Prosecution Luncheon Patent July 2015

Calendar AIPLA –PCT Seminar  July San Francisco  July Alexandria IPO Annual Meeting –Sept Chicago Indy Bar –Network Coffee- July 23, 8-9 a.m.- Starbucks in Sheraton –Paralegal Lunch- July 30, noon-1 p.m.- Conrad Hotel ABA Annual Meeting –July 30-August 4- Chicago

New Federal Circuit Judge Kara Farnandez Stoll –Electrical Engineering Michigan State 1991 –Patent Examiner –Georgetown JD 1997 –Finnegan (Partner- litigation) Senate Approved –July 7, 2015 (95-0)

Cooperative Patent Classification (CPC) Cooperative Patent Classification (CPC) will allow you to perform a single classification search across multiple patent offices Joint (Global) Classification System Based on the European Classification system (ECLA) –More granular than the International Patent Classification (IPC) system  ECLA about 140,000 Entries  CPC about 200,000 Entries CPC is International Patent Classification (IPC) Compliant Participants –EPO –USPTO –Korean Patent Office (KIPO) –China (SIPO)

Cooperative Patent Classification (CPC) Now Implemented in the USPTO (January 1, 2013) –2 Year Transition  Newly filed US applications ("A" publications) will be classified in the USPC and the CPC  US patent grants ("B" publications) will be classified in either the USPC or the USPC and the CPC  CPC symbols will be printed on the front page, next to the IPC and USPC symbols. –By January 1, USPTO will exclusively classify CPC (but will keep IPC)

Cooperative Patent Classification (CPC) Sections IPC CPC Classes Subclasses Groups Subgroups A01B33/08 A 01 B 33(/00) 08

Cooperative Patent Classification (CPC) Sections –A: Human Necessities –B: Operations and Transport –C: Chemistry and Metallurgy –D: Textiles –E: Fixed Constructions –F: Mechanical Engineering –G: Physics –H: Electricity

Cooperative Patent Classification (CPC)

PAIR In April 2015, Google Chrome removed the default ability to use the Java plug-in, so can’t access EFS-Web and Private PAIR. –Temporary workaround at: –Workaround only works through September 2015 “USPTO is investigating if there are possible strategies to mitigate the impact”

PAIR Can now update entity size status in PAIR (e.g., micro, small, large)

Expedited Patent Appeal Pilot Program Appeal pendency average = 30 months Program- File Petition –PTO/SB/438 –Withdraw one appeal (no refunds) –Receive a decision within 6 months of petition for another appeal –Petition fee waived

Collaborative Search Pilots (CSP) Purposes –To determine whether collaborative search and its evaluation to commonly filed claims can improve the examination process and provide more consistent results across Offices –To determine whether the Offices can control the sharing of search information between Offices such that applications are not receiving an unnecessary delay in examination Two pilot programs (JPO & KIPO) with slight differences in when search results are passed.

Collaborative Search Pilots (CSP) Search results shared between offices First Action Interview (FAI) program procedure is used (bifurcated search & examination) steps: –Search results sent to applicant before interview –Interview (optional) –Full Office Action (examination) Prosecution will be accelerated for CSP, even faster than the FAI pilot program

Collaborative Search Pilots (CSP) Participating Offices USPTO + –Japanese Patent Office (JPO) –Korean Patent Office (KIPO) Differences in when search results are shared –JPO + USPTO = results reviewed by examiner prior to finalizing FAI search report –KIPO + USPTO= both offices work independently & independent results sent together to the applicant More Information & following diagrams from:

Collaborative Search Pilots (CSP) Comparison Patent Prosecution Highway (PPH)

Collaborative Search Pilots (CSP) Comparison CSP- Korean Patent Office (KIPO) Pilot –Reports are independent of one another

Collaborative Search Pilots (CSP) Comparison CSP- Japanese Patent Office (JPO) Pilot –Offices see each others results before sending final search report

Petitions - Parallel Collaborative Search Pilots (CSP)

Divisional Applications G.D. Searle LLC v. Lupin Pharms., Inc., No G.D. Searle LLC v. Lupin Pharms., Inc., No (CAFC June 23, 2015) Pfizer tried to use a reissue convert a CIP that was based on a remote restricted parent to a divisional Obviousness-type double patenting in this case can’t be cured via a reissue

Divisional Applications G.D. Searle LLC v. Lupin Pharms., Inc., No G.D. Searle LLC v. Lupin Pharms., Inc., No (CAFC June 23, 2015) “We apply ‘a strict test’ for application of section 121, ‘[g]iven the potential windfall [a] patent term extension could provide a patentee.” “[D]eleting that new matter from the reissue patent does not retroactively alter the nature of the ‘113 application.”

Divisional Applications G.D. Searle LLC v. Lupin Pharms., Inc., No G.D. Searle LLC v. Lupin Pharms., Inc., No (CAFC June 23, 2015) Another reason- “The RE ‘048 patent (the challenged patent) and the ‘165 patent (the reference patent) are not ‘derived from the same restriction requirement.’” (citations omitted) Left open the question whether converting a CIP to a divsional was an “error” for a reissue

Divisional Applications Mohsenzadeh v. Lee, No Mohsenzadeh v. Lee, No (CAFC June 25, 2015) Patent Term Adjustment of the parent does not apply to the child divisional (or continuing) applications

Want to know more? Chuck Schmal Patent Attorney Woodard, Emhardt, Moriarty, McNett & Henry LLP Chase Tower 111 Monument Circle, Suite 3700 Indianapolis, IN

Prosecution Luncheon Patent July 2015