensures that the patent in practice amounts to “significantly more” than a patent pre-empting the ineligible concept itself? Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 132 S. Ct. 1289 (2012). Alice Corp. Pty. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 134 S. Ct. 2347, 2360 (2014). 21
  • 22. Test as currently implemented by the USPTO “Abstract idea” a threshold patent eligibility issue for business method and software patents and applications. Problem: Supreme Court not very clear on what constitutes an “abstract idea”. What “significantly more” is considered sufficient to avoid pre-emption of the “abstract idea” is not very clear either. Subsequent court rulings provide illustrative examples. 22
  • 23. Patent Eligibility Analysis  Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, No. 2010-1544 (Fed. Cir. Nov. 14, 2014) Under the patented process, a consumer receives a copyrighted product at no cost in exchange for viewing an advertisement. The advertiser pays for the media and the user selects an advertisement to view.  First step of patent-eligibility analysis: abstract idea? According to the Court, the process of receiving copyrighted media, selecting ads, offering media in exchange for watching ads, and establishing a payment scheme, describes an abstract idea “devoid of a concrete or tangible application”. The Court did not explain how it established that the claims embody an abstract idea. Instead, the Court simply reiterated its conclusion that the patent was directed to the abstract idea of “using advertising as an exchange of currency”. 23
  • 24. Patent Eligibility Analysis  Second step of patent eligibility analysis: The Court found the inclusion of updating activity logs, permitting users to select advertisements, using of the Internet, and restricting user access are no more than routine, conventional “data-gathering” and “pre- solution” activities ineligible for patent protection. which are “insufficient to transform the patent-ineligible subject matter into patent-eligible subject matter. That some of the eleven steps were not previously employed in this art is not enough—standing alone—to confer patent eligibility upon the claims at issue”. The Court did not explain how “not previously employed”, that is, novel features can fairly constitute a “routine, conventional” activity. Arguably, Ultramercial stands for the proposition that what constitutes a “routine” or “conventional” practice under § 101 is a distinct inquiry from the novelty and nonobviousness questions. 24
  • 25. Patent Eligibility Analysis  DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245 (Fed. Cir. 2014) The Court characterized the invention as follows: [The system] instructs an Internet web server of an “outsource provider” to construct and serve to the visitor a new, hybrid web page that merges content associated with the products of the third-party merchant with the stored “visually perceptible elements” from the identified host website: 25
  • 26. Patent Eligibility Analysis  The Court ruled that the claims are patent eligible because “they do not merely recite the performance of some business practice known from the pre-Internet world along with the requirement to perform it on the Internet. Instead, the claimed solution is necessarily rooted in computer technology in order to overcome a problem specifically arising in the realm of computer networks”.  The Court distinguished Ultramercial the claims here “specify how interactions with the Internet are manipulated to yield the desired result —a result that overrides the routine and conventional sequence of events ordinarily triggered by the click of a hyperlink.”  In sum: patent eligibility of “pure” software or internet applications, without a “machine or transformation”, is still a viable option in certain circumstances. 26
  • 27. Patent Eligibility Analysis  Example: Intellectual Ventures I v. Symantec (D.Del. 2013).  Intellectual Ventures, a “mega-troll”, sued a number of software companies on U.S. Patent Nos. 6,460,050 (the "'050 patent"), 6,073,142 (the '"142 patent"), and 5,987,610 (the '"610 patent").  At trial, the jury awarded $17 million to Intellectual Ventures.  Defendant argued in a post-trial motion that the claims failed to meet the patent-eligibility test and "purport to extend their abstract ideas to the world of electronic communications by invoking generic computer software, hardware and networking concepts“. ’50 patent: claims 9, 16, and 22 are independent. 9. A method for identifying characteristics of data files… 16.A method of filtering an email message… 22. A method of providing a service on the Internet… 27
  • 28. Patent Eligibility Analysis  The Court ruled as follows: Step 1: “the claims of ‘050 are directed to an abstract idea of receiving identifying information, comparing it to other information, and outputting an indication based on the identifying information”. Step 2: The claims simply append conventional steps, specified at a high level of generality, which is not enough to supply an “inventive concept”. ‘142 patent: claims 1, 17, 21, 22, 24, and 26 are independent. 1. A post office for receiving and redistributing e-mail messages on a computer network… 17. A process for controlling the delivery of e-mail message in a business… 21. A process for deferring the delivery of selected e-mail messages… 22. A computer implemented process for reviewing an e-mail message… 28
  • 29. Patent Eligibility Analysis 29 24. A post office for receiving and redistributing data objects on a computer network… 26. A process for deferring the delivery of selected data objects… Step 1: “The Court concludes that the asserted claims of the '142 patent are directed to human-practicable [abstract idea] concepts, which could be implemented in, for example, a brick-and-mortar post office”. Step 2: “Intellectual Ventures does not, and cannot, point to any specific machine used to implement any of the asserted claims”. “[T]he claims of the '142 patent are in essence directed to generic computer implementation of an abstract idea, which does not make the abstract idea patent eligible”. They are not necessarily rooted in computer technology.
  • 30. Patent Eligibility Analysis 30 ‘610 Patent: claim 1 the only independent claim: 1. A virus screening method comprising the steps of: routing a call between a calling party and a called party of a telephone network; receiving, within the telephone network, computer data from a first party selected from the group consisting of the calling party and the called party; detecting, within the telephone network, a virus in the computer data; and in response to detecting the virus, inhibiting communication of at least a portion of the computer data from the telephone network to a second party selected from the group consisting of the calling party and the called party.
  • 31. Patent Eligibility Analysis 31 The Court found that “The '610 patent is not directed to screening generic "data" or "information." Instead, the asserted claim specifically recites a computer virus, which has computer-centric implications that cannot be abstracted away so broadly. Furthermore, the human mind cannot perform the steps described in the specification for implementing virus screening functionality in a telephone network. Citing DDR Holdings, the Court further stated that “[t]he coordination between a virus detecting computer, a sending computer, and a receiving computer is something "necessarily rooted in computer technology in order to overcome a problem specifically arising in the realm of computer networks." In other words, the claimed subject matter is not an abstract idea similar to real-life screenings such as “observing individuals for signs of intoxication, reading wartime correspondence, or asking someone if she is having an emergency”.
  • 32. Patent Eligibility Analysis  Also, the Court of Appeal of the Federal Circuit- is not bound to explain how it reaches its conclusions on patentability, unless one manages to obtain review by the Supreme Court.  However, USPTO patent examiners cannot get away with a patent eligibility determination based on conclusory statements! Allegations of non-statutory subject matter must be backed with evidence. Example: U.S. Appl. No. 13/076,216: The Examiner made the general allegation that “the claims, as a whole are directed toward the concept of operating a data collection and analysis system, which is considered a fundamental economic practice and is simply a series of data gathering or collecting, mathematical formulation and oparation; therefore the claims are drawn to an abstract idea. […] It should be noted that the limitations of the current claims are performed by the generically recited computer. 32
  • 33. Patent Eligibility Analysis  The Applicants replied by attacking the lack of evidentiary support backing the Examiner’s statements: “[…] the Examiner has provided no support in making this allegation and thus fails to establish a prima facie case that the claim is for an abstract idea. It appears that all the Examiner did was to take the language of the preamble, call it an abstract idea (with no evidentiary proof), and ignore the specific claims that the Examiner has found to be novel over the prior art”. “No evidentiary support has been provided for the conclusory statement made by the Examiner that the […] claimed process is a fundamental economic practice”. “Applicants cannot imagine how this specific, detailed process [of the claims], undertaken by several computers interoperating over a computer network can be characterized as a mere “data collection and analysis system” and thus a fundamental economic practice”. 33
  • 34. Patent Eligibility Analysis  The Applicants also explained how the claims pass muster under part two of the Alice test: “the claims provide an inventive concept since they have been found to be allowable [by the Examiner] under sections 102 [novelty] and 103 [obviousness]”. “the claims do not wholly pre-empt the field of data collection and analysis due to numerous non-infringing alternatives that are significant and substantial”. The application was allowed on December 3, 2014. 34
  • 35. Post-grant proceedings before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB)  Thousands of claims invalidated in the last two-and-a-half- years!  What happened? No more inter partes reexaminations.  Instead, new post-issuance, adversarial administrative (as opposed to legal) proceedings for challenging patents before the USPTO. Introduced by the “America Invents Act”.  Not cheap –just the filing fees in the neighborhood of $30,000- but much cheaper and faster than litigation.  Million-dollar scale litigation before a court of law no longer necessary to invalidate a low-quality patent. 35
  • 36. Types of post-grant proceedings  Covered Business Method (CBM) Review (a)Available until September 15, 2020. (b)Allows validity challenges on any ground that is a condition for patentability –including recently strengthened patent eligibility requirements under § 101 (see Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Intl.) (c)A petitioner may not file with the Office a petition to institute a CBM patent review of the patent unless the petitioner, the petitioner's real party-in-interest, or a privy of the petitioner has been sued for infringement of the patent or has been charged with infringement under that patent. (d)Must be completed within 12 months from institution, with 6 months good cause exception possible. 36
  • 37. Types of post-grant proceedings  Definition of a “covered business method patent”: (a) Covered business method patent means a patent that claims a method or corresponding apparatus for performing data processing or other operations used in the practice, administration, or management of a financial product or service, except that the term does not include patents for technological inventions. (b) Technological invention. In determining whether a patent is for a technological invention solely for purposes of the Transitional Program for Covered Business Methods (section 42.301(a)), the following will be considered on a case-by-case basis: whether the claimed subject matter as a whole recites a technological feature that is novel and unobvious over the prior art; and solves a technical problem using a technical solution. See 37 CFR § 42.301. 37
  • 38. Types of post-grant proceedings  Estoppel created in a CBM: “Grounds that were raised (or that reasonably could have been raised) for any claim that results in a final written decision are no longer available” to the petitioner, i.e., the party challenging the patent (or real party-in-interest; privy).  USPTO: Cannot challenge the patent on any ground that was raised or reasonably could have been raised in the CBM proceeding. More expansive than issue estoppel as traditionally applied.  “Reasonably could have been raised” construed as “prior art which a skilled searcher conducting a diligent search would reasonably [] have been expected to discover”. A scorched-earth search reviewing all the prior art in the world is not required.  ITC or District Court: Cannot challenge the patent on any ground that was actually raised in the CBM proceeding –less strict than estoppel applied to proceedings before the USPTO. 38
  • 39. Types of post-grant proceedings  Post Grant Review (PGR)  Available immediately and until 9 months after patent grant or reissue.  Available for covered business method patents irrespective of their priority date.  For technologies other than covered business methods, post-grant review is only available for patents with a priority date later than March 15, 2013.  Must be filed within nine months of a patent’s issuance (or reissuance). Must be filed before seeking a declaratory judgment challenging the validity of a claim.  Can be sought on any statutory grounds of invalidity under 35 U.S.C. § 282: patents, printed publications, public use, on-sale activities, written description, enablement, patent eligibility, statutory double patenting.  Must be completed within 12 months from institution, with 6 months good cause exception possible. 39
  • 40. Types of post-grant proceedings  PGR: Limited discovery is allowed, although not to the extent typical of district court patent litigation.  Estoppel created by post-grant review applies to all USPTO proceedings, ITC proceedings, and district court litigations.  Estoppel standard: Cannot challenge the patent on any ground that was raised or reasonably could have been raised in the PGR proceeding.  In short, PGR estoppel applies to all grounds in all subsequent USPTO proceedings and district court litigations.  WARNING: Make sure that the PGR sets forth the very best grounds of invalidity –if it fails, you will not be allowed to raise in court any statutory grounds of invalidity that you raised or reasonably could have raised in the PGR, art-based or otherwise. 40
  • 41. Types of post-grant proceedings  Problem: Limit of 80 pages for PGR petition.  Problem: The USPTO may elect to consider only a subset of the grounds raised in the petition, e.g. only 3 of, say, 10 grounds raised in the petition.  Solution: file more than one concurrent petitions in order to preserve all grounds.  Settlement agreements are allowed, which create no estoppel. For estoppel to attach, there must a final written decision (on a claim- by-claim basis). See 35 U.S.C. § 315(e).  PGR can only be filed within 9 months of the issuance of the patent. However, one can get early warning with the “Patent Application Alert Service” (PAAS), a free electronic tool creating automatic alerts of the publication of any U.S. patent application meeting criteria set by the user. 41
  • 42. Types of post-grant proceedings  Inter Partes Review (IPR)  Available for all patents, regardless of their filing date.  For patents filed on or after March 16, 2013, available only after the period for PGR has passed, i.e., after the nine-month window immediately after patent issuance.  WARNING: Must be filed within one year of being served with an infringement complaint by the patentee. Must be filed before seeking a declaratory judgment challenging the validity of a claim.  The prior art available for IPR is limited relative to PGR. In IPR, art limited to prior art grounds based on patents and printed publications. On the bright side, this constraint limits the estoppel effects of IPR relative to PGR. 42
  • 43. Types of post-grant proceedings  Must be completed within 12 months from institution, with 6 months good cause exception possible.  IPR: Similarly to PGR, limited discovery is allowed, although not to the extent typical of district court patent litigation.  Estoppel created by post-grant review applies to all USPTO proceedings, ITC proceedings, and district court litigations.  Estoppel standard: Cannot challenge the patent on any ground that was raised or reasonably could have been raised in the IPR proceeding, i.e., novelty or obviousness grounds based on patents and printed publications. 43
  • 44. Types of post-grant proceedings  Problem: Limit of 60 pages for IPR petition, 20 pages less than for PGR.  Problem: The USPTO may elect to consider only a subset of the grounds raised in the petition, e.g. only 3 of, say, 10 grounds raised in the petition.  Solution: file more than one concurrent petitions in order to preserve all grounds.  Settlement agreements are allowed, which create no estoppel. For estoppel to attach, there must a final written decision (on a claim- by-claim basis). See 35 U.S.C. § 315(e). 44
  • 45. A WORD FROM OUR SPONSOR  Patent Boutique – Located Downtown Chicago  Patent Preparation & Prosecution, Opinion Work, & Due- Diligence Assessments  Highly Experienced Patent Attorneys  Top Law Firms And Corporate Backgrounds  Experience Wide Array Of Technologies  Pharmaceuticals, Biotechnology, Chemical, Mechanical, Electrical, Computer Software/Hardware  Attorneys Average Seventeen Years Of Experience 45
  • 46. QUALITY  Prosecution Techniques  Solicit Details Of The Invention  Focus Claims On Direct Infringers  Keep Abreast Of The Law  Interview Virtually Every Case  High Allowance Rate  Opinions / Due-Diligence Assessments  Discussing New Case Law on a Daily Basis, instead of “monthly meetings”  Two Experienced Patent Lawyers Sign Off On Every Opinion 46
  • 47. The End  Thank You!  Questions? 47