We think you have liked this presentation. If you wish to download it, please recommend it to your friends in any social system. Share buttons are a little bit lower. Thank you!
Presentation is loading. Please wait.
Published byLuke Roberts
Modified about 1 year ago
© Kolisch Hartwell 2013 All Rights Reserved, Page 1 America Invents Act (AIA) Implementation in 2012 Peter D. Sabido Intellectual Property Attorney Kolisch Hartwell, P.C. February 15, 2013
© Kolisch Hartwell 2013 All Rights Reserved, Page 2 Overview Inventor’s Oath or Declaration Citation of Written Statements in Patent File Inter Partes Review Post-Grant Review Third Party Submission of Prior Art Supplemental Examination Transitional Program for Covered Business Method Patents Priority Examination for Important Technologies
© Kolisch Hartwell 2013 All Rights Reserved, Page 3 Inventor’s Oath or Declaration (§ 4) Assignee can be the applicant Still need inventor’s oath or declaration Assignments can be used Must include required oath or declaration statements Postponement of filing of oath or declaration Until application is otherwise in condition for allowance Substitute statement in lieu of oath or declaration Defective oath or declaration is curable Patent not invalid or unenforceable if cured
© Kolisch Hartwell 2013 All Rights Reserved, Page 4 Citation of Written Statements in Patent File (§ 6) For issued patents Any person may file a written submission with: Prior art consisting of patents or printed publications Statements of patent owner filed by the patent owner in a proceeding regarding claim scope Statements must identify: Forum and proceeding in which patent owner filed statement Specific papers submitted that contain the statements How each statement is a statement regarding claim scope Explanation required Pertinence and manner of applying to at least one claim
© Kolisch Hartwell 2013 All Rights Reserved, Page 5 Post Grant Review (§ 6) May be filed starting September 16, 2012 Only business method patents and patents involved in interferences Can file for any patent as of March 16, 2013 Various statutory ground(s) based on: Patents and printed publications Other factual evidence and expert opinions Must be filed: Before filing a civil action challenging validity of patent Within nine months of the patent grant
© Kolisch Hartwell 2013 All Rights Reserved, Page 6 Post Grant Review (§ 6) [contd.] Granted if: “More likely than not” that at least one of challenged claims is unpatentable Raises a “novel or unsettled legal question” that is important to other patents or patent applications Subsequent civil action challenging validity of patent automatically stayed until: Patent owner moves court to lift stay Patent owner files action or counterclaims for infringement Petitioner moves court to dismiss action No stay of motion for preliminary injunction Infringement action filed within 3 months of patent grant date
© Kolisch Hartwell 2013 All Rights Reserved, Page 7 Post Grant Review (§ 6) [contd.] Estoppel with respect to any ground raised or reasonably could have raised: USPTO proceeding Civil action ITC proceeding No estoppel if settled before decision on merits Patent owner may file motion to amend patent: Can cancel, amend, or substitute claims Cannot enlarge scope or add new matter Petitioner may appeal written final decision to the Federal Circuit
© Kolisch Hartwell 2013 All Rights Reserved, Page 8 Inter Partes Review (§ 6) Replaces existing Inter Partes Reexamination Procedure Available for all patents 35 U.S.C. § 102 or § 103 grounds based on patents and printed publications Must be filed: Before filing a civil action challenging validity of patent Within one year of being served with infringement complaint After later of nine months after grant date or termination of post- grant review Granted with “reasonable likelihood” that the third party will prevail
© Kolisch Hartwell 2013 All Rights Reserved, Page 9 Inter Partes Review (§ 6) [contd.] Same automatic stay as post grant review Same estoppel as post grant review Patent owner may file motion to amend patent Petitioner may appeal written final decision to the Federal Circuit
© Kolisch Hartwell 2013 All Rights Reserved, Page 10 Third Party Submission of Prior Art (§ 8) Filed for pending patent applications Documents: Patents Published patent applications Other printed publications Explanation of relevancy Must be filed prior to earlier of: Notice of allowance Later of six months after publication date or the date of a first Office action on the merits No service requirement
© Kolisch Hartwell 2013 All Rights Reserved, Page 11 Supplemental Examination (§ 12) For patent owner after patent has issued Filed at any time during enforceability period of patent Any information in writing “believed to be relevant to the patent” Limit of twelve items per request Ex parte reexamination ordered if “substantial new question of patentability” Proceed under ex parte reexamination procedures Except for patent owner statement
© Kolisch Hartwell 2013 All Rights Reserved, Page 12 Supplemental Examination (§ 12) [contd.] Effect Patent not unenforceable on basis of conduct relating to information if information was considered, reconsidered, or corrected during supplemental examination Exceptions Prior allegations in civil action or FDCA notice Defense in patent enforcement actions o Unless supplemental examination (and any reexamination ordered) concluded before action brought
© Kolisch Hartwell 2013 All Rights Reserved, Page 13 Covered Business Method Patents (§ 18) Specific post-grant reviewing proceeding Covered business method patents: Method or apparatus that performs data processing or other operations used in practice, administration, or management of a financial product or service Does not include patents for “technological inventions” May be requested only if sued for patent infringement Various statutory grounds based on published and non- published evidence Estoppel only in other USPTO proceedings Program expires on September 16, 2020
© Kolisch Hartwell 2013 All Rights Reserved, Page 14 Priority Exam for Important Technologies (§ 25) Prioritization of examination of applications for products, processes, or technologies that are important to the national economy or national competitiveness As of February 5, 2013, the USPTO has not released any information regarding implementation
© Kolisch Hartwell 2013 All Rights Reserved, Page 15 Peter D. Sabido Intellectual Property Attorney Kolisch Hartwell, P.C. 520 SW Yamhill Street, Suite 200 Portland, Oregon (503) 224–6655
By David W. Hill AIPLA Immediate Past President Partner Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP Overview of the America Invents Act.
1 1 1 AIPLA Firm Logo American Intellectual Property Law Association Experience and Issues After the AIA Two Years Later AIPLA IP Practice in Europe Committee.
© 2011 Smith Moore Leatherwood LLP. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. Changes in the U.S. Patent System Smith Moore Leatherwood LLP 525 N. Tryon St., Suite 1400, Charlotte,
© 2011 Patterson Thuente Christensen Pedersen, P.A., May be distributed with attribution - DISCLAIMER: This presentation and.
1 The Promise of Reexamination: Fulfilled or Fizzled? 2011 AIPLA Annual Meeting Washington, D.C. September 22, 2011 Marc Hubbard Gardere Wynne Sewell,
Disclaimer: The information provided by the USPTO is meant as an educational resource only and should not be construed as legal advice or written law.
March 21, 2012 Charles L. Leeck Keith H. Heidmann 1.
Claims and Continuations Final Rule For users of assistive technology, additional information about visual elements within the presentation is provided.
William Boshnick Greenblum & Bernstein, P.L.C. AIA Prior art under U.S.C. §102 (a) AIA Prior art exception under U.S.C. §102(b)(1)(B) & §102(b)(2)(B) and.
© 2010 Banner & Witcoff, Ltd. 1 Obtaining US Patents and Avoiding IP Disputes John P. Iwanicki, Esq.
Rules of Practice Before the BPAI in Ex Parte Appeals BPAI Ex Parte Appeals Rules Effective January 23, 2012 BPAI Ex Parte Appeals Rules Effective January.
Speeding It Up at the USPTO July 2013 July 23, 2013.
Preparing for Changes in the Treatment of US Patents Chinh H. Pham Greenberg Traurig Thomas A. Turano K&L Gates MassMedic March 6, 2008.
September 10, 2010 Hà Thị Nguyệt Thu (NOIP) Well-known trademark protection Reference to the Japanese experience.
1 NEW PRE-APPEAL BRIEF CONFERENCE PRACTICE OVERVIEW & TIPS FOR PRACTICE November Off. Gaz. Pat. Office, Vol. 2 (July 12, 2005)
By: Pooria Gill Ph.D. of Nanobiotechnology
A Statewide Training for Public Officials on Alabamas Revised Open Meetings Law Sunshine Law.
America Invents Act What to Expect from Patent Reform.
1 New Patent Office Rules. 2 Overview Introduction to Rules Examples of Rule Scenarios Best Practices and Suggestions.
© 2009 Sterne, Kessler, Goldstein, & Fox P.L.L.C. All Rights Reserved. Reexamination and Concurrent Patent Litigation: The Most Significant Development.
Indianapolis Bar Association: Year in Review Patent Law and Practice Chuck Schmal Sponsored by the Intellectual Property Law Section.
PATENT A patent is: a grant of a limited time monopoly by the State to an inventor to use, sell, distribute, license his invention in return of its full.
A Non-IP Lawyers Guide to Intellectual Property Fraser Clemens Martin & Miller LLC Patent, Trademark, Copyright & Intellectual Property Counsel Perrysburg,
Indianapolis Bar Association: 2008 Year in Review Patent Law and Practice Chuck Schmal Sponsored by the Intellectual Property Law Section.
March Technical Documentation License Agreement (Standard) READ THIS! This is a legal agreement between Microsoft Corporation (“Microsoft”) and.
WISCONSIN HOUSING ALLIANCE Builder Continuing Education Training: Lien Law Presented By: Saul C. Glazer Axley Brynelson, LLP.
Nationalizing PCT Applications in the US Which is Better, 371 Route or Bypass CON Route? 371 Nationalization v. Bypass Continuation Lets get ready to…
Refugee Appeal Division Refugee Appeal Division Navigating the Sea of Change Refugee Lawyers Group CLE February 8, 2013.
© 2016 SlidePlayer.com Inc. All rights reserved.