PTO’s Proposals Regarding Amendments Permitted During Reexamination (A6/A7) Nancy J. Linck, Esq. Rothwell, Figg, Ernst & Manbeck June 1,

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
By David W. Hill AIPLA Immediate Past President Partner Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP Overview of the America Invents Act.
Advertisements

Webinar: Request for Comments on AIA Trial Proceedings Before the PTAB July 29, Scott Boalick, Vice Chief Judge (Acting) Patent Trial and Appeal.
AIPLA PRESENTATION FOR USPTO PUBLIC HEARING ON REEXAMINATION Q. TODD DICKINSON AIPLA EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR JUNE 1,
Comments on the USPTO’s Proposed Streamlined Patent Reexamination Regulations Greg H. Gardella Elizabeth Iglesias Jason Sullivan Irell & Manella, LLP.
© 2011 Sterne, Kessler, Goldstein, & Fox P.L.L.C. All Rights Reserved. Comments on Proposed Rules for Compact Prosecution U.S. Patent and Trademark Office.
© Kolisch Hartwell 2013 All Rights Reserved, Page 1 America Invents Act (AIA) Implementation in 2012 Peter D. Sabido Intellectual Property Attorney Kolisch.
Joint Meeting of PIPLA and NJIPLA February 7, 2012 Kenneth N. Nigon RatnerPrestia 1.
USPTO Public Meeting on Reexam Reform Claire Vasios June 1, 2011 COPYRIGHT © 2011 ALKERMES, INC.
Recent Cases on Patentable Subject Matter and Patent Exhaustion Mojdeh Bahar, J.D., M.A. Chief, Cancer Branch Office of Technology Transfer National Institutes.
Representative Rejections (two minor suggestions) Matthew A. Smith Foley & Lardner LLP at the United States Patent & Trademark Office.
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE A full transcript of this presentation can be found under the “Notes” Tab. Claim Interpretation: Broadest Reasonable.
1 1 1 AIPLA American Intellectual Property Law Association USPTO Updates Including Glossary Pilot Program Chris Fildes Fildes & Outland, P.C. IP Practice.
Greg Gardella Patent Reexamination: Effective Strategy for Litigating Infringement Claims Best Practices for Pursuing and Defending Parallel Proceedings.
Post-Issuance Proceedings Under the AIA Thomas F. Cotter Briggs and Morgan Professor of Law University of Minnesota Law School.
BIPC.COM STRATEGIC CONSIDERATIONS OF POST ISSUANCE PATENTABILITY REVIEW: THE NEW, OLD, AND NO LONGER Presented By: Todd R. Walters, Esq. B UCHANAN, I NGERSOLL.
Maine Board of Tax Appeals 1. What we are: An independent Board of three individuals appointed by the Governor to resolve controversies between Taxpayers.
Filing Compliant Reexam Requests Andy Kashnikow SPE, Central Reexamination Unit Andy Kashnikow SPE, Central Reexamination Unit June, 2010.
Testing Hypotheses About Proportions Chapter 20. Hypotheses Hypotheses are working models that we adopt temporarily. Our starting hypothesis is called.
Claim Interpretation By: Michael A. Leonard II and Jared T. Olson.
Greg H. Gardella Ex Parte and Inter Partes Reexamination Tactics AIPLA 2010 Winter Institute.
Patent Term Adjustment (Bio/Chem. Partnership) Kery Fries, Sr. Legal Advisor Phone: (571)
Go Back, Jack, Do it Again: Reissue and Reexam Patent Law
USPTO Implementation of the America Invents Act Teresa Stanek Rea Deputy Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and Deputy Director of the.
© 2015 Fox Rothschild Inter Partes Review Lessons Learned Scott R. Bialecki Fox Rothschild LLP June 24, 2015.
The U.S. Patent System is Changing – A Summary of the New Patent Reform Law.
Brandy Chance Marcella Helgeson Joe King Michael A MacKinnon Jennifer Andrea Trujillo Seattle S.D. vs. B.S.
IP Gespräche 2009 Frankfurt ● Karlsruhe ● Basel ● Zürich Strategic Uses of U.S. Reexamination Proceedings – Strengthen Your Market Position and Avoid U.S.
February 19, Recent Changes and Developments in USPTO Practice Prepared by: Office of Patent Legal Administration (OPLA) Robert J. Spar, DirectorJoni.
2 23,503 hours in FY 2013, compared with 21,273 hours in FY ,651 interview hours in FY 13 have been charged through the AFCP program. Interview.
Remy Yucel Director, CRU (571) Central Reexamination Unit and the AIA.
LITIGATION COSTS IN CIVIL AND ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDINGS IN ENVIRONMENTAL MATTERS AND PRINCIPLE OF OBJECTIVE INVESTIGATION MARTA OŠLEJA LEGAL DEPARTMENT,
Impact of US AIA: What Really Changed? 1 © AIPLA 2015.
Procedural Safeguards. Purpose Guarantee parents both an opportunity for meaningful input into all decisions affecting their child’s education and the.
Post-Grant & Inter Partes Review Procedures Presented to AIPPI, Italy February 10, 2012 By Joerg-Uwe Szipl Griffin & Szipl, P.C.
Appeals in patent examination and opposition in Germany Karin Friehe Judge, Federal Patent Court, Munich, Germany.
The FPP Test What you (or your students) need to know Flight Training Division Presentation AIA Aviation Week Conference July 2011.
Doc.: IEEE /1129r1 Submission July 2006 Harry Worstell, AT&TSlide 1 Appeal Tutorial Notice: This document has been prepared to assist IEEE
1 Workshop on the Directive 96/61/EC concerning (IPPC) Integrated pollution prevention and control INFRA Public participation & access to environmental.
1 United States Patent and Trademark Office PTA Post Wyeth USPTO OPLA - Kery A. Fries PTA Post Wyeth Wyeth v. Kappos (Fed. Cir. Jan. 7, 2010 )
Reexamination at the USPTO Robert A. Clarke Deputy Director Office of Patent Legal Administration USPTO Robert A. Clarke Deputy Director Office of Patent.
1 1 AIPLA Firm Logo American Intellectual Property Law Association The Presumption of Patent Validity in the U.S. Tom Engellenner AIPLA Presentation to.
Challenges Associated With, And Strategies For, U.S. Patent Litigation Russell E. Levine, P.C. Kirkland & Ellis LLP LES Asia.
3 rd Party Participation Bennett Celsa TC 1600 QAS.
© COPYRIGHT DICKSTEIN SHAPIRO LLP. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. Post Grant Proceedings Before the USPTO and Litigation Strategies Under the AIA Panelists:David.
The New Tool for Patent Defendants - Inter Partes Review Daniel W. McDonald George C. Lewis, P.E. Merchant & Gould, P.C. April 16, 2014 © 2014 Merchant.
QualityDefinition.PPACMeeting AdlerDraft 1 1 Improving the Quality of Patents Marc Adler PPAC meeting June 18, 2009.
Chris Fildes FILDES & OUTLAND, P.C. IP Practice in Japan Committee Pre-Meeting AIPLA Annual Meeting, October 20, 2015 USPTO PILOT PROGRAMS 1 © AIPLA 2015.
Oppositions, Appeals and Oral Proceedings at the EPO Michael Williams.
Derivation Proceedings Gene Quinn Patent Attorney IPWatchdog.com March 27 th, 2012.
Prosecution Group Luncheon Patent October PTO News Backlog of applications continues to decrease –623,000 now, decreasing about 5,000/ month –Expected.
Patent Reexamination: Best Practices for Pursuing and Defending Parallel Reexamination and Litigation.
Overview of the FTC’s 2003 Proposed Reforms to U.S. Patent Law David W. Hill.
1 1 AIPLA 1 1 American Intellectual Property Law Association USPTO Post-Grant Procedures and Effective Use of Reissue AIPLA IP Practice in Japan Committee.
Residential Funding Corp. v. DeGeorge Financial Corp., 306 F.3d 99 (2d. Cir. 2002).
PTAB Litigation 2016 Part 6 – Patent Owner Response 1.
The Court System Chapter 5. Courts  Trial Courts- two parties Plaintiff- in civil trial is the person bringing the legal action Prosecutor- in criminal.
Recent Developments in Obtaining and Enforcing Intellectual Property Rights in Nanocomposites Michael P. Dilworth February 28, 2012.
PTAB Litigation 2016 Part 3 – The Patent Owner Preliminary Response 1.
PTAB Litigation 2016 Part 11 – Bio/Pharma Issues 1.
Charles University – Law Faculty October 2012 © Peter Kolker 2012 Class III
Inter Partes Review and District Court
PTABLitigationBlog.com: PTAB Popularity and Reasons
PTAB Litigation 2016 Part 12 – PTAB Popularity and Reasons
POST Grant RevieW UPDATES
PATENT LAW TRENDS (walking around patent knowledge)
PTAB Bootcamp: Nuts and Bolts of IPRs, PGRs, and CBMs
Proposed ISRS 4400 (Revised)
Update and Practical Considerations
Appeal Tutorial Date: Authors: July 2006 Month Year
Presentation transcript:

PTO’s Proposals Regarding Amendments Permitted During Reexamination (A6/A7) Nancy J. Linck, Esq. Rothwell, Figg, Ernst & Manbeck June 1, 2011

2 Proposed Timing of Amendments (A6) Limited to the earlier of (1) Patent Owner’s optional statement; or (2) Patent Owner’s response to FOAM

3 Significant Challenge: The Statute “[R]eexamination will be conducted according to the procedures established for initial examination.... In any reexamination proceeding..., the patent owner will be permitted to propose any amendment to his patent and a new claim or claims thereto in order to distinguish the invention from the prior art..., or in response to a decision adverse to the patentability of a claim of a patent.” 35 U.S.C. §§ 305 (EPR) & 314 (IPR)

4 Other Challenges with Timing Proposal Issues are not yet crystallized because of the PTO’s handling of the SNQ order and FOAM. Thus, Patent Owners must submit extensive new claims to protect themselves from as-yet undefined positions the PTO may take. Permitting later amendments (and addition of new claims) would decrease the number of amendments and new claims significantly.

5 Amendments Prior to FOAM Even less supportable would be requiring the patent owner to submit all its amendments and new claims prior to a FOAM. No support in the statutory scheme – in fact, the procedure would be contrary to statute – in that it requires reexamination to be “conducted according to the procedures established for initial examination.”

6 Alternative Approach PTO should require examiners to do an independent evaluation of the request (read the references and independently determine whether all proposed SNQs are viable). Fewer requests would be granted and fewer SNQs would be adopted, thereby focusing the issues to be addressed. Fewer claim amendments and fewer new claims would be needed. The result would be fairer and may ultimately be faster.

7 Proposed Limitation on Entry of Claim Amendments (A7) “Claim amendments will not be entered unless accompanied by a statement explaining how the proposed new claim language renders the claims patentable in light of an SNQ” Suggested support: In re Freeman, 30 F.3d 1459 (Fed. Cir. 1994)

8 Significant Challenge (again): The Statute “[R]eexamination will be conducted according to the procedures established for initial examination.... In any reexamination proceeding..., the patent owner will be permitted to propose any amendment to his patent and a new claim or claims thereto in order to distinguish the invention from the prior art..., or in response to a decision adverse to the patentability of a claim of a patent.” 35 U.S.C. §§ 305 (EPR) & 314 (IPR).

9 In re Freeman First: The statute controls. Second: Freeman just doesn’t support the proposal (it’s dicta taken out of context). Only two holdings in Freeman: – Cannot obtain broadened claims in reexam (by statute) – Issue preclusion prevented the patentee from arguing a different claim construction than that given by the district court.

10 The Fairness Aspect Reexam must not only be fast and efficient – it must be fair. The patent is in reexam because the PTO failed to do its job initially; that failure deprived the patent holder the opportunity to obtain a valid patent during initial examination, including through amendment and addition of new claims. Further, in most reexams, the patent holder has invested substantial funds based on the assumption the PTO did its job in the first instance. How can it be fair to now limit a patentee’s opportunity to amend the claims and add new claims, as he or she could have done during initial examination?

11 Alternative Approach Again, PTO should critically assess the strength of the request before ordering reexam – not just adopt the requestor’s SNQs. Since a determination of no SNQ is not appealable, eliminating SNQs (including duplicative SNQs up front) will cut the PTO’s reexam workload. Limit the number of pages per request to make the PTO’s task manageable in a reasonable time. Conduct reexam just as initial exam to satisfy the statute. Don’t make speed that be-all and end-all goal. Fairness must also be considered.

12 Wrap-up Remark The PTO has a huge challenge with reexamination, particularly IPR. The statutory scheme, if fairly administered, cannot provide a fast and efficient alternative to district court litigation. My dream of such an alternative cannot be fulfilled. Thank you for trying. Please prove me wrong.