Patent Draft Esther Arias


Published on

Guidelines for patent draft; patentability requirements and examples.

Published in: Technology
  • Be the first to comment

No Downloads
Total views
On SlideShare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Patent Draft Esther Arias

  1. 1. 6/10/09 Patent Draft Esther Arias Pérez-Ilzarbe October 20092009 OEPM Oficina Española de Patentes y Marcas Patent Draft !"#$%&'()*+,'%)&$ -"#$(./+%(.0.&'1$)2$34'.&'45%6%'78$ &)9.6'7$ %&9.&'%9.$1'.3$ :"#$*(42'%&;$4$34'.&'$ <"#$*%2.(.&,.1$5.'=..&$+1$4&*$.3$34'.&'1$ >"#$.?4036.1$ OEPM @"#$(.2.(.&,.1$ 1
  2. 2. 6/10/09 Creations of the mind OEPM IP Assets What is a Patent? •!Patent gives its owner certain limited-term rights to exclude others from making, using or selling an invention in a country •!In return for these rights, the patent must describe how to construct the invention and how to use it, and define in a set of valid claims the scope of protection requested •!A patent may not allow to practice the invention defined therein: NO GUARANTEE of Freedom to Operate (ex. health regulations; cross patents) OEPM •!Once the patent rights run out, everyone can use the information to invent further and so more knowledge becomes available to society 2
  3. 3. 6/10/09 What can be the subject of a Patent? 1.! Mechanical Devices and Articles of Manufacture: “hockey skates” 2.! Process/Methods: “new apparatus for filtering and purifying plant extracts” as well “his filtration method” 3.! Chemical compositions or compounds: “Tamiflu” 4.! Isolated and Characterized Molecules 5.! Genetic organisms/Gene sequences 6.! Computer programs?- USA, and EP with some conditions OEPM 7.! Improvements on prior inventions: “improved brush to clean the floor” Patent = Disclosure A typical patent application includes the following sections –!Object of invention –!Statement of invention –!Summary of invention –!Brief description of drawings –!Detailed description of the invention –!Claims –!Drawings OEPM PATENT APPLICATIONS ARE SIMILAR AROUND THE WORLD ALTHOUGH LAWS DEFINE DIFFERENT RULES 3
  4. 4. 6/10/09 &1234'25'6'367487'592:'6';4<6;'32=87'25' >=4?'' &(#()'*+'(,)' (,)' .)&!-$/($*0&' #-(' .)&(-*A' •!.)&!-$/($*0'' 0*B)"(A'*+' +C(C-)'/#()0(' !!&)#-!,'-)/*-(' #//"$!#($*0&' !"#$%&' OEPM ")@#"'/-*()!($*0' Patent Thicket HOW CAN BE APPLY FOR NEW PATENTS? IT IS DIFFICULT TO FIND A “FREE WAY” BUT YOU HAVE TO TRY IT ! OEPM 4
  5. 5. 6/10/09 Requirements on Patentability •! Novelty •! Inventive Step •! Industrial Applicability OEPM Novelty: Legal basis An invention is new when it is not part of the state of the art Everything made available to the public anywhere in the world prior to the relevant date !""#$%&'$()*+,-,+-.++/* 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 OEPM time (year) 5
  6. 6. 6/10/09 What is the state of the art? 54$''1)*6$7%#(7841* 98:#$%*871* 0'&'1*(2** '31*!4'* =4&#*617%4$"'$()* OEPM !);*('314*<&; Examining Novelty: the Novelty test •! The invention as claimed is examined on novelty, rather than the embodiments •! An Application is not new when the state of the art has all the features of the application and is suitable for solving the same problem as the Application OEPM VIAGRA AS HAIR RESTORER IS NEW ALTHOUGH THE COMPOUND ITSELF IS WELL KNOWN 6
  7. 7. 6/10/09 Novelty Flow Diagram Disclosure available before no The filing/priority date novel (if any) of the application?* (*) it is assumed yes that the priority is validly claimed Identify the technical Features of the claim no novel Identify technical features OEPM In a disclosure that are Identical ? Common to the claim yes Not novel A device for watering plants having a water containing portion (1), a handle (2), an opening with a lid (3) and a spout (4)*. * A spout is a projecting pipe or tube, e.g. in a tea-pot. F E B A C OEPM D 14 7
  8. 8. 6/10/09 Inventive Step ... Suppose we had only the Novelty requirement for Patentability ... MAIN INVENTION Other Inventions ? Are minor, merely novel OEPM improvements to known devices worthy of protection? Inventive Step ... •! Historical Introduction –! Novelty –! Utility –! … something more… •! Non-Obviousness (DE, US, UK) •! Reasons to establish this requirement –! must be a good reason to grant a monopoly. –! ...discourage speculators. OEPM –! ... minimize misgivings by limiting patents to free trade 8
  9. 9. 6/10/09 Harmonization Article 33(3) P.C.T. ... a claimed invention shall be considered to involve an inventive step if, having regard to the prior art as defined in the Regulations, it is not, at the prescribed relevant date, obvious to a person skilled in the art OEPM Inventive step •! The question is, which inventions are obvious having regard to the state of the art? •! This is a quite subjective question, isn’t it? •! Using the Problem/Solution approach makes the decision process as OEPM objective as possible 9
  10. 10. 6/10/09 PROBLEM-SOLUTION APROACH Basic Elements •! Identify the closest prior art: eliminate irrelevant prior art •! Formulate the problem to be solved •! Prevent the use of hindsight •! Is the solution obvious to the skilled person, starting from the closest prior art? OEPM •! But It does not automatically give you the right answer! PROBLEM-SOLUTION APROACH Questions Q1. Closest prior art? Q2. Difference with (claimed) invention (in terms of technical features)? Q3. Technical effect (if any)? Q4. (Objective) technical problem? Q5. Solution = Difference? Q6. Would the person skilled in the art: –! recognize and solve the problem, on the basis of the OEPM totality of the prior art, and without employing inventive skills? 10
  11. 11. 6/10/09 US METHOD FOR INVENTIVE STEP EVALUATION Test TSM : TEACHING, SUGGESTION, MOTIVATION BUT AFTER 2007 (KSR DECISION): more flexible application of the TSM test At the USPTO: Graham v John Deere (1966) “ a person having ordinary skill in the art” •! State of the Art determination ( Analogous Prior Art) •! Differences between prior art and claims •! Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent Art •! Secondary considerations EVIDENCE: The prior art must suggest or motivate the desirability of the claimed invention and within a reasonable expectation of success. OEPM BOTH MUST BE FOUND IN THE PRIOR ART NOT ON APPLICANT’S DISCLOSURE >=?@A!?@=B*&)6*CD9CE?!?@=B* INVENTIVE STEP EXAMPLE 1.- PEPPER AND SALT OEPM 11
  12. 12. 6/10/09 PEPPER AND SALT Claims: 1.- Cutlery item constituted by a hollow handle (1), for receiving spices, with a rear part lid (2) with outlet-openings (3) where it is installed a cover element (4) that prevents escape of the spices during non-use. 2.- Cutlery item according to claim 1, characterized in that the cover element (4) is provided with protrusions (5) which penetrate into the openings (3) in a closed position. OEPM Closest Prior Art: D1 The closest element of the prior art has a hinged lid that covers the holes (movement in horizontal plane). Examined Application D1 OEPM 12
  13. 13. 6/10/09 1.- In view of document D1: Do the claims 1 and 2 have Novelty and Inventive Step? 2.- What technical feature would be necessary to combine and object OEPM claim 2? Another document D2 arises Pepper container with a cover comprising protrusions to penetrate OEPM into the openings of the lid to prevent clogging. 3.- Facing document D2, is claim 2 Inventive? 13
  14. 14. 6/10/09 SOLUTION: "! Claim 1 is not new: it comes directly and unambiguously from document D1 "! Claim 2 lacks inventive step: it will be obvious for a person skilled in the art to combine the locking means disclosed at documents D1 and D2. OEPM Drafting a patent is one of the steps of a commercial strategy, but sometimes patents applications are a strategy to close the market Failure? Success? Enforcement Commercialization Grant and publication of the patent Prosecution of the patent application Drafting and filing of a patent application OEPM Crystallizing the idea behind the invention Finding a solution for a technical problem 14
  15. 15. 6/10/09 For drafting patent applications it is important •! To understand the invention •! Find the “gist” of the invention (essence) •! Find the right embodiments •! Find the right words, terminology and sentences to describe the invention •! Have imagination: how competitors could avoid the claimed invention but still take OEPM advantage of its teachings (foreseeing the future) One way road •! You cannot broaden the disclosure and the claims after the application that was filed •! You do not get a second chance except for simple clarifications and for narrowing the claims when further prior art is taken into account •! You cannot get protection for what is not described properly OEPM •! You cannot broaden the claims of a granted patent 15
  16. 16. 6/10/09 The 10 steps involved in patent drafting 1 Spotting the invention 2 Generalizing the invention 3 Drawing one or more figures showing the invention 4 Arranging the figures of the drawing in a sequence 5 Deciding on the terminology to describe the invention 6 Drafting the claims 7 Drafting the detailed description (reference numerals) 8 Inserting the reference numerals in the claims OEPM 9 Writing the introductory part of the description 10 Writing the abstract using the reference numerals Step 1: Spotting the invention •! Identify what that invention is about. •! If there is a novel invention •! What are the differences between the closest prior art and the invention that can spot? (or catch, detect, determine, discern, discover, distinguish, find, isolate, identify, notice, make out, locate, perceive, pick out,recognize, single out etc.) •! Which specific difference has the technical effect that seems to be the most important one? (most significant, most substantial or most unexpected one)? •! Identify the new feature(s) or combination of features which provide OEPM the “trick” of the invention (inventive step requirement): what problem did the invention solve 16
  17. 17. 6/10/09 OEPM OEPM 17
  18. 18. 6/10/09 •!1 s t C l a i m •!35 claims more WO2007112987 OEPM Search report WO2007112987 OEPM 18
  19. 19. 6/10/09 OEPM Written opinion.-search report of WO2007112987 Written opinion.-search report of WO2007112987 OEPM 19
  20. 20. 6/10/09 OEPM Written opinion.-search report of WO2007112987 US3899803- cited in the search report of WO2007112987 OEPM 20
  21. 21. 6/10/09 Step 2: Generalizing the embodiment of the invention •! Once we have spotted the specific feature or combination of features important for the invention we are still not quite ready to draft our main claim. •! We need to generalize the important feature(s) and crystallize what we think the general idea underlying the invention is. •! This can be done once a narrow main claim has been drafted and is reviewed (several times). OEPM •! It is important to generalize the concept of the invention by concentrating on the essential features,by using broad technical concepts, broad language and by avoiding unnecessary limitations. Steps 3 and 4: Drawings •!Drawings are required when they are necessary for the understanding of the invention. •!To make patent drafting easier, it is good to have a sensibly ordered set of drawings which move from a broad overview, via intermediate drawings to those that show the details of the invention. •!Flow sheets and diagrams are considered drawings. OEPM 21
  22. 22. 6/10/09 Step 5: Deciding on the terminology to describe the invention •!When writing the description it can be helpful to have a set of drawings to hand which you have labeled with the names of the parts shown in the drawings. •! Write down next to each element shown in each of the figures show these elements are called by the specialist and how they could be named in broad terms (e.g. instead of copper wire it might be electrical conductor) •! Use dictionaries and/or published patent documents downloaded from the internet OEPM •!Be carefull using words containing absolutes of any sort: if a patent application uses words like “must” or “always”, these words express a very precise and accurate situation in case of litigation Step 6: The Claims The claim or claims shall define the matter for which protection is sought (searched). Claims shall be clear and concise. They shall be fully supported by the description. A series of numbered statements in a patent specification, usually following the description, that define the invention and establish the scope of the monopoly conferred by the patent. OEPM Each claim consists of one sentence starting with a capital letter and ending with a full stop 22
  23. 23. 6/10/09 The drafting dilemma •! Claiming too broadly (covering prior art): –! No Protection at all since the claim is not “new” •! Claiming too narrow (terminology, features): –! Competitor can use the invention •! Claiming just right: –! This is an art and requires lots of imagination. –! Each claim should be a single sentence and should OEPM be clearly worded (drafted, written) –! Each claim should be precise and without unnecessary repetition Specific vs General •! Description of a specific compound destroy novelty of a general claim that include the specific compoun Document describing a copper cable DESTROY NOVELTY OEPM Claim: metal cable 23
  24. 24. 6/10/09 General vs Specific •! A general description claim doesn’t destroy novelty of a specific compound Document describing a “metal cable”, and in all the embodiments the metal is copper NOT DESTROY NOVELTY OEPM Claim: aluminium cable The drafting dilemma •! Rights are given to claims only, not for any matter described in the complete specification. On the other hand claiming what is not supported by the description must be avoided •! Claims define the boundaries of legal protection and form a protective fence around invention •! Each claim is evaluated on its own merit and, therefore, if one of the claims is objected, it does mean that the rest of the claims are invalid: dependent claims often cover advantageous ways to realize the invention. They can be used as fallback positions in case the independent claim is rejected or cancelled OEPM by a court 24
  26. 26. 6/10/09 CLAIM FORMAT … •!Claim shall define the invention in terms of technical features •!Definitions in terms of non-technical features are excluded: -!Economic advantages -!Aesthetic features -!Legal statements -!Value statements -!Statements of origin -!Fancy names.. Example: “A new and inexpensive instrument for OEPM executives with an urge to write” . Could be a pen or pencil? CLAIM FORMAT … TRANSITION WORDS COMPRISING – CONSISTING OF • “Comprising” is equivalent to “open” definition A geometrical device comprising three sides connected together at equal angles (Covers primarily an isoscelese triangle but also inlcudes various poligons) • “Consisting of” is equivalent to “closed” or “exactly” A geometrical device consisting of three sides OEPM connected together at equal angles of 60º (limited to an isoscelese triangle) 26
  27. 27. 6/10/09 CLAIM FORMAT … TRANSITION WORDS – Characterized Substantially as described Use of…for the treatmente of condition… • “Characterized in that" or "characterized by” This format is used in EP patents, but not in USA patents, • “Substancially as described” Omnibus Patent. Format not allowed in USA patents. -"Use of substance X in the manufacture of a OEPM medicament for the treatment of condition Y” Swiss patent Types of claims •!Independent Claim: The claim which covers all the significant characteristics of the invention. Generally, the first claim is Independent Claim which reflects the whole picture of the invention. •!Dependent Claim: The claim which depends on a claim or several claims is called dependent claim. Generally, the subsequent claims of an Independent claim are Dependent Claim. •!Omnibus Claim: It is usually used in order to ensure that nothing that has been mentioned in the description and drawings has been left out of the claims. The words such as "substantially as described" or "substantially as described with reference to the drawings" or "substantially as described herein" are commonly used to claim as Omnibus Claim "Apparatus as described in the description" or "An OEPM x as shown in Figure y". NOT ALL THE COUNTRIES ALLOWED OMNIBUS CLAIMS 27
  28. 28. 6/10/09 Types of claims •!Jepson Claim: A Jepson claim admits that the invention is an improvement on a previous invention. The claim must be written in a specific order. First, give a general description of the known elements or steps of the existing invention. Second, state “wherein the improvement comprises” or something similar like “wherein the combination with”. And third, list the elements or steps that are new or improved over the previous invention. A system for storing information having (...) wherein the improvement comprises… In USA they are rarely used, since they introduce a potencial risk. Everything before the separating phrase is assumed to be known, whether that is in fact true or not •!Swiss Claim:. Swiss-type claim or "Swiss type of use claim" is a claim intended to cover the first, second or subsequent medical use (or OEPM indication) of a known substance or composition. Use of substance X in the manufacture of a medicament for the treatment of condition Y… Step 7: Purpose of the description. •! To disclose and teach the invention; •! To support the claims; •! To provide the basis for interpretation of the •! claims; •! To provide a context within which to view the claims; •! To provide basis for future amendment of the OEPM claims (during prosecution or litigation). 28
  29. 29. 6/10/09 The description Shall disclose the invention in a manner sufficiently clear and complete for the invention to be carried out by a person skilled in the art. Describe in detail at least one way of carrying out the invention claimed; This shall be done using examples where appropriate and with reference to the drawings, if any Bearing in mind that the application, when published, OEPM will be prior art against new inventions, it is important to avoid including examples which unnecessarily disclosure details of potentially new developments The description •! Describe the invention in its context. Start with the big picture and work into the detail of the invention. •! Do not throw the reader right into the heart of the invention: lead the reader progressively along a logical path with no sudden changes of direction. •! Avoid criticisms of prior art, just compare technical features •! When the way in which an invention is capable of explotation in industry is not obvious from the description or the nature of the invention, the OEPM description should end by an explicit indication 29
  30. 30. 6/10/09 Step 8: Inserting the reference numerals in the claims •! When the detailed description is finished it takes only a little time to insert the reference signs or reference numerals into the claims drafted earlier. •! The parts list made during the drafting of the description can help to avoid errors or omissions OEPM Step 9: Introductory part of the description •! The description shall first state the title of the invention •! Specify the technical field to which the invention relates; •! Indicate the background art which, as far as known to theapplicant, can be regarded as useful for the understanding,searching and examination of the invention, and, preferably,cite the documents reflecting OEPM such art; 30
  31. 31. 6/10/09 Step 10: The abstract •! Intended to help searchers know what the patent is about. •! 150 words maximum. •! Often based on the main claim, but this is not always helpful. •! Unlike the other parts of an application, does OEPM not contribute to the disclosure of the invention. •! But an abstract is “prior art” for future applications Following Step 10: Review •!When you have finished your specification (complete description, claims, drawings,abstract) review it, particularly with reference to the language of the claims. •!Are all the features mentioned in the claims also present in the description? OEPM •!Have you explained how the embodiments or elements of the invention interact or can be used together? 31
  32. 32. 6/10/09 Differences between US and European patents 1. Entitlement to own and file. 2. What is patentable. 3. Novelty. 4. Best Mode. 5. Inventive step vs obviousness. 6. Treatment of amendments. 7. Claim structure. 8. Unity of invention. 9. Continuation and divisional application. 10. Information and inequitable contact. OEPM 11. Examination experience. 12. Litigations. Entitlement to own and file •! Ownership of patent in USA goes to first to invent, in Europe to the first inventor or successor to [e.g. employer, assignee …] •! In USPTO normal application has to be filed by inventor or someone acting for and on behalf of inventor so get ownership before filing. Filing in the wrong name with deceptive intent can lose application – can result in jail sentence •! EP patent application can be filed by anyone, but have to show entitlement (authoritation/right) during the prosecution of the application OEPM Note – for applications going through PCT route there is no requirement to show entitlement during European phase Correction of inventorship possible without loss of patent 32
  33. 33. 6/10/09 USA What is patentable Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title. [35 U.S.C. 101] A broad statement, but subject to much case law to determine what is covered. EPO European patents shall be granted for any inventions, in all fields of technology, provided that they are new, involve an inventive step and are susceptible of industrial application. [Article 52(1) EPC] A broad statement but with many detailed exclusions:- discoveries, scientific theories, mathematical methods, aesthetic creations, schemes, rules and methods for performing mental acts, playing games or doing business, and programs for computers, presentations of information, AS SUCH [Article 52(2)-(3) EPC] inventions the commercial exploitation of which would be contrary to "ordre public" or morality; plant or animal varieties or essentially biological OEPM processes for the production of plants or animals; methods for treatment of the human or animal body by surgery or therapy and diagnostic methods practised on the human or animal body. [Article 53 EPC] The extent of the exclusions are being continually tested. •! US Novelty –! Detailed and complex provisions concerning novelty – seven different criteria on which an invention is deemed lacking in novelty or lost [35 U.S.C. 102] –! One year grace period for documents published before filing application but after making invention –! Earlier filed applications prior art for assessment of novelty if filed before the invention by the applicant –! “Swearing behind" (an inventor, in certain circumstances, can get a US patent even though the invention became public before the inventor filed an original patent application) •! EP –! EP absolute novelty based on availability to the public [Article 54 EPC] with severely restricted six month grace period for International Exhibitions and disclosure which is an “evident abuse” [Article 55 EPC] OEPM –! The content of European patent applications as filed, the dates of filing of which are prior to the priority date and which were published on or after that date are prior art for assessment of novelty [Article 54(3) EPC] 33
  34. 34. 6/10/09 Best Mode US : US patent law requires the inventor to include the best way to practice the invention in the patent application (35 US Code section 112). This way, the inventor cannot get a patent and still keep some essential or advantageous aspect a secret. EP: European patent law has no such requirement. At least one way of practicing the invention must be included in the application (Article 83 EPC), but there OEPM is nothing that states this way must be the best way, or even a good way. Inventive step v obviousness •! USPTO – Full availability of earlier filed later published applications as art [subject to “swearing behind”] •! EP – No availability of earlier filed later published applications as art for assessment of inventive step •! USPTO obviousness A test called “teaching, suggestion, or motivation” (TSM) test,was applied to determine whether invention obvious or not. More flexible application of the TSM test: Overturned by Supreme Court in 2006 case [KSR v. Teleflex]. “A court must ask whether the improvement is more than the predictable use of prior-art elements according to their established functions”. •! EP Inventive step: Problem and solution approach applied OEPM SIGNS THAT RAISING OF US STANDARD LEADING TO RESULTS CLOSER TO EP APPROACH, HOWEVER FORM OF ARGUMENT LIKELY TO BE VERY DIFFERENT 34
  35. 35. 6/10/09 Treatment of amendments US •! No amendment shall introduce new matter into the disclosure of the invention. [35 U.S.C. 132] EP •! The European patent application or European patent may not be amended in such a way that it contains subject-matter which extends beyond the content of the application as filed. [Article 123(2) EPC] Although looks the same – application very different - US permits OEPM reasonable interpretation of what the application discloses – EPO look to near explicit disclosure Claim structure •! US high cost penalty for multiply dependent claims and problems in application before courts This leads to many independent claims being filed in the USA •! EP high cost penalty for too many claims and ability of courts to find claims partially valid This leads to much use of multiple dependency which are better dealt with in courts and easier to draft and examine •! No common drafting style that is good for US and OEPM EPO (e.g JAPSON CLAIM or Omnibus claima) For PCT applications, draft claims for Europe and make preliminary amendment on entry into US regional phase 35
  36. 36. 6/10/09 Unity of invention •! US same invention If two or more independent and distinct inventions are claimed in one application, the Director may require the application to be restricted to one of the inventions……[35 U.S.C. 121] This leads to many continuations and divisional applications being filed in the USA •! EP same inventive concept The European patent application shall relate to one invention only or to a group of inventions so linked as to form a single general inventive concept [Article 82 EPC]. This appears [and usually is] more generous than the US OEPM provisions. •! However EP Rule 43(2) – one claim per category (product, process…) of invention [with exceptions] is leading to more divisionals being filed in Europe Continuations and divisional applications •! USPTO – at present, freedom to divide as you see fit subject to potential for “double patenting” objections •! EPO – April 2010 restrictions in when divisionals can be filed – more limited concept of double patenting (New Rule 36 EPC and other rule changes) •! USPTO – ability to better specification by improving disclosure in a continuation [cip-continuation in part] OEPM •! EPO – unambiguously derivable test prevents adding subject matter between a parent and a divisional application 36
  37. 37. 6/10/09 Information and inequitable conduct •! USPTO – full duty of disclosure You lose your patent if you do not tell USPTO all that you know that might be relevant to examination “DUTY OF CANDOR” Possibility of going to jail •! EP theoretical availability of requirement to provide information relating to prosecution elsewhere [Article 124 and Rule 141 EPC] OEPM Only penalty is if applicant fails to respond to request [deemed withdrawal] The Examination Experience USPTO •! High staff turnover ! low examiner experience ! seemingly arbitrary outcomes •! High incidence of serial prosecution [one objection raised and dealt with, a fresh objection raised] ! high level of appeals •! Low quality of granted patents and high cost of challenge EPO •! Highly skilled examiner body and low staff turnover ! experienced examiners ! professional examination most of the time [even if you lose] •! Low incidence of serial prosecution ! low level of appeals •! HOWEVER appeal numbers in EPO are rising [still very much OEPM below appeal numbers in USPTO] •! High quality of granted patents and low cost of challenge [opposition] 37
  38. 38. 6/10/09 “Peer-to-Patent opens the patent examination process to public participation for the first time.Become part of this historic program. Help the USPTO find the information relevant to assessing the claims of pending patent applications. Become a community reviewer and improve the quality of patents”. OEPM OEPM 38
  39. 39. 6/10/09 What happens in the event of mistakes? USPTO Relatively easy to remedy most procedural mistakes and even some mistakes of substance [e.g. content of specification] EPO Relatively difficult to remedy procedural mistakes – mistakes of substance still difficult to remedy but some easing of requirements followed EPC 2000 [entry into force in December 2007] OEPM Litigation US •! No central litigation forum except ITC – otherwise district by district but US-wide enforceability •! Extremely high cost of litigation but extremely high market to justify cost •! Ability to amend post-grant through re-examination/reissue process [high cost] EP •! No central litigation forum as yet – country-by-country litigation, high variability in costs and outcome, severely limited ability to enforce Europe-wide OEPM •! Lower costs of litigation for individual countries than in US but smaller markets – litigation throughout Europe would probably exceed cost of litigation in USA •! Ability to amend post-grant through limitation process [low cost] 39
  40. 40. 6/10/09 Conclusions •! Major differences in practice between US and EPO •! US procedure more “forgiving” than EP procedure •! Not possible in most cases to write one patent that is good for both USPTO and EPO •! US unlike any other large jurisdiction, therefore treat as an exception •! EP model is being adopted by more and more countries – drafting to EP standards likely to be good for most countries OEPM •! High quality of EP patents seen as persuasive in many jurisdictions Example of a patent family OEPM 40
  41. 41. 6/10/09 OEPM OEPM 41
  43. 43. 6/10/09 EXAMPLES OEPM OEPM 43
  44. 44. 6/10/09 OEPM OEPM 44
  45. 45. 6/10/09 OEPM OEPM 45
  46. 46. 6/10/09 OEPM OEPM 46
  47. 47. 6/10/09 OEPM OEPM 47
  48. 48. 6/10/09 OEPM OEPM 48
  49. 49. 6/10/09 OEPM OEPM 49
  50. 50. 6/10/09 OEPM OEPM 50
  51. 51. 6/10/09 OEPM OEPM 51
  52. 52. 6/10/09 OEPM CLAIM 1 CLAIM 2 CLAIM 3 CLAIM 11 CLAIM 16 CLAIM 4 CLAIM 10 CLAIM 12 CLAIM 15 CLAIM 17 CLAIM 5 CLAIM 6 CLAIM 13 CLAIM 14 CLAIM 7 CLAIM 8 CLAIM 9 CLAIM 18 CLAIM 16 OEPM CLAIM 20 Three independent claims: CL1, CL18, CL20 52
  53. 53. 6/10/09 OEPM OEPM 53
  54. 54. 6/10/09 OEPM OEPM 54
  55. 55. 6/10/09 OEPM REFERENCES -!HOW TO DRAFT PATENTS-Oviligy Renault LLP -!Patent Application Drafting mistakes-Paul N.Katz -!Guidelines on writing patent specification-Patent wire -!Determining the scope of a patent- Arnould Engelfriet -!Patent Drafting –Bangkok 25 September–7 October 2006.Karl Rackette -!Patent drafting workshop-Manila 10-14 October 2005.Karl Rackette -!Differences between US and European patents -!Comparison of EPO and USPTO practices. Author: Jim Boff. Phillips & Leigh, London 10th June 2009. USEPpractice.ppt OEPM -!New Rule 36 EPC and other rule changes. -!Patent reform act. 55