Inter Partes Reexamination Option- Rules to Implement AIPA PROCEDURE BEFORE APPEAL Right of Appeal Notice- 1.953 (Final Office action) Examiner reopens.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Final Office Action Practice
Advertisements

Inter Partes Reexamination Appeals
1 Patent Infringement Litigation Before the U.S. International Trade Commission By Timothy DeWitt 24IP Law Group USA 12 E. Lake Dr. Annapolis, MD
The Examination Process
1 NEW PRE-APPEAL BRIEF CONFERENCE PRACTICE OVERVIEW & TIPS FOR PRACTICE November Off. Gaz. Pat. Office, Vol. 2 (July 12, 2005)
Rules of Practice Before the BPAI in Ex Parte Appeals
By David W. Hill AIPLA Immediate Past President Partner Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP Overview of the America Invents Act.
Webinar: Request for Comments on AIA Trial Proceedings Before the PTAB July 29, Scott Boalick, Vice Chief Judge (Acting) Patent Trial and Appeal.
Ex Parte (EP) and Inter Partes (IP) Proceedings Fiscal Years Statistical Data Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
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.
© Kolisch Hartwell 2013 All Rights Reserved, Page 1 America Invents Act (AIA) Implementation in 2012 Peter D. Sabido Intellectual Property Attorney Kolisch.
Update on USPTO Activities November 18, 2014 Drew Hirshfeld Deputy Commissioner for Patent Examination Policy 1.
Representative Rejections (two minor suggestions) Matthew A. Smith Foley & Lardner LLP at the United States Patent & Trademark Office.
ARGUING YOUR APPEAL BEFORE A PANEL OF THE BPAI IN AN INTER PARTES REEXAMINATION Kevin F. Turner Administrative Patent Judge Board of Patent Appeals & Interferences.
PROSECUTION APPEALS Presented at: Webb & Co. Rehovot, Israel Date: February 14, 2013 Presented by: Roy D. Gross Associate St. Onge Steward Johnston & Reens.
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.
Robert M. Hansen The Marbury Law Group PLLC AIPLA Practical Patent Prosecution Training for New Lawyers August 2009Alexandria, VA Issuance, Term, Certificates.
Appeal Practice Before Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences
Filing Compliant Reexam Requests Andy Kashnikow SPE, Central Reexamination Unit Andy Kashnikow SPE, Central Reexamination Unit June, 2010.
Appellate Procedure and Petition Practice By: Michael A. Leonard II.
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)
Appeal Practice Refresher Office of Patent Training.
A Comparative Analysis of Patent Post-Grant Review Procedures in the U
PRESENTATION TITLE 1 America Invents Act: Creating “Rocket Docket” Patent Trials in the Patent Office.
September 14, Final Rule Making on Practice Before the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences (BPAI) Robert Spar Director of the Office of Patent.
February 19, Recent Changes and Developments in USPTO Practice Prepared by: Office of Patent Legal Administration (OPLA) Robert J. Spar, DirectorJoni.
Ch. 12 The Supreme Court. Petitions Stage: by what Routes can Cases Reach the Supreme Court? 1)Petition for Writ of Certiorari – most common Supreme Court.
BCP Partnership Meeting March 15, Jeffrey V. Nase and Richard Torczon Administrative Patent Judges
1 New USPTO Patent Rules Implemented from 7/1/2003 to 1/20/2004 and Corresponding Treaty and Statutory Changes, and Some Judicial Developments on Claim.
Remy Yucel Director, CRU (571) Central Reexamination Unit and the AIA.
Post-Grant Proceedings Under The America Invents Act Los Angeles Intellectual Property Law Association “Washington in the West” Conference January 29,
November 29, Global Intellectual Property Academy Advanced Patents Program Kery Fries, Senior Legal Advisor Mark Polutta, Senior Legal Advisor Office.
1 1 AIPLA Firm Logo American Intellectual Property Law Association EMERGING TRENDS IN INTER PARTES REVIEW PRACTICE TOM ENGELLENNER Pepper Hamilton, LLP.
PATENT OPPOSITION AND STRATEGY Essenese Obhan, Obhan & Associates.
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.
Practice Before the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences.
Yoshiki KITANO JPAA International Activities Center AIPLA Annual Meeting, 2014 IP Practice in Japan Committee Pre-Meeting Seminar Post-Grant Opposition.
1 Rules of Practice Before the BPAI in Ex Parte Appeals 73 Fed. Reg (June 10, 2008) Effective December 10, Fed. Reg (June 10, 2008)
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.
© 2005 by Thomson Delmar Learning. All Rights Reserved.1 CALIFORNIA CIVIL LITIGATION APPEALS.
Patent Prosecution May PCT- RCE Zombie 371 National Stage PCT Applications –Not Allowed to file an RCE until signed inventor oath/declaration is.
New Ex Parte Appeal Rules Patent and Trademark Practice Group Meeting January 26, 2012.
© COPYRIGHT DICKSTEIN SHAPIRO LLP. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. Post Grant Proceedings Before the USPTO and Litigation Strategies Under the AIA Panelists:David.
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.
CHAPTER 2 BEFORE YOU BEGIN. The Bluebook Rule 8 Capitalize “court” when referring to the United States Supreme Court.
Takeo Nasu JPAA International Activities Center AIPLA 2015 Mid-Winter Institute IP Practice in Japan Committee Pre-Meeting Seminar Updates of Post Grant.
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.
Andrew B. Freistein Wenderoth, Lind & Ponack, L.L.P. Learning the ABC’s of Patent Term Adjustment 1 © AIPLA 2015.
Report to the AIPLA’s IP Practice in Japan Committee January 22, 2012 USPTO Appeal Process: Appeal Strategies and New Rules Presented by: Stephen S. Wentsler.
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.
PTAB Litigation 2016 Part 9 – Final Written Decision and Appeal 1.
1 TOPIC III - PATENT INVALIDATION PROCEDURES EU-CHINA WORKSHOP ON THE CHINESE PATENT LAW HARBIN, SEPTEMBER 2008 Dr. Gillian Davies.
Recent Developments in Obtaining and Enforcing Intellectual Property Rights in Nanocomposites Michael P. Dilworth February 28, 2012.
Inter Partes Review and District Court
PTAB Litigation 2016 Part 12 – PTAB Popularity and Reasons
USPTO Appeal Process: Appeal Strategies and New Rules
PTAB Bootcamp: Nuts and Bolts of IPRs, PGRs, and CBMs
Ex-Parte’s are Most Appealing!
Overview of Legal Process in IP Cases
SAS Institute v. Iancu SAS appeals arguing § 318 requires deciding patentability of all claims challenged ComlimentSoft sues SAS for patent infringement.
Overview of Legal Process in IP Cases
The Other 66 Percent: Appeals Before the PTAB
Presentation transcript:

Inter Partes Reexamination Option- Rules to Implement AIPA PROCEDURE BEFORE APPEAL Right of Appeal Notice (Final Office action) Examiner reopens prosecution Request for Reexamination filed Substantial N ew Q uestion ? PR may petition Commissioner to review whether substantial new question rd Party comments (30 days) Pat. owner may respond to Office action (2 months) ResponseNo Response Reexamination ordered and Initial office action issued Examiner issues action. Is it an action closing prosecution ? Yes No ; reexam is denied Action does not close prosecution Pat. Owner comments/amendment (a) 3rd Party Responding comments (b) (30 days) Action closes prosecution; sets time for response Y Petition Granted Petition Denied Reexam. Terminated Ken Schor 1/18/01 Slide 1a Examiner considers comments N No Response

Inter Partes Reexamination Option- Rules to Implement AIPA APPEAL PROCEDURE Single Third Party Requester Right of Appeal Notice [sets time for response 30 days/one month] Either or both parties may file a Notice of Appeal (a) If a party does not file a notice of appeal and his/her opponent does, the party may file a Notice of Cross Appeal (14 days after service of opponent’s Notice of Appeal) (b) Examiner’s Answer 1.963(c) & If examiner changes position on any rejection or finding of patentability, prosecution must be reopened No change in examiner’s position If 3PR files a notice of appeal or cross appeal, 3PR brief is due 2 months from last-filed notice of appeal or cross appeal (a) & PR appellant may file rebuttal brief within 1 month of Examiners Answer If patent owner files notice of appeal or cross appeal, patent owner brief is due 2 months from last-filed notice of appeal or cross appeal (a) & PR respondent brief is due 1 month from service of patent owner brief (b) & Patent owner respondent brief is due 1 month from service of 3PR brief (b) & Patent Owner appellant may file rebuttal brief within 1 month of Examiner’s Answer Ken Schor 8/7/00 Slide 2 hocha10.ppt

Inter Partes Reexamination Option- Rules to Implement AIPA Post-Decision Flow Chart Patent Owner amendment and/or showing (b)(1) Opposing Comments (b) Patent Owner Appeal to Federal Circuit (a) 3rd Party comments (c) Pat. Owner comments Patent Owner Reply 3rd Party comments Examiner’s Determination 1.977(d) 3rd Party Reply (e) Options Pat. Owner Appeal Patent Owner Appeal to Federal Circuit 1.983(a) Y Board Decision 1.977(f) Patent Owner or 3rd Party Request for Rehearing (a) or (c) Board Decision-1.979(c) Is the 1.979(c) Bd. Decision, in effect, a new Bd decision? N Board Decision (a) -affirm and/or reverse (b) -new ground of rejection Ken Schor 8/1/00 Slide 3 hocha10.ppt