The document discusses new strategies for third parties to challenge patents under the America Invents Act (AIA). It summarizes the limited options available prior to the AIA such as Rule 99 submissions and public protests. The AIA introduces new third party preissuance submissions that allow explanations of relevance and can be filed after publication. It also introduces new post-grant review proceedings that make the PTO a more attractive venue for resolving validity than previous inter partes reexaminations. However, preissuance submissions still have downsides like uncertainty if the examiner will consider the art and potential to tip off the applicant.
The document discusses strategies for coordinating pre-grant and post-grant patent oppositions between the US and European patent systems. It outlines the differences between pre-grant opposition procedures, including third party observations, as well as post-grant procedures such as post-grant review and inter partes review. The document advises that if an application is filed in both the US and Europe, it may be better to initiate a pre-grant opposition in the US first to invoke discovery for prior art, before pursuing a post-grant opposition in Europe.
America Invents Act: Recent Changes to US Patent Law and PracticeGary M. Myles, Ph.D.
The document summarizes changes brought by the America Invents Act to U.S. patent law and practice. Some key changes include transitioning from a first-to-invent system to a first-inventor-to-file system, expanding the definition of prior art, creating new post-grant review proceedings like post-grant review and inter partes review, expanding prior user rights, and changing treatment of errors in inventorship. The changes aim to harmonize the U.S. system with other countries and improve patent quality and challenge procedures.
"Your Guide to the America Invents Act (AIA)," The Ohio State Bar AssociationDinsmore & Shohl LLP
The America Invents Act (AIA) enacted the most significant changes to U.S. patent law in over 60 years. It transitions the U.S. to a first-inventor-to-file system to harmonize with global practices. New post-grant review procedures allow third parties to challenge weak patents before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. The AIA also aims to improve patent quality by expanding the prior commercial use defense and prior art submissions during prosecution. Major changes under the AIA include limiting false patent marking suits and replacing interference proceedings with the new derivation proceeding.
Session V. Estoppel and Privity in US PTO Post-Grant ProceedingsWilmerHale
This document summarizes a presentation on estoppel and privity in post-grant proceedings at the USPTO. It discusses how estoppel applies to petitioners as well as those in privity, including real parties in interest. Privity is a fact-dependent concept evaluated on a case-by-case basis considering control, financial contribution, and other factors. Issues of privity typically arise when the patent owner seeks to prevent a proceeding or assert estoppel, and presenters provided practice tips for evaluating privity and addressing related arguments.
Georgetown Univ. Law Center Conference: Post-Grant Patent Proceedings: Are th...WilmerHale
From The Georgetown University Law Center Conference: The Changing Patent Landscape held on March 23, 2015.
This presentation covers:
- Statistics on Post-Grant Proceedings
- Rule Changes for Post-Grant Proceedings
- IPR as Part of a Litigation Strategy
- Patent Owner’s Strategy in an IPR
- IPR Termination
This document discusses power of attorney rules under the America Invents Act (AIA) Final Rules. It provides two ways to file a power of attorney: 1) filing a general POA form and a 3.73(c) statement, or 2) using a transmittal form that includes both the power of attorney and transmittal. It explains the forms and procedures for each method, including requirements around assignments and establishing the applicant. Contact information is provided for additional questions.
The presentation discusses techniques for speeding up allowance of patent applications at the US Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO). In particular, the presentation discusses the After Final Consideration Pilot Program 2.0 which can help applicants avoid Requests for Continued Examination (RCEs).
Patent Law Review - IP Year in Review CLE v2Bryan Beel
This document provides a summary of a presentation on recent developments in patent law given to the Oregon State Bar Intellectual Property Section. It discusses several topics, including proposed patent legislation, practice before the International Trade Commission and Patent and Trademark Office, as well as recent decisions from the Federal Circuit and Supreme Court that have impacted patent law. The presentation was delivered by Bryan Beel of Perkins Coie LLP on February 14, 2014.
The document discusses strategies for coordinating pre-grant and post-grant patent oppositions between the US and European patent systems. It outlines the differences between pre-grant opposition procedures, including third party observations, as well as post-grant procedures such as post-grant review and inter partes review. The document advises that if an application is filed in both the US and Europe, it may be better to initiate a pre-grant opposition in the US first to invoke discovery for prior art, before pursuing a post-grant opposition in Europe.
America Invents Act: Recent Changes to US Patent Law and PracticeGary M. Myles, Ph.D.
The document summarizes changes brought by the America Invents Act to U.S. patent law and practice. Some key changes include transitioning from a first-to-invent system to a first-inventor-to-file system, expanding the definition of prior art, creating new post-grant review proceedings like post-grant review and inter partes review, expanding prior user rights, and changing treatment of errors in inventorship. The changes aim to harmonize the U.S. system with other countries and improve patent quality and challenge procedures.
"Your Guide to the America Invents Act (AIA)," The Ohio State Bar AssociationDinsmore & Shohl LLP
The America Invents Act (AIA) enacted the most significant changes to U.S. patent law in over 60 years. It transitions the U.S. to a first-inventor-to-file system to harmonize with global practices. New post-grant review procedures allow third parties to challenge weak patents before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. The AIA also aims to improve patent quality by expanding the prior commercial use defense and prior art submissions during prosecution. Major changes under the AIA include limiting false patent marking suits and replacing interference proceedings with the new derivation proceeding.
Session V. Estoppel and Privity in US PTO Post-Grant ProceedingsWilmerHale
This document summarizes a presentation on estoppel and privity in post-grant proceedings at the USPTO. It discusses how estoppel applies to petitioners as well as those in privity, including real parties in interest. Privity is a fact-dependent concept evaluated on a case-by-case basis considering control, financial contribution, and other factors. Issues of privity typically arise when the patent owner seeks to prevent a proceeding or assert estoppel, and presenters provided practice tips for evaluating privity and addressing related arguments.
Georgetown Univ. Law Center Conference: Post-Grant Patent Proceedings: Are th...WilmerHale
From The Georgetown University Law Center Conference: The Changing Patent Landscape held on March 23, 2015.
This presentation covers:
- Statistics on Post-Grant Proceedings
- Rule Changes for Post-Grant Proceedings
- IPR as Part of a Litigation Strategy
- Patent Owner’s Strategy in an IPR
- IPR Termination
This document discusses power of attorney rules under the America Invents Act (AIA) Final Rules. It provides two ways to file a power of attorney: 1) filing a general POA form and a 3.73(c) statement, or 2) using a transmittal form that includes both the power of attorney and transmittal. It explains the forms and procedures for each method, including requirements around assignments and establishing the applicant. Contact information is provided for additional questions.
The presentation discusses techniques for speeding up allowance of patent applications at the US Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO). In particular, the presentation discusses the After Final Consideration Pilot Program 2.0 which can help applicants avoid Requests for Continued Examination (RCEs).
Patent Law Review - IP Year in Review CLE v2Bryan Beel
This document provides a summary of a presentation on recent developments in patent law given to the Oregon State Bar Intellectual Property Section. It discusses several topics, including proposed patent legislation, practice before the International Trade Commission and Patent and Trademark Office, as well as recent decisions from the Federal Circuit and Supreme Court that have impacted patent law. The presentation was delivered by Bryan Beel of Perkins Coie LLP on February 14, 2014.
The document discusses various third-party challenges to patents and patent applications that can be filed with the USPTO, including inter partes review (IPR), post grant review (PGR), covered business method patent review (CBM), preissuance submissions, and derivation proceedings. It provides details on the standards for instituting each proceeding, who can file, applicable grounds, timing requirements, procedures, and differences between the proceedings. USPTO fees for IPR are around $25k with typical total costs to completion of $350k-$700k. The overall success rate of IPRs is very high for petitioners, with around 85% of petitions granted and 60% of all claims found unpatent
An overview of the changes to the patent laws for 49th Annual IP Conference of the Institute of Technology and Law at the Center for American and International Law in Plano, Texas on November 8, 2011
What Does it mean?
To understand go through the whole document...
Nothing but this is basically intended to give message about the term "Patent Applications"? What they are? Benefits? Drawback? etc
The document summarizes key changes to patent law and procedures introduced by the America Invents Act (AIA). The goals of the AIA were to promote global patent harmonization, improve patent quality, provide more efficient challenges to patents, reduce unwarranted litigation costs, and reduce inconsistent damage awards. Major changes included moving from a first-to-invent to a first-to-file system, introducing new administrative review procedures like Post Grant Review and Inter Partes Review, limiting joinder rules to curb patent litigation abuse, providing prior user rights, and allowing virtual patent marking. The changes aimed to simplify the patent system and reduce litigation costs while improving patent quality.
The New Patent Act & Major Changes in the LawMichael Annis
The document summarizes major changes to US patent law under the America Invents Act, including changing from a first-to-invent system to a first-to-file system where the first inventor to file an application is granted the patent. It describes new rules around prior art, prior use rights, administrative review processes like inter partes review, litigation changes, and effective dates of the changes. Key changes include a one-year grace period, derivation proceedings to determine inventorship, lower fees for micro-entities, and new post-grant review procedures available to challenge patents.
Knobbe Martens Webinar Series: Strategic Considerations in Controlling the Sp...Jason Rabuy
Attorneys David Schmidt, Ph.D., Heungsoo Choi, and Of Counsel Hironori Kubota presented a detailed webinar focusing on Strategic Considerations in Controlling the Speed of Prosecution at the USPTO.
Knobbe Martens Webinar Series: Strategic Considerations in Controlling the Sp...Jason Rabuy
Partners Mauricio Uribe, David Schmidt and Vlad Teplitskiy presented a webinar focused on strategic considerations in controlling speed of prosecution in USPTO.
This document summarizes the key differences between the three main post-grant review procedures available at the USPTO: Inter Partes Review (IPR), Post-Grant Review (PGR), and Covered Business Method (CBM) review. It outlines who can file each type of petition, the applicable validity grounds and standards, estoppel effects, and timelines. The document also provides an overview of the IPR process, including strategies for petitioners and patent owners, and considerations regarding expert testimony, motions to stay litigation, and evaluating claims to challenge.
Supplemental examination allows patent owners to request reconsideration of the patentability of their patent based on new information. It is an expensive process that requires extensive documentation but can cure inequitable conduct issues. If the USPTO determines the new information raises a substantial new question of patentability, an ex parte reexamination will be ordered. Otherwise, a certificate will be issued stating no reexamination is needed. While supplemental examination can strengthen patent validity, it often leads to reexamination and does not preclude some inequitable conduct findings. Less extensive alternatives include reexamination and reissue but they may not cure inequitable conduct.
Overview on Information Disclosure Statement Practice by Justin CassellWorkman Nydegger
This document provides an overview of information disclosure statement (IDS) practice. It defines the duty of disclosure as providing the USPTO with any information known to the applicant that is material to patentability. A breach of this duty can result in a finding of inequitable conduct and render a patent unenforceable. For an IDS, the party asserting inequitable conduct must prove both a material reference was withheld as well as intent to deceive the USPTO. The standard for materiality requires that the PTO would not have allowed the claim had it been aware of the undisclosed prior art. The timing for filing an IDS depends on the prosecution stage.
AIA - What are you doing now - Post Grant and Inter Partes ReviewCraig Buschmann
The document discusses three types of post-grant patent challenges available under the America Invents Act (AIA): ex parte reexamination, post-grant review, and inter partes review. Ex parte reexamination allows any party to challenge a patent based on prior art, while post-grant review and inter partes review require the petitioner to participate and have higher standards for review. Both post-grant review and inter partes review provide discovery and estoppel against future challenges if final decisions are not appealed. The document provides details on procedures, timelines, costs, and strategic considerations for each type of challenge.
The presentation discusses different techniques for using US Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) invalidity proceedings to invalidate issued patents. The presentation specifically discusses the new procedures available under the America Invents Act (AIA). Topics include Post-Grant Review (PGR) and Inter Partes Review (IPR) and cover business method review (CBM) programs. Deadlines as well as specific scheduling orders for these programs are discussed as well as how best to use the new programs at the USPTO.
This document provides an overview and comparison of post-grant review procedures for patents in the US, Europe, China, and Japan. It summarizes the key aspects of each system, including grounds for review, timing, fees, parties involved, estoppel provisions, and appeal processes. The document also analyzes some criticisms of different systems and compares features of the US Post-Grant Review (PGR) process to those of other countries. In particular, it suggests the PGR process addresses some issues seen in Japanese oppositions and avoids overlap problems of Chinese procedures.
The presentation discusses the different techniques for speeding up examination at the US Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO). Topics covered in this presentation include petitions to make special, accelerated examination, prioritized examination, Patent Prosecution Highway (PPH), and the First Action Interview Pilot Program. In addition, some different filing scenarios using these techniques are discussed.
The America Invents Act (AIA) introduced significant changes to US patent law, moving the US from a 'first to invent' system to a 'first to file' system, in order to harmonize with other countries. Key changes include establishing a first-inventor-to-file principle for determining priority, replacing interference proceedings with derivation proceedings, creating post-grant review proceedings, expanding prior art to include public uses and sales worldwide, and reducing patent fees for micro-entities. The AIA aims to encourage innovation, improve patent quality and reduce the patent backlog at the USPTO.
New Tools and Procedures Under the Trademark Modernization Acterikpelton
The document summarizes key provisions of the Trademark Modernization Act, including new expungement and reexamination proceedings that allow cancelling trademark registrations if a trademark was never used in commerce or not used for certain goods/services. It describes the procedures for these new proceedings and compares them to existing cancellation proceedings. It also discusses other changes like shorter deadlines to respond to office actions, a presumption of irreparable harm in infringement cases, and a future report on reducing inaccurate trademark claims.
Filing a Patent application is the first step towards protecting an invention. This presentation details in brief on how and where to file a patent application along with the other documentary and statutory requirements.
The document summarizes key aspects of the US Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (MPEP). The MPEP describes US patent laws and regulations for prosecuting patent applications. It has 28 chapters covering topics like application filing procedures, patentability requirements, examination process, and post-grant procedures like appeals, corrections, and maintenance fees. The document provides an overview of several MPEP chapters, outlining procedures and guidelines for inventors and patent practitioners.
This document outlines the changes to inventor oath/declaration requirements and the new process for third-party pre-issuance submissions introduced on September 16, 2012. Key changes include no longer requiring inventors to identify their country of citizenship or attest to their duty of disclosure. Third parties can now submit patents and publications for consideration during examination within six months of publication. Submissions are reviewed for compliance before being made of record.
More Related Content
Similar to New Strategies for Third Parties The Role of New Third Party Preissuance Submissions Practice under the AIA
The document discusses various third-party challenges to patents and patent applications that can be filed with the USPTO, including inter partes review (IPR), post grant review (PGR), covered business method patent review (CBM), preissuance submissions, and derivation proceedings. It provides details on the standards for instituting each proceeding, who can file, applicable grounds, timing requirements, procedures, and differences between the proceedings. USPTO fees for IPR are around $25k with typical total costs to completion of $350k-$700k. The overall success rate of IPRs is very high for petitioners, with around 85% of petitions granted and 60% of all claims found unpatent
An overview of the changes to the patent laws for 49th Annual IP Conference of the Institute of Technology and Law at the Center for American and International Law in Plano, Texas on November 8, 2011
What Does it mean?
To understand go through the whole document...
Nothing but this is basically intended to give message about the term "Patent Applications"? What they are? Benefits? Drawback? etc
The document summarizes key changes to patent law and procedures introduced by the America Invents Act (AIA). The goals of the AIA were to promote global patent harmonization, improve patent quality, provide more efficient challenges to patents, reduce unwarranted litigation costs, and reduce inconsistent damage awards. Major changes included moving from a first-to-invent to a first-to-file system, introducing new administrative review procedures like Post Grant Review and Inter Partes Review, limiting joinder rules to curb patent litigation abuse, providing prior user rights, and allowing virtual patent marking. The changes aimed to simplify the patent system and reduce litigation costs while improving patent quality.
The New Patent Act & Major Changes in the LawMichael Annis
The document summarizes major changes to US patent law under the America Invents Act, including changing from a first-to-invent system to a first-to-file system where the first inventor to file an application is granted the patent. It describes new rules around prior art, prior use rights, administrative review processes like inter partes review, litigation changes, and effective dates of the changes. Key changes include a one-year grace period, derivation proceedings to determine inventorship, lower fees for micro-entities, and new post-grant review procedures available to challenge patents.
Knobbe Martens Webinar Series: Strategic Considerations in Controlling the Sp...Jason Rabuy
Attorneys David Schmidt, Ph.D., Heungsoo Choi, and Of Counsel Hironori Kubota presented a detailed webinar focusing on Strategic Considerations in Controlling the Speed of Prosecution at the USPTO.
Knobbe Martens Webinar Series: Strategic Considerations in Controlling the Sp...Jason Rabuy
Partners Mauricio Uribe, David Schmidt and Vlad Teplitskiy presented a webinar focused on strategic considerations in controlling speed of prosecution in USPTO.
This document summarizes the key differences between the three main post-grant review procedures available at the USPTO: Inter Partes Review (IPR), Post-Grant Review (PGR), and Covered Business Method (CBM) review. It outlines who can file each type of petition, the applicable validity grounds and standards, estoppel effects, and timelines. The document also provides an overview of the IPR process, including strategies for petitioners and patent owners, and considerations regarding expert testimony, motions to stay litigation, and evaluating claims to challenge.
Supplemental examination allows patent owners to request reconsideration of the patentability of their patent based on new information. It is an expensive process that requires extensive documentation but can cure inequitable conduct issues. If the USPTO determines the new information raises a substantial new question of patentability, an ex parte reexamination will be ordered. Otherwise, a certificate will be issued stating no reexamination is needed. While supplemental examination can strengthen patent validity, it often leads to reexamination and does not preclude some inequitable conduct findings. Less extensive alternatives include reexamination and reissue but they may not cure inequitable conduct.
Overview on Information Disclosure Statement Practice by Justin CassellWorkman Nydegger
This document provides an overview of information disclosure statement (IDS) practice. It defines the duty of disclosure as providing the USPTO with any information known to the applicant that is material to patentability. A breach of this duty can result in a finding of inequitable conduct and render a patent unenforceable. For an IDS, the party asserting inequitable conduct must prove both a material reference was withheld as well as intent to deceive the USPTO. The standard for materiality requires that the PTO would not have allowed the claim had it been aware of the undisclosed prior art. The timing for filing an IDS depends on the prosecution stage.
AIA - What are you doing now - Post Grant and Inter Partes ReviewCraig Buschmann
The document discusses three types of post-grant patent challenges available under the America Invents Act (AIA): ex parte reexamination, post-grant review, and inter partes review. Ex parte reexamination allows any party to challenge a patent based on prior art, while post-grant review and inter partes review require the petitioner to participate and have higher standards for review. Both post-grant review and inter partes review provide discovery and estoppel against future challenges if final decisions are not appealed. The document provides details on procedures, timelines, costs, and strategic considerations for each type of challenge.
The presentation discusses different techniques for using US Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) invalidity proceedings to invalidate issued patents. The presentation specifically discusses the new procedures available under the America Invents Act (AIA). Topics include Post-Grant Review (PGR) and Inter Partes Review (IPR) and cover business method review (CBM) programs. Deadlines as well as specific scheduling orders for these programs are discussed as well as how best to use the new programs at the USPTO.
This document provides an overview and comparison of post-grant review procedures for patents in the US, Europe, China, and Japan. It summarizes the key aspects of each system, including grounds for review, timing, fees, parties involved, estoppel provisions, and appeal processes. The document also analyzes some criticisms of different systems and compares features of the US Post-Grant Review (PGR) process to those of other countries. In particular, it suggests the PGR process addresses some issues seen in Japanese oppositions and avoids overlap problems of Chinese procedures.
The presentation discusses the different techniques for speeding up examination at the US Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO). Topics covered in this presentation include petitions to make special, accelerated examination, prioritized examination, Patent Prosecution Highway (PPH), and the First Action Interview Pilot Program. In addition, some different filing scenarios using these techniques are discussed.
The America Invents Act (AIA) introduced significant changes to US patent law, moving the US from a 'first to invent' system to a 'first to file' system, in order to harmonize with other countries. Key changes include establishing a first-inventor-to-file principle for determining priority, replacing interference proceedings with derivation proceedings, creating post-grant review proceedings, expanding prior art to include public uses and sales worldwide, and reducing patent fees for micro-entities. The AIA aims to encourage innovation, improve patent quality and reduce the patent backlog at the USPTO.
New Tools and Procedures Under the Trademark Modernization Acterikpelton
The document summarizes key provisions of the Trademark Modernization Act, including new expungement and reexamination proceedings that allow cancelling trademark registrations if a trademark was never used in commerce or not used for certain goods/services. It describes the procedures for these new proceedings and compares them to existing cancellation proceedings. It also discusses other changes like shorter deadlines to respond to office actions, a presumption of irreparable harm in infringement cases, and a future report on reducing inaccurate trademark claims.
Filing a Patent application is the first step towards protecting an invention. This presentation details in brief on how and where to file a patent application along with the other documentary and statutory requirements.
The document summarizes key aspects of the US Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (MPEP). The MPEP describes US patent laws and regulations for prosecuting patent applications. It has 28 chapters covering topics like application filing procedures, patentability requirements, examination process, and post-grant procedures like appeals, corrections, and maintenance fees. The document provides an overview of several MPEP chapters, outlining procedures and guidelines for inventors and patent practitioners.
This document outlines the changes to inventor oath/declaration requirements and the new process for third-party pre-issuance submissions introduced on September 16, 2012. Key changes include no longer requiring inventors to identify their country of citizenship or attest to their duty of disclosure. Third parties can now submit patents and publications for consideration during examination within six months of publication. Submissions are reviewed for compliance before being made of record.
Similar to New Strategies for Third Parties The Role of New Third Party Preissuance Submissions Practice under the AIA (20)
New Strategies for Third Parties The Role of New Third Party Preissuance Submissions Practice under the AIA
1. New Strategies for Third Parties
The Role of New Third Party Preissuance
Submissions Practice under the AIA
State Bar of Texas Marc A . Hubbard
PATENT WORKSHOP 2012: PRACTICING GARDERE WYNNE SEWELL LLP
UNDER THE NEW PATENT LAWS
March 21, 2012
Houston, Texas
2. Agenda
• Questions —
• "I'm tired of getting sued by my competitor. What else can we or
should we be doing?”
• "I heard that my competitor has applied for a patent on my
process. What can I do about it?"
• “Should we do something to try to stop continuations of this
patent from issuing?”
• Answer —
• Current strategies for third parties
• New third party preissuance practice and how it fits with other
changes made by America Invents Act
• New strategies
3. When/where to attack third party patent rights
• Before grant at PTO
• Stop grant, force narrowing amendment, create estoppel, etc.
• Rule 90 preissuance submissions; public protests; public use
proceeding
• After grant at PTO
• Cancel claims, force narrowing amendment or statements
• After grant in district court
• Seek declaration that one or more claims invalid
• Combination
4. Pre-grant options at the PTO prior to September 16,
2012 are very limited
• 35 USC §122(c)
• (c) PROTEST AND PRE-ISSUANCE OPPOSITION. - The Director
shall establish appropriate procedures to ensure that no protest
or other form of pre-issuance opposition to the grant of a
patent on an application may be initiated after publication of the
application without the express written consent of the applicant.
• Current options are limited to —
• Rule 99 third party submissions under 37 C.F.R. 1.99 (“Rule 99
submissions”)
• Public protests under 37 C.F.R. §1.291
• Public use proceedings under 37 C.F.R. § 1.292
5. Rule 99 (current) third party submission practice
• Must be filed not later than 2 months after publication
• Unless patents or printed publications could not earlier have
been presented
• But never after mailing of the notice of allowance
• Must identify the application; impractical before publication
• Each submission limited to 10 patents or printed publications
• No explanation of relevance permitted because of 35 USC 122(C)
• If before publication, better to use public protest because
explanation can be provided
• No further participation permitted
6. Public protests under 37 C.F.R. §1.291
• Explanation of relevance of cited documents must be
included
• Only permitted prior to date of publication
• Must adequately identify the application (in order to be
matched to the file)
• Real party in interested may only file one, unless issues
significantly different and could not have been presented
earlier
• No further participation allowed by protester
7. Public use proceedings under 37 C.F.R. § 1.292
• Public use and "on sale" issues only
• Petition must be filed prior to date of publication
• Per PTO —
• proceedings are "very rare"
• they "seldom" lead to rejection of any claims
• See MPEP §720 for details
8. Post-grant options: reexamination
• Due to limited pre-grant options, third party PTO practice
focuses on reexamination
• Ex parte reexamination under 35 USC §302
• Problem: lack of opportunity to participate after
initiation
• Inter partes reexamination under 35 USC §311
• Allows for third party participation
• Relatively high "kill rates”
• But, they can be expensive, and there is estoppel
10. Current options do little to encourage routine 3rd
party participation at PTO
• Pre-grant procedures very limited and likely rarely used
• Generally, Rule 99 submissions seem inadvisable unless highly
confident in outcome
• Not a compelling enough opportunity to justify watching
publications of application in most cases
• Protest and public use require ability to identify and know
details of an unpublished application
• Practically speaking, limited mostly to reissues
• Available reexamination procedures appear to be attractive mostly
in context of litigation; not something that a client would normally
want to do in the scenarios mentioned in questions posed above
11. Relevant AIA changes starting September 16, 2012
• New §122(e) specifically authorizes third party submissions
with explanation
• Intended to encourage third parties to submit relevant
prior art during examination
• New "reviews" in place of inter partes reexamination -- post
grant review, inter partes review and covered business
method patents
• Intended to make PTO more attractive venue for resolving
patent validity issues
• High cost and complexity likely to limit them to situations
in which litigation is at least possible or likely
12. PTO proposed changes to rules effective September
16, 2012
• Public use proceedings and Rule 99 third party submissions
to be eliminated
• Public protests still available, but with a few changes
• Allowed after publication, but before allowance, if
applicant gives written consent
• Formal requirements mirror those for Rule 290
preissuance submissions.
13. New third party preissuance submissions under 35
USC 122(e) / Rule 290 — basics
• Anybody may submit unless that party owes a Rule 56 duty in the
application
• No requirement to identify the real party in interest
• All applications are eligible, regardless of filing date, except for
provisional applications
• Utility, design, reissue and plant
• Application can be abandoned
• Fee: $180 per ten items submitted
• No fee if 3 or few items submitted with a statement that it is the
first and only filing by submitter and those in privity with the
submitter
14. New third party preissuance submissions — what
can be submitted
• Limited to 10 pieces of information per submission — patents
and printed publications only
• Declarations considered a printed publication
• Used to prove up dates of publication
• Can point out 101 and 112 issues using a declaration
• Declarations do not count toward limit if not listed and
included only to establish dates
• May make more than one submission
• However, if submitting 3 or fewer items without paying fee,
may not cite any more documents
15. Third party preissuance submissions — concise
description of relevance
• Submitter must explain why document submitted and potential
relevance to the examination
• A bare statement that the document is relevant is not a concise
description
• PTO will not otherwise valuate the sufficiency of the concise
description
• PTO suggested best practices:
• Point out the relevant pages or lines of the respective document
• Use format that would best explain to the examiner the relevance
of the document, such as in a narrative description or a claim chart
• Avoid verbose description
16. Third party preissuance submissions — time limits
• Must be filed before date of mailing of first rejection or, if
no rejection, allowance
• But, may submit any time within 6 months of publication
unless allowance mailed
• Will not be entered if filed after mailing of notice of
allowance
17. Will AIA change pre-grant strategies?
• Generally, pre-grant options will be more attractive
• Ability to explain how to apply the prior art and expanded
window for submission make pre-issuance submissions
much more attractive
• No estoppel
• Public protest can still be used if necessary
• But, there are still downsides of preissuance submissions
18. No guarantee that the examiner will give the
documents careful consideration
• No further involvement by submitter will be permitted
• Applicant will have the opportunity to amend the claims and
argue against the submitted references without any further
input from the submitter
• Courts and juries may give deference to cited document
having been considered
• Holding back of best or equally good documents might be
an option when there are multiple documents available
• Citing fewer, but well selected documents might
actually give better results
19. Preissuance submission will put applicant on notice
• Nature of the prior art and the arguments may tip off
applicant as to issues
• Applicant likely to amend to fortify claims against cited
prior art
• Applicant may be more circumspect in remarks
• Applicant may file continuation as a precaution
20. Possible impairment of ex parte reexamination
opportunities
• Although no estoppel, preissuance submission may impair
ability to establish a substantial new question of
patentability for ex parte reexamination
• Submitter may not be giving up much; ex parte generally
not attractive
21. Effect of post grant and inter partes review on
preissuance submission
• Review should still be an option even if reference submitted prior to
issue
• Threshold for review: reasonable likelihood that challenged claim is
unpatentable (IPR) or claim more likely than not is unpatentable
(PGR)
• Whether there is a substantial new question of patentability, is
irrelevant to initiation
• APJs make decision; consideration by examiner should carry no
weight
• Early success with PGR and IP may embolden third parties to try
preissuance submissions
• High costs of PGR / IPR might encourage early knockout attempts with
preissuance submissions
22. Additional factors to consider
• Quality of the prior art and the client’s desired result
• Prior art that anticipates all the claims or the client
practices what is disclosed by the reference better than
prior art that leaves room for applicant to maneuver
• State of examination
• Claims are moving target; published claims may change
substantially
• However, if there’s been an Office action, and even a
response, supplying a the reference might make a big
difference in the outcome
23. Watching application publications
• Other than cost, there appears to be little downside to watching
publications:
• No patent, no objectively high risk of infringement. Cf. In re
Seagate Technology LLC, 497 F.3d 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (en banc)
• Not aware of duty to watch for grant
• But what to watch for and how to evaluate timely and cost-
effectively evaluate hits?
• Watching for publication continuations and divisionals of
problematic patents much more easily justified than watching
every dozens of subclasses
• Those watching only grants may now have reason to watch
applications instead of or in addition to grants
24. "I heard that my competitor has applied for a patent
on my process"
• Do nothing
• Options are very limited and expensive; better off not knowing about it;
decide when sued
• New prior commercial use defense under AIA of help?
• Rely on huge patent portfolio
• Maybe file an application (interference or, in the future, derivation
proceeding)
• If doing nothing not appealing, look for patent application or start
watching for it and, if found —
• Evaluate scope of patent and defenses / design around
• Evaluate whether it makes sense to take action in PTO, wait until grant
and then challenge with post grant procedures, or wait until sued
25. "I'm tired of getting sued by my competitor. What
else can we do?”
• Clearance searches
• Options at PTO still not great; better to identify
problematic patents in time to allow for designing around
•Patent application and grant watching
• Opportunity to design around might be limited, so needs
to be done primarily for purposes of pre-grant or post-
grant action
• Watching grants may create exposure to willful
infringement
26. Conclusion
• Those who have been watching publications will likely
continue
• Whether preissuance submission practice will entice others
to start is uncertain
• Rule 290 Preissuance submissions certainly a lot more
attractive, but there are downsides to consider
• Might make sense when dealing with continuations,
etc., of problematic patents
• Availability of post grant review and inter partes review
might make preissuance submissions seem less of a risk
27. New Strategies for Third Parties
The New Third Party Preissuance Submissions
Practice under the AIA
Marc Hubbard | Partner
Gardere Wynne Sewell LLP
1601 Elm Street, Suite 3000 | Dallas, TX 75201
214.999.4880 direct
214.208.2601 cell
214.999.3880 fax
mhubbard@gardere.com
www.gardere.com
27