america invents act. fitzpatrick, cella, harper & scinto © 2011 | 2 first-to-file u.s. will...
TRANSCRIPT
America Invents Act
FITZPATRICK, CELLA, HARPER & SCINTO © 2011 | www.fitzpatrickcella.com2
First-to-File
U.S. will switch to a first-inventor-to-file system
– Revision of 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103
– Eventual elimination of interference proceedings
– Introduction of derivation proceedings
Section 3
FITZPATRICK, CELLA, HARPER & SCINTO © 2011 | www.fitzpatrickcella.com3
35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1)
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention
“Effective filing date” for a claimed invention means:
– the actual filing date of the application containing a claim to the invention
OR
– the filing date of the earliest priority application (under §§ 119, 365(a) or (b), or to the benefit of an earlier filing date under §§ 120, 121 or 365(c))
Section 3
FITZPATRICK, CELLA, HARPER & SCINTO © 2011 | www.fitzpatrickcella.com4
35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(2)
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless the claimed invention was described in a patent or in a published patent application in which the patent or application:
– names another inventor
AND
– was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention
Section 3
FITZPATRICK, CELLA, HARPER & SCINTO © 2011 | www.fitzpatrickcella.com5
35 U.S.C. § 102(b)(1) (Exceptions)
Disclosures made ≤1 year before the effective filing date shall not be prior art under subsection § 102(a)(1) if:
(A) the disclosure was made by:
• an inventor, or
• another who obtained the subject matter from an inventor;
OR
(B) the subject matter disclosed had, before such disclosure, been publicly disclosed by:
• an inventor, or
• another who obtained the subject matter disclosed from an inventor
Section 3
FITZPATRICK, CELLA, HARPER & SCINTO © 2011 | www.fitzpatrickcella.com6
35 U.S.C. § 102(b)(2) (Exceptions)
Disclosures appearing in applications and patents shall not be prior art if:
(A) the subject matter was obtained directly or indirectly from an inventor
(B) the subject matter was publicly disclosed by an inventor or another who obtained the subject matter from an inventor, before such subject matter was effectively filed
OR
(C) the subject matter and the claimed invention were owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person, no later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention
No 1 year limitation as required in § 102(b)(1)
Section 3
FITZPATRICK, CELLA, HARPER & SCINTO © 2011 | www.fitzpatrickcella.com7
Differences in Revised 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)
Public use or sale in foreign country can now constitute prior art
– previously only public use or sale in U.S.
Potential new sources of prior art via “otherwise available to the public” catch-all
Critical date for statutory bar is now the effective filing date
– previous critical date was 1 year prior to U.S. filing date
Section 3
FITZPATRICK, CELLA, HARPER & SCINTO © 2011 | www.fitzpatrickcella.com8
35 U.S.C. § 102(c):Common Ownership Under Joint Research Agreements
Subject matter disclosed and a claimed invention satisfy ownership/assignment exception under § 102(b)(2)(C) if:
(1) the subject matter 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 discloses or is amended to disclose the names of the parties to the joint research agreement
Continues intent under the CREATE Act
Section 3
FITZPATRICK, CELLA, HARPER & SCINTO © 2011 | www.fitzpatrickcella.com9
35 U.S.C. § 102(d)
U.S. patent or patent application is prior art as of:
– The actual filing date of the patent or application
OR
– The filing date of the earliest priority application that describes the subject matter
Implications
– Foreign priority in a U.S. patent document can now be used for offensive purposes, not just defensive purposes
Section 3
FITZPATRICK, CELLA, HARPER & SCINTO © 2011 | www.fitzpatrickcella.com10
35 U.S.C. § 103
A patent may not be obtained if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art
Difference under new statute
– Obviousness now analyzed as of before the effective filing date, as opposed to at the time of the invention
Section 3
FITZPATRICK, CELLA, HARPER & SCINTO © 2011 | www.fitzpatrickcella.com11
Interference Proceedings
Interference practice still available for applications and patents which contain or at any time contained:
– A claim to an invention having an effective filing date that occurs before the effective date of the legislation
OR
– A specific reference under §§ 120, 121, 365(c) to any patent or application that contains or contained at any time such a claim
PTO given wide latitude to determine procedures in pending interferences
Section 3
FITZPATRICK, CELLA, HARPER & SCINTO © 2011 | www.fitzpatrickcella.com12
Derivation Proceedings by Civil Action – 35 U.S.C. § 291
§ 291(a) – Derivation Civil Action
– Patent owner may file a civil action against another patent owner if the invention claimed in such other patent was derived from the inventor of the patent owned by the person bringing suit, claims the same invention, and has an earlier effective filing date
Filing of derivation action in Federal district court
– Like previous interference civil actions, only patent owners may bring a derivation suit as a civil action
Patent applicants without an issued patent may only utilize USPTO derivation proceedings
§ 291(b) – Filing Limitation
– Patent owner must file before the end of 1 year after issuance of derived patent to bring suit
Section 3
FITZPATRICK, CELLA, HARPER & SCINTO © 2011 | www.fitzpatrickcella.com13
USPTO Derivation Proceedings – 35 U.S.C. § 135
Applicant institutes a derivation proceeding by filing a petition which sets forth the derivation basis with particularity. The petition must be:
– filed within 1 year of the first publication of the claim that is the same or substantially the same as the earlier application’s claim
– made under oath
– supported by substantial evidence
Director makes a determination whether to institute a derivation proceeding
– determination shall be final and nonappealable
Patent Trial And Appeal Board (PTAB):
– makes the determination of derivation
– may correct the naming of the inventor in application or patent at issue
– may defer action on a derivation petition until 3 months after issuance of the allegedly derived patent
– may stay the proceeding for a re-examination or post-grant review
Section 3
FITZPATRICK, CELLA, HARPER & SCINTO © 2011 | www.fitzpatrickcella.com14
Other Changes
Repeals statutory invention registrations
Repeals NAFTA/WTO requirements for inventions made abroad to the extent that evidence relating to date of invention remains applicable
Adds statute of limitations for suspension or exclusion from practice before USPTO
– The earlier of either 10 years from the misconduct, or 1 year after the date the misconduct is made known to an officer or employee of the USPTO
Section 3
FITZPATRICK, CELLA, HARPER & SCINTO © 2011 | www.fitzpatrickcella.com15
Effective Date for First-To-File
18-months after enactment
Applies to patents and applications that contain or contained:
– A claim that has an effective filing date on or after the 18-month effective date of the legislation
OR
– A reference under §§ 120, 121, or 365(c) to a patent or application that contains or contained any such claim
– No exception even if such a claim is later cancelled or amended to be entitled to an earlier effective filing date
Section 3
FITZPATRICK, CELLA, HARPER & SCINTO © 2011 | www.fitzpatrickcella.com16
Inventor’s Oath or Declaration
35 U.S.C. § 115 amended to no longer require citizenship
Substitute Statement under §115(d) may be filed by an applicant (e.g., corporation) for patent under certain circumstances:
– Deceased inventor
– Legal incapacity of inventor
– Inventor cannot be found or reached after diligent effort
– Inventor under obligation to assign, but has refused to make oath
Section 4
FITZPATRICK, CELLA, HARPER & SCINTO © 2011 | www.fitzpatrickcella.com17
Inventor’s Oath or Declaration
Application filed by assignee under 35 U.S.C. § 118 will be granted to assignee
Effective 1 year after enactment
– Applies to any application that is filed on or after that effective date
Section 4
FITZPATRICK, CELLA, HARPER & SCINTO © 2011 | www.fitzpatrickcella.com18
Prior User Rights – 35 U.S.C. § 273
Prior user rights is defense to infringement based on earlier commercial use
Prior user rights are expanded to all technologies
– No longer just business method claims
Accused infringer must prove, by clear and convincing evidence, that it commercially used the subject matter of the claimed invention in the U.S. in good faith, AND
– Such commercial use occurred at least 1 year before the earlier of:
effective filing date of claimed invention
OR
date on which the claimed invention was disclosed to the public in a manner that qualified for exception from prior art under §102(b)
Section 5
FITZPATRICK, CELLA, HARPER & SCINTO © 2011 | www.fitzpatrickcella.com19
Prior User Rights - Limitations
Defense is not available if:
– Commercial use was not by person asserting defense
– Subject matter was derived from patentee
– Claimed invention was, at the time the invention was made, owned by or assigned to a university
Applies to any patent issued on or after the date of enactment
Section 5
FITZPATRICK, CELLA, HARPER & SCINTO © 2011 | www.fitzpatrickcella.com20
Post-Grant Review
Non-owner of patent may file with USPTO a petition to institute post-grant review of patent
Petition for review will be granted when USPTO finds:
– “that it is more likely than not that at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition is unpatentable”
OR
– there is a “showing that the petition raises a novel or unsettled legal question that is important to other patents or patent applications”
Determinations shall be made within 3 months of patent owner’s preliminary response or the last date for filing the same
Section 6
FITZPATRICK, CELLA, HARPER & SCINTO © 2011 | www.fitzpatrickcella.com21
Scope & Timing of Post-Grant Review
Petition must be filed within 9 months from grant of:
– the patent
OR
– the reissue patent if the reissue claims have been broadened
Petitioner may request cancellation of one or more claims on “any ground that could be raised under paragraph (2) or (3) of section 282(b)”
– Revised § 282(b) includes arguments under §§ 102, 103, and 112, but not best mode
Either party may appeal the Board’s decision to the Federal Circuit
Section 6
FITZPATRICK, CELLA, HARPER & SCINTO © 2011 | www.fitzpatrickcella.com22
Applicability of Post-Grant Review
Effective 1 year after date of enactment
Except as set forth in the transitional program for business method patents, shall apply to patents having a claim with an effective filing date after the 18-month period from enactment
Section 6
FITZPATRICK, CELLA, HARPER & SCINTO © 2011 | www.fitzpatrickcella.com23
Inter Partes Review
Non-owner of patent may file with USPTO a petition to institute an inter partes review of the patent
Petition will be granted when USPTO finds “a reasonable likelihood that petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition”
Determinations shall be made within 3 months of patent owner’s preliminary response or the last date for filing the same
Section 6
FITZPATRICK, CELLA, HARPER & SCINTO © 2011 | www.fitzpatrickcella.com24
Scope & Timing of Inter Partes Review
Petition can be filed 9 months after the date of:
– grant of the patent or issuance of a reissue of the patent
OR
– after the date of termination of a post-grant review
Petitioner may request cancellation only on a ground that could be raised under §§ 102 and 103 and only on the basis of prior art consisting of patents or printed publications
Either party may appeal the Board’s decision to the Federal Circuit
Section 6
FITZPATRICK, CELLA, HARPER & SCINTO © 2011 | www.fitzpatrickcella.com25
Applicability of Inter Partes Review
Effective 1 year after date of enactment
Applies to any patent issued before, on, or after that effective date
New standard for inter partes review takes effect immediately upon enactment and applies to inter partes reexaminations filed after enactment
Section 6
FITZPATRICK, CELLA, HARPER & SCINTO © 2011 | www.fitzpatrickcella.com26
Conduct During Post-Grant and Inter Partes Review If review is instituted, patent owner permitted to submit a response to the
petition, including any additional factual evidence and expert opinions on which the patent owner relies
Rules allow for limited discovery of relevant evidence
Patent owner permitted to amend patent (1) to cancel a challenged claim or (2) to propose a reasonable number of substitute claims
Petitioner has at least one opportunity to file written comments
Either party has the right to an oral hearing
Final determination will issue within 1 year of institution
– USPTO may extend that period by 6 months for good cause
Section 6
FITZPATRICK, CELLA, HARPER & SCINTO © 2011 | www.fitzpatrickcella.com27
Settlement for Post-Grant and Inter Partes Review Review shall be terminated with respect to any petitioner upon joint request of
the petitioner and the patent owner, unless USPTO has decided the merits of the proceeding before the joint request is filed
No estoppel shall attach to petitioner if review is terminated
USPTO may terminate the review or proceed to a final written decision if no petitioner remains
Any agreement or understanding between the patent owner and a petitioner, made in connection with, or in contemplation of, the termination of a review shall be in writing and filed in the USPTO
Upon request, the settlement can be treated as business confidential information
Section 6
FITZPATRICK, CELLA, HARPER & SCINTO © 2011 | www.fitzpatrickcella.com28
Intervening Rights for Post-Grant and Inter Partes Review Any amended or new claim determined to be patentable and incorporated into
a patent following a post-grant review shall have same effect as that for reissued patents with respect to the right of any person who, before the issuance of the certificate:
– made, purchased, or used within the United States anything patented by the amended or new claim
– imported into the United States anything patented by the amended or new claim
OR
– made substantial preparation therefor
Section 6
FITZPATRICK, CELLA, HARPER & SCINTO © 2011 | www.fitzpatrickcella.com29
Estoppel for Post-Grant and Inter Partes Review
If a review results in final written decision by the Board, the petitioner may not request or maintain a “proceeding” before USPTO with respect to that “claim” on any ground that petitioner raised or reasonably could have raised during that review
If a review results in final written decision, the petitioner may not assert either in a civil action or in a proceeding before the ITC that the claim is invalid on any ground that petitioner raised or reasonably could have raised during that review
A review is not available if, before filing of the petition, the petitioner filed a civil action challenging the validity of the patent.
– A counter claim does not preclude a post-grant review
Section 6
FITZPATRICK, CELLA, HARPER & SCINTO © 2011 | www.fitzpatrickcella.com30
Patent Trial and Appeal Board
Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences to be replaced by Patent Trial and Appeal Board
– Adverse examiner decisions (35 U.S.C. § 134(a))
– Re-examinations (35 U.S.C. § 134(b))
– Derivation proceedings (35 U.S.C. § 135)
– Inter-partes reviews and post-grant reviews (Chapters 31 and 32)
Section 7
FITZPATRICK, CELLA, HARPER & SCINTO © 2011 | www.fitzpatrickcella.com31
Third Party Submissions Any party may submit documents to be considered by USPTO during examination
Timing – Must be made the earlier of:
– A notice of allowance
OR
– The later of 6 months after publication or date of first rejection
Effective 1 year after enactment
– Applies to any patent application filed before, on, or after that effective date
Other requirements
– Concise statement of relevance
– Fee as set by Director
– Statement affirming compliance with rules
Section 8
FITZPATRICK, CELLA, HARPER & SCINTO © 2011 | www.fitzpatrickcella.com32
Venue
Venue for appeal of USPTO decisions moved from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia
Effective on date of enactment
– Applies to actions commenced on or after that date
Section 9
FITZPATRICK, CELLA, HARPER & SCINTO © 2011 | www.fitzpatrickcella.com33
Fee-Setting Authority
USPTO given authority to adjust its fees to recover the aggregate estimated costs of USPTO activities
50% reduction for small entity
75% reduction for micro entity
Effective Date – date of enactment
Electronic Filing Incentive
– $400 Surcharge, if not filed electronically (plant, design & provisional applications excluded)
– Effective Date – 60 days after date of enactment
Section 10
FITZPATRICK, CELLA, HARPER & SCINTO © 2011 | www.fitzpatrickcella.com34
Micro Entity Status
“Micro entity” applicant must:
– Qualify as a small entity
– Not be named as an inventor on more than 4 previously filed U.S. non-provisional applications
– Have an income less than 3x the median U.S. household income
AND
– Not have conveyed or contractually promised to convey rights to an entity that has an income more than 3x the median U.S. household income
Public universities, non-profit universities, and other higher education institutes will receive the 75% discount
USPTO Director can set additional limits to restrict the impact of the micro entity status
Section 10
FITZPATRICK, CELLA, HARPER & SCINTO © 2011 | www.fitzpatrickcella.com35
Prioritized Examination and Fee Increase
Prioritized Examination
– Request Fee of $4,800
Small entity fee available
Claim limits – 30 total; 4 independent
Limit of 10,000 applications annually
Fee Increase
– 15% increase in PTO fees
Effective Date – 10 Days After Enactment
Section 11
FITZPATRICK, CELLA, HARPER & SCINTO © 2011 | www.fitzpatrickcella.com36
Supplemental Examination – 35 U.S.C. § 257
Patent owner may request supplemental examination by USPTO to consider, reconsider or correct information believed to be relevant to the patent
– Request must raise a substantial new question of patentability
Allows an applicant to wash away the threat of inequitable conduct charges
– Cannot use if:
Applicant committed fraud on the USPTO during original prosecution
An allegation has been alleged in an ANDA Notice Letter
OR
Art has been used as a defense under § 337 or § 281
Effective Date – 1 year after enactment
Section 12
FITZPATRICK, CELLA, HARPER & SCINTO © 2011 | www.fitzpatrickcella.com37
Tax Strategies Deemed Prior Art
Strategies for reducing, avoiding, or deferring tax liability are considered prior art, and therefore not patentable
– “tax liability” broadly defined
Applies to any patent application that is pending or filed on or after the date of enactment
Excludes any method, apparatus, technology, computer program product, or system that is used solely:
– for preparing a tax, information return or other tax filing
OR
– for financial management, to the extent that it is severable from any tax strategy or does not limit the use of any tax strategy
Section 14
FITZPATRICK, CELLA, HARPER & SCINTO © 2011 | www.fitzpatrickcella.com38
Best Mode
Failing to disclose the best mode cannot be used to invalidate an issued patent
Inventor still required to set forth the best mode for accomplishing the invention
– USPTO still has a duty to only issue patents where the best mode requirement has been satisfied
Section 15
FITZPATRICK, CELLA, HARPER & SCINTO © 2011 | www.fitzpatrickcella.com39
Marking
Virtual Marking – 35 U.S.C. § 287
– Mark product with “patent” or “pat.” and web address
– Web address (free access) associates patented article with patent number(s)
Section 16
FITZPATRICK, CELLA, HARPER & SCINTO © 2011 | www.fitzpatrickcella.com40
Marking
False Marking – 35 U.S.C. § 292
– Only United States may sue for penalty
$500 for each offense
– A person who has suffered competitive injury can sue for recovery of damages adequate to compensate for the injury
Marking a product with a patent that covered that product but has expired is not a violation
Effective Date – applies to any case that is pending on, or commenced on or after, the date of enactment
Section 16
FITZPATRICK, CELLA, HARPER & SCINTO © 2011 | www.fitzpatrickcella.com41
Advice of Counsel – 35 U.S.C. § 298
The following cannot be used to prove willful infringement or that the infringer intended to induce infringement:
– failure to obtain legal advice with respect to any allegedly infringed patent
OR
– failure to present such advice to the court or jury
Section 17
FITZPATRICK, CELLA, HARPER & SCINTO © 2011 | www.fitzpatrickcella.com42
Transitional Program for Covered Business Method Patents
A specific post-grant review program for Covered Business Method Patents
– Only persons sued for or charged with infringement of the patent may file
– The Director may institute a transitional proceeding
– Begins within 1 year of enactment and expires 8 years thereafter
Broader than post-grant review
– No 9 month time limit
– Provisions regarding preliminary injunctions and reissue patents in post-grant review do not apply
– Estoppel does not extend to grounds that “could have been raised”
Section 18
FITZPATRICK, CELLA, HARPER & SCINTO © 2011 | www.fitzpatrickcella.com43
Transitional Program for Covered Business Method Patents
Covered Business Method Patent
– A method or corresponding apparatus for performing data processing or other operations used in the practice, administration, or management of a financial product or service
A challenge under previous §§ 102 or 103 can only be supported by:
– prior art under previous 102(a)
OR
– prior art that discloses the invention more than one year before the U.S. filing date, and would have been described in previous § 102(a) if it had been made by another
Section 18
FITZPATRICK, CELLA, HARPER & SCINTO © 2011 | www.fitzpatrickcella.com44
Amends 35 U.S.C. § 1338(a)
– No State court has jurisdiction over any claim arising under an Act of Congress relating to patents, plant variety protection, or copyrights
Amends 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(1)
– Grants Federal Circuit jurisdiction over an appeal from a final decision arising under any Act of Congress relating to patents or plant variety protection
New 35 U.S.C § 1454
– Allows for removal to the district and division embracing the place where action is pending
– District Court is not precluded from deciding a claim because the State court did not have jurisdiction
– District Court may remand claims within their supplemental jurisdiction, but shall remand claims with no jurisdictional basis
Jurisdiction and Procedural Matters
Section 19
FITZPATRICK, CELLA, HARPER & SCINTO © 2011 | www.fitzpatrickcella.com45
New 35 U.S.C. § 299 – Joinder of Parties
– Allowed only when right to relief is asserted against the parties jointly, severally, or in the alternative with respect to or arising out of same transaction, and
questions of fact common to all defendants will arise
– Accused infringers cannot be joined based solely on allegations that they each have infringed any patents in suit
Jurisdiction and Procedural Matters
Section 19
FITZPATRICK, CELLA, HARPER & SCINTO © 2011 | www.fitzpatrickcella.com46
Technical Amendments
Revised 35 U.S.C. § 282 - Presumption of Validity
– (a) In General – A patent shall be presumed valid. Each claim of a patent (whether in independent, dependent, or multiple dependent form) shall be presumed valid independently of the validity of other claims; dependent or multiple dependent claims shall be presumed valid even though dependent upon an invalid claim. Notwithstanding the preceding sentence, if a claim to a composition of matter is held invalid and that claim was the basis of a determination of nonobviousness under section 103(b)(1), the process shall no longer be considered nonobvious solely on the basis of section 103(b)(1). The burden of establishing invalidity of a patent or any claim thereof shall rest on the party asserting such invalidity.
Section 20
FITZPATRICK, CELLA, HARPER & SCINTO © 2011 | www.fitzpatrickcella.com47
Patent and Trademark Office Funding & Satellite Offices
Establishes a Patent and Trademark Fee Reserve Fund
– If fee collections by the PTO exceed the amount appropriated to the PTO in a fiscal year, the excess shall be deposited into the Fund and made available until expended only for obligation and expenditure by the PTO
Congressional approval needed
– Effective Date – October 1, 2011
Requirement for Satellite Offices
– Director required to establish 3 or more satellite offices within 3 years after enactment
Sections 22 and 23
FITZPATRICK, CELLA, HARPER & SCINTO © 2011 | www.fitzpatrickcella.com48
Priority Examination for Important Technologies
Grants the Director the ability, at the request of the applicant, to provide for prioritized examination of products, processes, or technologies that are important to the national economy or to the national competitiveness, without recovering the aggregate extra cost of doing so
Section 25
FITZPATRICK, CELLA, HARPER & SCINTO © 2011 | www.fitzpatrickcella.com49
USPTO Study on International Patent Protections for Small Businesses Director, in conjunction with other agencies, shall conduct a study:
– to determine how the USPTO can best help small businesses with international patent protection
and
– whether, in order to help with costs, there should be established either:
a revolving fund loan program to make loans to small businesses to defray the costs of applying, maintaining and enforcing international patents
or
a grant program to defray the costs.
Report due to Congress within 120 days of enactment
Section 31
FITZPATRICK, CELLA, HARPER & SCINTO © 2011 | www.fitzpatrickcella.com50
NEW YORK1290 Avenue of the AmericasNew York, NY 10104-3800212.218.2100
WASHINGTON975 F Street, NWWashington, DC 20004-1405202.530.1010
CALIFORNIA650 Town Center Drive, Suite 1600Costa Mesa, CA 92626-7130714.540.8700