aia impact on section 102 and prior art -...

AIA Impact on Section 102 and Prior Art Navigating the Expanded Scope of Prior Art and the AIA Exceptions

Today’s faculty features:

1pm Eastern | 12pm Central | 11am Mountain | 10am Pacific

The audio portion of the conference may be accessed via the telephone or by using your computer's

speakers. Please refer to the instructions emailed to registrants for additional information. If you

have any questions, please contact Customer Service at 1-800-926-7926 ext. 10.

THURSDAY, AUGUST 29, 2013

Presenting a live 90-minute webinar with interactive Q&A

Thomas L. Irving, Partner, Finnegan Henderson Farabow Garrett & Dunner, Washington, D.C.

Erika H. Arner, Partner, Finnegan Henderson Farabow Garrett & Dunner, Reston, Va.

John J. Cheek, Senior Corporate Counsel, Caterpillar, Peoria, Ill.

Sound Quality

If you are listening via your computer speakers, please note that the quality of

your sound will vary depending on the speed and quality of your internet

connection.

If the sound quality is not satisfactory and you are listening via your computer

speakers, you may listen via the phone: dial 1-866-570-7602 and enter your PIN

when prompted. Otherwise, please send us a chat or e-mail

[email protected] immediately so we can address the problem.

If you dialed in and have any difficulties during the call, press *0 for assistance.

Viewing Quality

To maximize your screen, press the F11 key on your keyboard. To exit full screen,

press the F11 key again.

FOR LIVE EVENT ONLY

For CLE purposes, please let us know how many people are listening at your

location by completing each of the following steps:

• In the chat box, type (1) your company name and (2) the number of

attendees at your location

• Click the SEND button beside the box

If you have purchased Strafford CLE processing services, you must confirm your

participation by completing and submitting an Official Record of Attendance (CLE

Form).

You may obtain your CLE form by going to the program page and selecting the

appropriate form in the PROGRAM MATERIALS box at the top right corner.

If you'd like to purchase CLE credit processing, it is available for a fee. For

additional information about CLE credit processing, go to our website or call us at

1-800-926-7926 ext. 35.

FOR LIVE EVENT ONLY

If you have not printed the conference materials for this program, please

complete the following steps:

• Click on the ^ symbol next to “Conference Materials” in the middle of the left-

hand column on your screen.

• Click on the tab labeled “Handouts” that appears, and there you will see a

PDF of the slides for today's program.

• Double click on the PDF and a separate page will open.

• Print the slides by clicking on the printer icon.

FOR LIVE EVENT ONLY

by

John Cheek Erika Arner Tom Irving

©Copyright Finnegan, 2013

http://www.caterpillar.com/

These materials are public information and have been prepared solely for

educational and entertainment purposes to contribute to the understanding

of U.S. intellectual property law. These materials reflect only the personal

views of the authors and are not individualized legal advice. It is understood

that each case is fact-specific, and that the appropriate solution in any case

will vary. Therefore, these materials may or may not be relevant to any

particular situation. Thus, the authors, Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow,

Garrett & Dunner, LLP, and CATERPILLAR cannot be bound either

philosophically or as representatives of their various present and future

clients to the comments expressed in these materials. The presentation of

these materials does not establish any form of attorney-client relationship

with the authors, Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP, or

CATERPILLAR. While every attempt was made to ensure that these materials

are accurate, errors or omissions may be contained therein, for which any

liability is disclaimed.

6

USPTO recognizes: “The Office appreciates that the courts may ultimately address questions concerning the meaning of AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103. However, as a practical matter, the Office needs to provide examination guidelines so that the public is aware of how the Office will apply AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103. The Office considers its interpretation of AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 as set forth in these examination guidelines to be the correct interpretation of AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 based upon the statutory language of the AIA and its legislative history.”

See Examination Guidelines, 78 Fed.Reg. 11,061 (Feb. 14, 2013)

7

New “35 U.S.C. 102 and 103, which do not always result in the first inventor to file an application being entitled to a patent (e.g., AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) precludes an inventor who is the first person to file an application for patent, but who published an article describing the claimed invention more than one year before the application was filed, from being entitled to a patent).”

See pp. 11070 of Examination Guidelines (2/14/13).

8

“effective filing date” is the key to navigating the roadmap of

the AIA and the applicability of AIA §102,

pre-AIA §102, or AIA §102 + pre-AIA §102(g)!

9

AIA SEC. 3(n)(1) Except as otherwise provided in this section, the

amendments made by this section shall take effect upon the

expiration of the 18-month period beginning on the date of the

enactment of this Act, [March 16, 2013] and shall apply to any

application for patent …that contains or contained at any time:

A. a claim to a claimed invention that has an effective filing date as

defined in section 100(i) [remember: “entitled to”] …, that is on or

after the effective date described in this paragraph [March 16, 2013];

or

B. a specific reference under §§ 120, 121, 365(c) to any patent or

application that contains or contained at any time such claim.

[antecedent for “such claim” has to be sub.para. (A)?]

10

SEC. 3(n)(2): The provisions of sections 102(g), 135, and 291 of title 35, United States Code, as in effect on [March 15, 2013], shall apply to each claim of an application for patent, and any patent issued thereon, for which the amendments made by this section also apply, if such application or patent contains or contained at any time—

◦ (A) a claim to an invention having an EFD as defined in section

100(i) of title 35, United States Code, that occurs before [March 16, 2013]; or

◦ (B) a specific reference under section 120, 121, or 365(c) of title 35, United States Code, to any patent or application that contains or contained at any time such a claim.

11

“section 3(n)(2) does indicate that the provisions of 35 U.S.C. 102(g), 135, and 291 as in effect on March 15, 2013, shall apply to “each claim” of an application for patent, and not simply the claim or claims having an EFD that occurs before March 16, 2013, if the condition specified in section 3(n)(2) occurs. Therefore, “each claim” of an application presenting a claim to a claimed invention that has an effective filing date before March 16, 2013, but also presenting claims to a claimed invention that has an effective filing date on or after March 16, 2013, is subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 and is also subject to the provisions of 35 U.S.C. 102(g), 135, and 291 as in effect on March 15, 2013.”

See pp. 11069, 11072 of Examination Guidelines (2/14/13)

12

Enactment:

Sept. 16, 2011

PCT Filing

Pre-AIA § 102 Generally Applies To All Claims

Straddling March 15/16, 2013

PCT Filing

Priority

Date

Enactment:

Sept. 16, 2011 Effective Date:

March 16, 2013

Priority

Date AIA § 102 Applies To All Claims

PCT

Filing

Enactment:

Sept. 16, 2011

Scenario 1: no claims entitled to priority date, AIA § 102 Applies To All Claims

Scenario 2: all claims entitled to priority date, Pre- AIA § 102 Generally Applies To All Claims

Scenario 3: mixed EFD claims March 15/16, 2013, AIA § 102 and pre-AIA § 102(g) Apply To All Claims

13

Pre-AIA law: ◦ EFD of a claimed invention is determined

on a claim-by-claim basis, not application-by-application.

AIA law: ◦ Retains the principle that different claims

in the same application may be entitled to different EFDs.


14

Prior art is applied on a claim-

by-claim basis

BUT whether pre-AIA §102 or

AIA §102 apply is on an

application-by-application basis.


15

“Because the changes to 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 in the AIA apply only to specific applications filed on or after March 16, 2013, determining the effective filing date of a claimed invention for purposes of applying AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 provisions or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 provisions is critical.”

See pp. 11083 of Examination Guidelines (2/14/13)

16

Pre-AIA §102(a)-(g) ◦ seven subsections

§102(a): known or used by others; §102 (b): statutory bar―sale, offer for sale,

patented, published by anyone; §102 (c): abandoned; §102 (d): first patented elsewhere; §102(e): prior patents & published applications of others; §102(f): derivation; §102(g): first to invent;

◦ combination of both the “novelty” requirement and a set of “loss

of right” to patent provisions; no clear delineation between the two, or so it is argued by some.

Pre-AIA §103 ◦ three subsections

(a) non-obviousness requirement from 1952 Patent Act; (b) amendments in light of Biotechnology Process Patent Act of 1995;

and (c) provisions relating to commonly assigned patents and patents

developed pursuant to Joint Research Agreements.

Could apply to certain patents until at least through March 15, 2034!

17

(a)(1): A public disclosure ANYWHERE in the world before the EFD of the claimed invention; OR (a)(2): Patent filing disclosures (in the U.S. or PCT designating the U.S.) that later become public, that name another inventor, and were effectively filed before the EFD of the claimed invention.

b) Exceptions from prior art

c) Expands exceptions subject to CREATE Act (joint

research agreements/mergers); and

d) new definition of “effectively filed” for 102(a)(2) (sort of

like old 102(e))

18

New definitions remove geographic and language restrictions on prior art.

An overarching premise of “public accessibility.”

What is prior art under the new law, absent a Nomiya‐type admission, must either form ◦ a § 102(a)(1) public disclosure – something made “available to the

public” in the new words found in AIA §102(a)(1); or

◦ an “effectively filed” AIA § 102(a)(2) patent filing disclosure. Effectively filed AIA § 102(a)(2) art requires that ultimately at least one of the following three documents publish (“special publications”):

a U.S. patent;

a U.S. patent application, or

a U.S.‐designating PCT application.

Note: “Office does not view the AIA as changing the status quo with respect to the use of admissions as prior art.” Examination Guidelines pp. 11064 and 11075.

19

Some may seek out SEC.3(n)(2), owing to advantages of AIA.

◦ Elimination of Metallizing Engineering forfeiture (according to USPTO);

◦ liberalization of the CREATE ACT and common ownership in 102(c);

◦ possible elimination of pre-AIA statutory bars that are not AIA prior art!!!

Lab notebooks maybe even more important than before!

20

USPTO: “With respect to comments that Metallizing Engineering and other forfeiture doctrines should be preserved because they serve important public policies, the Office notes that the choice of which public policies to pursue through the definition of prior art is made by Congress, not by the Office. Also, some of the purposes ascribed to these doctrines in case law appear to be ill-suited to or inconsistent with the AIA. The problem of delayed filing of applications is unique to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102, under which an applicant can rely on a secret invention date in order to establish a priority date.” See p. 11062 of Examination Guidelines (2/14/13)

21

Enacters: Congress intended to eliminate “secret prior art” of any kind, ANYWHERE. ◦ Cong. Rec., Sept. 8, 2011, S5431: “Once an invention has entered the public domain,

by any means, it can no longer be withdrawn by anyone.”

Evidence of a public use or offer to sell anywhere in the world may meet the test of accessibility to the public, but may be VERY difficult for the applicant to find out about prior to discovery in litigation.

Congress could have easily said “publicly on sale” if it intended to make the law clear that no “secret sale” is prior art? But does public accessibility trump all? USPTO says YES!

Pre-AIA case law established that something is “publicly accessible” when “one skilled in the art exercising reasonable diligence” could find it. ◦ See also, Examination Guidelines, pp. 11063-11064 (Feb. 14, 2013): USPTO will look

to pre-AIA caselaw on “publicly available” to evaluate “otherwise publicly available”

22

“the Office views the ‘or otherwise available to the

public’ residual clause of the AIA’s 35 U.S.C.

102(a)(1) as indicating that secret sale or use

activity does not qualify as prior art. These

examination guidelines also indicate that an

activity (such as a sale, offer for sale, or other

commercial activity) is secret (non-public) if, for

example, it is among individuals having an

obligation of confidentiality to the inventor.”

See pp. 11062-11063, 11075 of Examination Guidelines (2/14/13)

23

“The Office’s interpretation of AIA 35 U.S.C.

102(a)(1) also ensures that the AIA grace

period can extend to all of the documents

and activities enumerated in AIA 35 U.S.C.

102(a)(1) that would otherwise defeat

patentability.”


24

Does a public use or sale have to be enabling to

constitute prior art under AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)?

No.

◦ “The case law provides that the enablement inquiry is

applicable to the question of whether a claimed invention is

described in a patent, published patent application, or

printed publication, but is not applicable to the question of

whether a claimed invention is “in public use” or “on sale.”

The Office does not view the AIA as changing this principle

of pre-AIA case law.”


25

§102 Conditions for patentability (a) NOVELTY; PRIOR ART (with teaching edits).

A person shall be entitled to a patent unless— … (2) the claimed invention was described in a [US] patent issued

under section 151 [US patent], or in an application for [US or PCT

application designating the US (§374)] patent published or deemed published under section 122(b) [US application or PCT application designating the US], in which the [US] patent or [US or PCT designating the US] application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the EFD of the claimed invention.

See AIA §102(d) : “effectively filed” can be earliest foreign priority document. § 102(a)(2) somewhat like old §102(e); effectively filed before effective filing date but

not disclosed before effective filing date, otherwise would be under §102(a)(1).

35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(2): “Effectively Filed” Incentivize EFD after March 15

26

§102 Conditions for patentability (a) NOVELTY; PRIOR ART

A person shall be entitled to a patent unless…

(2)

35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(2): “Effectively Filed”

The claimed Invention…

OR AND

…in which the patent or

application

27

The published PCT designating the US is deemed published under

§122(b) and hence triggers the application of §102(a)(2) as of the

date the PCT was effectively filed

◦ "effectively filed" is defined in §102(d)

That date can be a foreign priority or domestic benefit date as long

as the PCT is entitled to claim the right of priority/benefit, which

some are interpreting as whether or not the PCT is actually entitled

to benefit.

Enablement: But enacters argue that there need be no enablement as

of the priority/benefit date of the subject matter described for the

date of the priority/benefit application to be the date “effectively

filed.”

◦ USPTO agreed: see next slides; incentivizing EFD after March 15, 2013??

28

“The AIA draws a distinction between actually being entitled

to priority to, or the benefit of, a prior-filed application in the

definition of effective filing date of a claimed invention in AIA

35 U.S.C. 100(i)(1)(B), and merely being entitled to claim

priority to, or the benefit of, a prior-filed application in the

definition of effectively filed in AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(d).”


Entitled to priority/benefit

of prior-filed app

Merely entitled to claim

priority/benefit of prior-filed app

v.

Definition of effective filing date (EFD) Definition of effectively filed

29

“As a result of this distinction, the question of whether a

patent or published application is actually entitled to priority

or benefit with respect to any of its claims is not at issue in

determining the date the patent or published application was

“effectively filed” for prior art purposes. Thus, as was the case

even prior to the AIA, there is no need to evaluate whether

any claim of a U.S. patent, U.S. patent application publication,

or WIPO published application is actually entitled to priority or

benefit under 35 U.S.C. 119, 120, 121, or 365 when applying

such a document as prior art.”


30

§102(d) PATENTS AND PUBLISHED APPLICATIONS EFFECTIVE AS

PRIOR ART.

◦ For purposes of determining whether a patent or application for

patent is prior art to a claimed invention under subsection (a)(2),

such patent or application shall be considered to have been

effectively filed, with respect to any subject matter described in

the [US] patent or [US or PCT designating the US] application-

“(2) if the patent or application for patent is entitled to claim a right of priority

under section 119, 365(a), or 365(b), or [entitled] to claim the benefit of an earlier

filing date under section 120, 121, or 365(c), based upon 1 or more prior filed

applications for patent, as of the filing date of the earliest such application that

describes the subject matter.” [“entitlement” trumps “describes”- therefore

enablement is required?]

“(1) if paragraph (2) does not apply, as of the actual filing date of the patent or

the application for patent”

31

§102(d) PATENTS AND PUBLISHED APPLICATIONS EFFECTIVE

AS PRIOR ART.

◦ Earlier-Filed but Later-Published US patents and US/PCT-

designating US applications.

◦ Following publication, disclosure has retroactive availability as

prior art as of the date effectively filed for novelty and

obviousness purposes.

◦ Somewhat like old §102(e) but cannot be antedated by earlier

invention.

◦ Available as prior art for novelty and obviousness purposes.

32

Generally, the “EFD” is the actual patent application filing date in the case of a still-pending application, unless the claimed invention is entitled to priority/benefit of an earlier patent filing.

EFD has nothing to do with §102(a)(2) but rather with assessing the validity/patentability of a claimed

invention in view of §§ 102(a)(1) and (2).

◦ Effectively filed has everything to do with §102(a)(2) as prior art.

33

This entitlement to priority/benefit exists where

Best Mode: Note that the best mode requirement still exists at least for all US nonprovisional patent filings because it remains in 35 U.S.C. 112(a).

(1) a claim for priority/benefit is made,

and

(2) the earlier patent filing contains written description and enablement

support of the claimed invention, as the AIA expressly removed the

requirement of disclosing the best mode in an earlier application for the

purposes of showing entitlement to priority/benefit.

34

“To provide support for a claim under 35 U.S.C. 112(a), it is necessary that the specification describe and enable the entire scope of the claimed invention. [...continued...]

…However, in order for a prior art document to describe a claimed invention under AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) or (a)(2), the prior art document need only describe and enable one skilled in the art to make a single species or embodiment of the claimed invention…the disclosure may be cited for all that it would reasonably have made known to a person of ordinary skill…the description requirement of AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and (a)(2) does not preclude an examiner from applying a disclosure in an obviousness rejection under AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 simply because the disclosure is not adequate to anticipate the claimed invention under AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) or (a)(2).”


Emphasis added

35


“AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(d) requires that a prior-filed application to which a priority or benefit claim is made must describe the subject matter from the U.S. patent, U.S. patent application publication, or WIPO published application relied upon in a rejection.

…AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(d) does not require that this description meet the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(a).”

However,

Emphasis added

36

Hilmer Doctrine evidenced bias of U.S. law against inventions originating outside the U.S.

◦ Based on two U.S. litigations (Hilmer I and II) that held that the foreign right of priority of a U.S. patent does not provide a prior art effect under § 102(e) as of that foreign priority date, nor does inventive work outside the U.S. have a prior art effect under § 102(g). Rather, one needed a U.S. filing date to have a prior art effect.

37

Now, under AIA a foreign priority date can be used offensively as prior art under AIA’s 35 U.S.C. §102(a)(2) against the patent claims of others, as long as the subject matter in one of the three special publications was at least described in a foreign priority document which was “effectively filed” relative to the relevant subject matter. (See 35 U.S.C. §102(a)(2) and §102(d)).

“AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(d) eliminates the Hilmer doctrine. The “Hilmer doctrine” as discussed in MPEP § 2136.03 remains applicable to pre-AIA applications because AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(d) does not apply to pre-AIA applications.”


38

’002 Issue

10-1-2002 10-17-2000

’002 US appln filed

1-18-2000

’002 foreign priority appln filed

11-1-1999


10-19-2000


6-11-2002

’001 issue

•Pre-AIA, the ’001 US application because of Hilmer, was not §102(e)/103 prior art against the claims of the ’002 patent because ’001 priority was irrelevant.

39

’002 Issue

10-1-2002 10-17-2000


1-18-2000


11-1-1999


10-19-2000


6-11-2002

’001 issue

•If the ’001 patent was “effectively filed” (relevant disclosure of ’001 patent at least described in the ’001 foreign application) on 11-1-1999, then the ’001 patent is §102(a)(2) prior art as of 11-1-1999 against the claims of the ’002 patent, whether the effective filing date of the relevant claims of the ’002 patent is 1-18-2000 or 10-17-2000.

40

’002 Issue

10-1-2002 10-17-2000


1-18-2000


11-1-1999


10-19-2000


6-11-2002

’001 issue

Is there a §102(b)(2) exception to remove the ’001 §102(a)(2) prior art against the ‘002 patent claims? Whatever the effective filing date of the ’002 claim, §102(b)(2) could apply to remove the §102(a)(2) prior art if the requirements of either §102(b)(2)(A) or §102(b)(2)(B) can be met.

41

U.S. Prov.

Appl.

CN

U.S. Appl.

Non-Prov.

PCT

(des.

U.S.)

Chinese USPAT

USPAT

FR PCT (des. U.S.)

USPAT

Pub.

Appl.

Pub.

PCT

Appl.

Pub.

PCT Appl.

French

English

• NO geographical or language distinction

•Entitlement to claim priority/benefit of US Prov App., CN app., and FR

app.

•Important date is when “effectively filed” not when published. •Hilmer doctrine abolished.

Impact of § 102(d)(2) – Prior Art Date

Prior art date

Prior art date

Prior art date

Following publication, disclosure has retroactive availability as prior art as of the date effectively filed for novelty and obviousness purposes.

42

Prior art disclosures are removed from consideration IF the exception applies.

2 exceptions apply to §102(a)(1) global prior public disclosures (§102(b)(1)(A) and (B))

3 exceptions apply to §102(a)(2) patent-filing disclosures (§102(b)(2)(A) to (C))

Prior Art

Exception

43

§102 (b)(1) EXCEPTIONS.

(1) DISCLOSURES MADE 1 YEAR OR LESS BEFORE THE EFFECTIVE FILING DATE OF THE CLAIMED INVENTION.—A disclosure made 1 year or less before the effective filing date of a claimed invention shall not be prior art to the claimed invention under subsection (a)(1) if—

(A) the disclosure was made by the inventor or joint inventor or by

another who obtained the subject matter disclosed directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor; or

(B) the subject matter [independently?] disclosed had, before such disclosure, been publicly disclosed by the inventor or a joint inventor or another who obtained the subject matter disclosed directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor.

ANY-WHERE IN THE WORLD

“grace period”

44

“When the Office can readily ascertain

by examination of inventorship and

authorship that a certain disclosure

falls under AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(1)(A),

the Office will not apply such a

document in a prior art rejection.”

See pp. 11064 of Examination Guidelines (2/14/13). See slides on Rule 130 declarations, infra.

45

“Alternatively, when there are additional named

individuals on a prior art publication as compared

to the inventors named on a patent application, it

is incumbent upon the applicant to provide a

satisfactory showing that the additional named

authors did not contribute to the claimed subject

matter.”

“Names another inventor” in § 102 (a)(2)?

See pp. 11064 of Examination Guidelines (2/14/13). See slides on Rule 130 declarations, infra.

46

§102 (b)(2) EXCEPTIONS – …

(2) DISCLOSURES APPEARING IN APPLICATIONS AND PATENTS.—A disclosure shall not be prior art to a claimed invention under subsection (a)(2) if-

(A) the subject matter disclosed was obtained directly or

indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor;

(B) the subject matter disclosed had, before such subject matter was effectively filed under subsection (a)(2), been publicly disclosed by the inventor or a joint inventor or another who obtained the subject matter disclosed directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor; or

(C) the subject matter disclosed and the claimed invention, not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention, were owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person.

No “grace period”

47

§102(b)(1) Exception ONLY for the same subject matter earlier disclosed; “related” subject matter could still be used against the patentee under AIA §103 and MIGHT even preclude the claimed invention from being patentable at all because of §103 !!! What if inventor discloses X and the disclosee discloses X and Y? See USPTO Examination Guidelines 78 Fed.Reg. 11,061 (Feb. 14, 2013)

The same argument regarding disclosed vs. related subject matter is also

made regarding §102(b)(2), which is the exception to §102(a)(2).

48

“AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) provides that certain prior patents and

published patent applications of co-workers and collaborators are

not prior art either for purposes of determining novelty (35 U.S.C.

102) or nonobviousness (35 U.S.C. 103). This exception, however,

applies only to prior art under AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2), namely, U.S.

patents, U.S. patent application publications, or WIPO published

applications effectively filed, but not published, before the effective

filing date of the claimed invention. This exception does not apply to

prior art that is available under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)…. A prior

disclosure, as defined in AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1), by a co-worker or

collaborator is prior art under AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) unless it falls

within an exception under AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(1), regardless of

whether the subject matter of the prior disclosure and the claimed

invention was commonly owned not later than the effective filing

date of the claimed invention.”

See pp. 11072 of Examination Guidelines (2/14/13). 49

“if the inventor or a joint inventor had publicly disclosed

elements A, B, and C, and a subsequent intervening U.S.

patent, U.S. patent application publication, or WIPO

published application discloses elements A, B, C, and D,

then only element D of the intervening U.S. patent, U.S.

patent application publication, or WIPO published

application is available as prior art under AIA 35 U.S.C.

102(a)(2).”

Must mean all requirements met for a § 102(b)(2)

exception.

See pp.11077 of Examination Guidelines (2/14/13). See slides on Rule 130 declarations, infra.

50

“The Office also indicated in the proposed

examination guidelines that the subject matter in

the prior disclosure being relied upon under AIA 35

U.S.C. 102(a) must be the same ‘subject matter’ as

the subject matter previously publicly disclosed by

the inventor for the exceptions in AIA 35 U.S.C.

102(b)(1)(B) and 102(b)(2)(B) to apply… . These

examination guidelines maintain the identical

subject matter interpretation of AIA 35 U.S.C.

102(b)(1)(B) and 102(b)(2)(B).”


51

◦ No requirement that the mode of disclosure be the same;

◦ No requirement that the disclosure be a verbatim or

ipsissimis verbis disclosure of the intervening disclosure.

◦ “[I]f subject matter of the intervening disclosure is simply a

more general description of the subject matter previously

publicly disclosed by the inventor or a joint inventor, the

exception in AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(1)(B) applies to such

subject matter of the intervening disclosure.”


52

“Therefore, the single instance of the phrase “the subject matter” in subparagraph (B) of each of AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(1) and 102(b)(2) cannot reasonably be interpreted as including variations within its ambit.”

“The absence of the “substantially” modifier or similar terminology in subparagraph (B) of each of AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(1) and 102(b)(2) further supports the conclusion that this provision does not contemplate variation in subject matter.”

“The more expansive alternative interpretations of the subparagraph (B) provision, however, are not supported by the language of the subparagraph (B) provision.”


53

§102 (b)(2) EXCEPTIONS – …

Common ownership under 102(b)(2)(C) applies only as an exception to 102(a)(2).

For policy reasons, it is not an exception to 102(a)(1)!!!!!!

Can’t remove from the public by common ownership what is already in the public domain.

PTO agrees: next slide.

Note: §102(f)/103?

No “grace period”

54

“AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) provides that certain prior patents and

published patent applications of co-workers and collaborators are

not prior art either for purposes of determining novelty (35 U.S.C.

102) or nonobviousness (35 U.S.C. 103). This exception, however,

applies only to prior art under AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2), namely, U.S.

patents, U.S. patent application publications, or WIPO published

applications effectively filed, but not published, before the effective

filing date of the claimed invention. This exception does not apply to

prior art that is available under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)…. A prior

disclosure, as defined in AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1), by a co-worker or

collaborator is prior art under AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) unless it falls

within an exception under AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(1), regardless of

whether the subject matter of the prior disclosure and the claimed

invention was commonly owned not later than the effective filing

date of the claimed invention.”


55

To show common ownership or JRA to come under the §102(b)(2)(C) exception to §102(a)(2) prior art, the patent owner/applicant files a statement to that effect. ◦ New Rule 104 and Examination Guidelines, pp. 11080 (Feb.

14, 2013).

Duty of disclosure and use of Rule 105 by the USPTO to obtain more information if necessary may provide sufficient safeguards.

Take care regarding factual representations.

56

§102(b)(2)(C) exception does not remove a

§102(a)(1) prior art, OR a double-patenting

rejection, or a lack of enablement rejection -

a “document need not qualify as prior art to

be applied in the context of double patenting

or enablement.”


57

“Offer to license” under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. §102(b) applicable under AIA 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1); “AIA did not amend 35 U.S.C. 102 to change the treatment of the prior art effect of an offer for license.”

BUT, if offer to license makes invention available to the public, may have AIA 35 U.S.C. §102(a)(1) prior art.


58

“The case law distinguishing between offers for sale and offers

for license under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(b) is equally applicable

under AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as the AIA did not amend 35

U.S.C. 102 to change the treatment of the prior art effect of an

offer for license. … If a transaction or offer with respect to an

invention constitutes licensing within the meaning of these

cases, the offer or transaction does not implicate the on sale

bar. However, if the licensing of an invention makes the

invention available to the public, patentability would be

independently barred by the residual clause of AIA 35 U.S.C.

102, which precludes patenting of a claimed invention that was

‘available to the public’ more than one year before the effective

filing date of the claimed invention.”

See pp. 11062 of Examination Guidelines (2/14/13). 59

60

A

B X

D

C

March 16, 2013

abandoned

add claim only entitled to C filing date

Date Z at Date Z, D can’t disclaim priority claim to C and replace it with a priority claim to X to get back to pre-AIA

X

Old: Tom could antedate Barbara by showing prior conception/diligence or RTP.

New: Since Barbara filed first, Barbara is prior art to Tom for §§ 102 and 103 purposes.

§102(a)(1) and §102(b)(1) do not apply.

§102(a)(2) applies unless §102(b)(2) exception applies.

Barbara Publishes in U.S Filed!

Filed!

61

Old: Foreign sale is not prior art to Tom.

New: Foreign sale is prior art under §102(a)(1).

Does §102(b)(1) exception apply?

Separate patentability?

INVENTION SOLD IN EUROPE

(Confidential???)

Filed!

62

Old: Public use outside U.S. was not prior art.

New: Prior public use is prior art wherever it occurred (§102(a)(1)) unless exception applies (§102(b)(1)) or unless can patentably distinguish.

§102(a)(2) does not apply (and thus §102(b)(2) exceptions cannot apply) because no patent or patent application.

>1 Year

Conception

Filed!

Public Use (Outside U.S.)

63

<1 Year

Conception

Filed!

Public Use (Inside U.S.)

Old: Tom could antedate Barbara’s public use within one year.

New: Prior public use is prior art wherever it occurred (§102(a)(1)) unless exception applies (§102(b)(1)) or unless can patentably distinguish.

§102(a)(2) does not apply (and thus §102(b)(2) exceptions cannot apply)

because no patent or patent application.

64

Grace Period!

Disclosure “by or … from”

an inventor

<1 Year

Disclosure “by or … from” an inventor and since

after effective filing date, not prior art under 102(a)(1)

<1 Year

Filed! Filed!

(Effective FD)

65

public use or on sale in U.S.

<1 Year

Assume U.S. filing is pre-AIA; file CIP on or after 3/16/13 after US filing but before publication. Present one AIA claim and

one pre-AIA claim. Under 3(n)(2), possible statutory use bar for pre-AIA

claim vanishes!!!

<1 Year

Filed! Filed!

(Effective FD)

3/16/13

file CIP

66

Grace Period!

Disclosure “by or … from” an inventor;

related subject matter?

Disclosure by ANYONE

<1 Year

Filed!

(Effective Filing Date)

67 67

Filed!

Filed!

1 Year

Tom’s U.S. App. Publishes

Public Disclosure

Barbara’s public disclosure (related subject matter?)… … is not prior art against her. §102(b)(1)(A). … shields her from Tom’s publication. §102(b)(2)(A). … and is prior art against Tom. §102(a)(1).

FITF loses to

FIT-Disclose

68

• § 102(c) COMMON OWNERSHIP UNDER JOINT RESEARCH AGREEMENTS.—

• Subject matter disclosed and a claimed invention shall be deemed to have been owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person in applying the provisions of subsection (b)(2)(C) if—

1) the subject matter disclosed was developed and the claimed invention was made by, or on behalf of, 1 or more parties to a joint research agreement that was in effect on or before the effective filing date of the claimed invention;

2) the claimed invention was made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of the joint research agreement; and

3) the application for patent for the claimed invention discloses or is amended to disclose the names of the parties to the joint research agreement.

CREATE Act Now In §102(c)

69 69

• §102(c) COMMON OWNERSHIP UNDER JOINT RESEARCH AGREEMENTS.

•May allow inventor to proactively take care of potential §102(a)(2) or §§ 102(a)(2) /103 problem with JRA. •Does not allow use of JRA to overcome §§102(a)(1)/103 problem.

CREATE Act Now In §102(c )

70 70 70

•University X has sought a narrow patent filing on new compounds A and B. •Company Y is about to file a broad patent on a genus of compounds on which it has been working for which compounds A and B fall within the genus. • If, before Company Y files for a patent it concludes a JRA that has within its scope the discovery, synthesis, and testing of compounds within the broad genus, then the JRA applies to Company Y’s subsequent patent filing and the anticipatory patent filing of University X is removed as prior art.

Example: Game Changer

71 71 71

•Under the pre-AIA CREATE Act, this type of protection for University X and Company Y would have been unavailable because the pre-AIA version did not protect against the loss of novelty, only obviousness, and would not have applied since the generic invention had already been made as of the date of the JRA.

Example: Game Changer

72 72 72

§ 102(c) says it shall be deemed to be

owned by the same person or subject

to an obligation of assignment if the

subject matter claimed was developed

under a JRA before the effective filing

date of the claimed invention. See also

§102(b)(2)(c) (common ownership

exception to §102(a)(2)) and § 102(c)

allows folding JRA into §102(b)(2)(C)

73 73

Big change!! Old law was

“at the time the invention

was made”

Buying prior art works only

as exception to §102(a)(2)

not as any exception to

§102(a)(1). See §102(b)(2)(C).

74

74

File a CIP, PCT, U.S. national

application, or non-provisional,

presenting at least one claim that

has an effective filing date post-

March 15, 2013, but maintain

limited first-inventor-to-file rules

by presenting at least one claim

that has an effective filing date

pre-March 16, 2013.

75

◦ “Old” subject matter keeps its effective pre-AIA filing date but is pulled into the AIA and cannot escape § 102(g) prior art under 3(n)(2). But in assessing effect of § 102(g) art for all claims in the mixed AIA/pre AIA application, date of invention, and thus antedating, is relevant given the language of §102(g)!

◦ And all claims in the application receive benefits of AIA, such as first-inventor-to-file, forfeiture, the expansive Create Act and common ownership, and fewer § 102 alphabet soup requirements.

76

•Claim construction determined by the judge in litigation may be narrower than that accorded the claims in the USPTO.

•a patent upheld in litigation as valid may be later found invalid by the USPTO. •See In re Baxter Int’l, Inc., 678 F.3d 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2012), reh’g denied en banc (Oct. 26, 2012).

•Alleged infringer lost a DJ in federal district court requesting a declaration of invalidity.

•failed to prove invalidity by clear and convincing evidence in the face of the presumption of validity enjoyed by the patent.

•While the litigation ongoing, alleged infringer filed reexamination request and the claims were canceled

•no presumption of validity, lower evidentiary standard of preponderance of the evidence, and in view of the standard of the

broadest reasonable claim construction.

§102 in Court Compared to §102 in USPTO

77

•FC in Baxter: “Congress has provided for a reexamination system that permits challenges to patents by third parties, even those who have lost in prior judicial proceedings.” •FC expressed the hope that the court and USPTO would come to the same conclusion on same patent with same evidence and same arguments, but different burdens of proof, presumption/no presumption of validity, and different claim-construction standards _> may arrive at different conclusions.

§102 in Court Compared to §102 in USPTO(con’t)

78

Inventor uses an affidavit/declaration to show prior public disclosure and disqualify prior art.

If assert derivation in the affidavit/declaration, inventor may file petition for derivation proceeding, but does not have to (as was in the proposed rules).

Statement may be sufficient.

See pp. 11027 of Rules (2/14/13). See pp. 11063, 11067 of Examination Guidelines (2/14/13). .

79

Rule 130 applicable to AIA applications.

◦ disqualifying prior art by establishing that the disclosure was by the inventor/joint inventor or was a prior public disclosure of the subject matter.

◦ “Section 1.130(a) pertains to the provisions of subparagraph (A) of AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(1) and (b)(2)…Section 1.130(b) pertains to the provisions of subparagraph (B) of AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(1) and (b)(2).”

Rule 131 applicable to pre-AIA applications (and JMM applications if pre-AIA §102(g) implicated).

◦ prior invention.

For mixed applications, “the provisions of § 1.131 are applicable only with respect to a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102(g) as in effect on March 15, 2013. Because of AIA SEC 3(n)(2).

See pp. 11030, 11036 of Rules (2/14/13).

80

No Rule 130 affidavit when rejection is based upon a public

disclosure [102(a)(1)] made more than one year before the effective

filing date of the claimed invention.

“Note that the provisions of § 1.130 are available to establish that a

rejection under AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) is based on an application or

patent that was effectively filed more than one year before the

effective filing date of the claimed invention under examination, but

not publicly disclosed more than one year before such effective

filing date, where the subject matter disclosed was obtained directly

or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor.”

See pp. 11036 of Rules (2/14/13).

81

No Rule 130 affidavit when two applications

to same subject matter, one is applied as

102(a)(2) art, and the inventor of the other

alleges that the 102(a)(2) art derived a

relevant invention disclosed therein from

the inventor. See pp. 11036 of Rules (2/14/13).

82

Determine which law/prior art should have been

applied by USPTO by analyzing EFD of all claims. ◦ AIA

◦ Pre-AIA

◦ Transitional (JMM): AIA plus part of pre-AIA

Determine whether the correct law was applied

by USPTO.

Determine the outcome under the application of

the correct law.

83

Thank you.

Thomas L. Irving Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP 901 New York Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20001-4413 202.408.4082 [email protected]

Erika Arner Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP Two Freedom Square 11955 Freedom Drive Reston, VA 20190-5675 571.203.2754 [email protected]

John Cheek Senior Corporate Counsel Caterpillar Inc. 100 North East Adams Street Peoria, Illinois USA 61629 [email protected]

84

aia impact on section 102 and prior art -...

Documents