Joint Meeting of PIPLA and NJIPLA February 7, 2012 Kenneth N. Nigon RatnerPrestia 1.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
1 Practical Impact of Recent PCT Changes on US Practice Maria Eliseeva Houston Eliseeva LLP American Intellectual Property Law Association October 15,
Advertisements

AIA Final Rules Power of Attorney March 20, 2013.
AIA Final Rules Submission of Certified Foreign Priority Documents and Translations Under the AIA March 20, 2013.
MELISSA ASFAHANI Patent Attorney El Paso, TX
America Invents Act: Changes to U.S. Patent System
Rule 47 Petitions Beverly Flanagan Supervisory Petitions Examiner (703)
By David W. Hill AIPLA Immediate Past President Partner Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP Overview of the America Invents Act.
ADDMG CLE 10/12 Chris Regan. Improve Patent Quality and Reduce Litigation Burdens  The challenge options  Paper submissions  PTO trials  Basic mechanics.
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.
Michael Neas Supervisor Office of PCT Legal Administration
© Kolisch Hartwell 2013 All Rights Reserved, Page 1 America Invents Act (AIA) Implementation in 2012 Peter D. Sabido Intellectual Property Attorney Kolisch.
Patent Strategy Under the AIA Washington in the West January 29, 2013.
Accelerating Patent Prosecution Thursday, October 18, 2012.
1 1 1 AIPLA Firm Logo American Intellectual Property Law Association UPDATE ON THE AIA And Other Legislation AIPLA IP Practice in Japan April 8, 2014 Alan.
April 24, 2012 Benoît Castel Young & Thompson U.S. Patent Law Reform Summary of H.R. 1249, “Leahy-Smith America Invents Act”
Update on USPTO Activities November 18, 2014 Drew Hirshfeld Deputy Commissioner for Patent Examination Policy 1.
PATENT REFORM University of Rochester KATHRYN DOYLE, Ph.D., J.D. RIVERSIDE LAW, LLP.
Implementing First-Inventor-to-File Provisions of the AIA By: Scott D. Malpede, Seth Boeshore and Chitra Kalyanaraman USPTO Rules Effective March 16, 2013.
What are my child’s rights under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act? Randy Chapman The Legal Center for People with Disabilities and Older.
1 1 1 AIPLA American Intellectual Property Law Association USPTO Updates Including Glossary Pilot Program Chris Fildes Fildes & Outland, P.C. IP Practice.
The America Invents Act (AIA) - Rules and Implications of First to File, Prior Art, and Non-obviousness -
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.
Administrative Trials
America Invents Act (AIA) Changes in Patent Law That Impact Companies May Mowzoon: Mowzoon Law Office, PLLC 1.
Patent Law Under the America Invents Act
CHAGAL - OATH AND POWER OF ATTORNEY 1 The inventor must provide an oath (swearing) or a declaration (acknowledging the penalties of perjury: see.
Filing Compliant Reexam Requests Andy Kashnikow SPE, Central Reexamination Unit Andy Kashnikow SPE, Central Reexamination Unit June, 2010.
© COPYRIGHT DICKSTEIN SHAPIRO LLP. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. The Leahy-Smith America Invents Act: Changes to United States Patent Law and Practice Charles.
AMERICA INVENTS ACT A Look Into The Future
Greg H. Gardella Ex Parte and Inter Partes Reexamination Tactics AIPLA 2010 Winter Institute.
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.
by Eugene Li Summary of Part 3 – Chapters 8, 9, and 10
1 REISSUE OVERVIEW 35 USC Filing Requirements 2. Oaths or Declarations 3. Grounds for Filing 4. Consent 5. Limitations 6. Recapture.
The U.S. Patent System is Changing – A Summary of the New Patent Reform Law.
AIA Strategies.
Information Disclosure Statements
December 8, Changes to Patent Fees Under the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2005 (H.R. 4818)(upon enactment) and 35 U.S.C. 103(c) as Amended by.
Anthony Venturino MILANO 10 February 2012 SELECTED PROVISIONS OF THE LEAHY Smith AMERICA INVENTS ACT OF 2011 AIPPI - AIPLA 1 © AIPLA
Contents of US Patent Applications & Filing Requirements
Remy Yucel Director, CRU (571) Central Reexamination Unit and the AIA.
Impact of US AIA: What Really Changed? 1 © AIPLA 2015.
Who can file? Inventor Assignee of Inventor Legal Representative of Inventor or Assignee.
A Practical Guide For Prosecutors Patent Prosecution Under The AIA William R. Childs, Ph.D., J.D. August 22, 2013.
1 Patent Law in the Age of IoT The Landscape Has Shifted. Are You Prepared? 1 Jeffrey A. Miller, Esq.
Christopher J. Fildes Fildes & Outland, P.C. Derivation Proceedings and Prior User Rights.
Post-Grant & Inter Partes Review Procedures Presented to AIPPI, Italy February 10, 2012 By Joerg-Uwe Szipl Griffin & Szipl, P.C.
1 1 AIPLA Firm Logo American Intellectual Property Law Association Update on AIA Implementation Especially post grant processes Alan J. Kasper AIPLA/JPO.
1 1 AIPLA American Intellectual Property Law Association Updates on the USPTO Chris Fildes AIPLA-JPAA Joint Meeting April 9, 2013.
© 2012 Sterne, Kessler, Goldstein, & Fox P.L.L.C. All Rights Reserved. NPRM Changes to Implement the Inventor’s Oath or Declaration Provisions of the Leahy-Smith.
America Invents Act. FITZPATRICK, CELLA, HARPER & SCINTO © 2011 | 2 First-to-File  U.S. will switch to a first-inventor-to-file.
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.
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.
Derivation Proceedings Gene Quinn Patent Attorney IPWatchdog.com March 27 th, 2012.
Prosecution Group Luncheon September, America Invents Act Passed House and Senate (HR 1249) Presidential Signature expected Friday Most provisions.
Patent Reform Becomes Law: Overview of the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act Presented to the MSBA Computer & Technology Law Section September 13, 2011 By:
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.
Your Rights! An overview of Special Education Laws Presented by: The Individual Needs Department.
Change Orders, Extras and Claims Presented by Geoffrey Cantello, City of Ottawa.
NA, Yanghee International Application Team Korean Intellectual Property Office National Phase of PCT international applications April 26,
Recent Developments in Obtaining and Enforcing Intellectual Property Rights in Nanocomposites Michael P. Dilworth February 28, 2012.
PCT-FILING SYSTEM.
Who can file? Inventor Assignee of Inventor
Pre-Issuance (Third-Party) Submissions
USPTO Appeal Process: Appeal Strategies and New Rules
PATENT LAW TREATY Gena Jones Senior Legal Advisor
Filing of a U.S. Patent Application
Presentation transcript:

Joint Meeting of PIPLA and NJIPLA February 7, 2012 Kenneth N. Nigon RatnerPrestia 1

Overview  10 Year / 1 Year Statute of Limitations for Disciplinary Proceedings  Oaths and Declarations  Supplemental Examination 2

Disciplinary Proceedings  Disciplinary Proceeding Must Be Commenced By The Earlier Of 10 years after the date of the misconduct 1 year after the date on which the misconduct is made known to the PTO  Timeline 3 Complaint Preliminary Screening Practitioner Response Investigate Submit Case to Committee on Discipline 60 Days30 Days 7 Months SOL Begins

Disciplinary Proceedings  Start of Statute of Limitations After Receiving Practitioner’s Response Balances Need for Speedy Resolution Opportunity for Thorough Review  Statute: “1 year after the date on which the misconduct forming the basis for the proceeding is made known to an officer or employee of the Office”  PTO Justifies 90 Day Delay As Needed To Determine If Allegation Has Merit 4

Oath and Declaration  Inventorship Important For Examination Determines prior art Inventorship needs to be established before examination  Power of Attorney Power from a parent application is valid in the child application if no new inventors in child Power granted by inventors is invalid if an inventor is added Power granted by assignee remains valid 5

Oath and Declaration  Inventor Is Deceased Or Incapacitated Essentially the same as current practice No petition for assignee  Inventor Cannot Be Located or Refuses to Sign Essentially the same as current practice Need to prove proprietary interest Need to show that you could not contact the inventor after diligent effort Need to send non-signing inventor a copy of the application papers 6

Oath and Declaration  Changes Assignee or, if necessary to preserve rights, person showing proprietary interest may sign declaration on behalf of non-signing inventor Non-signing inventor who later signs an oath or declaration cannot revoke power of attorney 7

Oath and Declaration  Correction of Inventorship  “No Deceptive Intent” statement no longer required  National Phase Application Same procedures may be used as under rule 48(a) to correct inventorship  Foreign Priority No longer required on Declaration Now required on Application Data Sheet 8

Oath and Declaration  Oath and Declaration No longer need to be “first inventor” Still need to be “original inventor” Name simplified; Citizenship no longer required Statement that inventor has reviewed and understands the application must be true for any child application including CIP’s if copy of declaration is used Declaration statements may be made in an assignment 9

Oath and Declaration  Reissues  Assignee May Sign Declaration  Must Identify Any Broadened Claims New Declaration from Inventors  “No Deceptive Intent” Statement No Longer Required 10

11 Supplemental Examination  Method to Cleanse Patent Supplemental Examination Timeline Supp Exam Request Complete 3 mo Certificate Issued SNQ No SNQ Ex Parte Reexam*

Supplemental Examination  Two Phases  Supplemental Examination Fee - $5,180 + $16,120 = $21,300. If no SNQ $16,120 Will Be Refunded Other Requirements listed in 37 C.F.R. § 1.610(b)(1) – (b)(12) 10 “Items of Information” Detailed explanation of how each Item of Information is relevant to each issue Multiple Requests (Each With a Separate Fee) May Be Filed If More Than 10 Items 12

Supplemental Examination  Items of Information Must Be In Writing Supporting Documents Containing Information Relevant to Examination - Examples Publication Corrected 132 Declaration Statement Concerning § 101 or § 112 Non-English Documents Must Be At Least Partially Translated Documents Longer Than 50 Pages Must Be Summarized 13

Supplemental Examination  Only Patent Owner May File  No Third Party Involvement  No Amendments  No Interviews  Certificate Issued Three Months After Complete Request Is Received  Does Substantial New Question of Patentability (SNQ) Exist? 14

Supplemental Examination  Ex Parte Reexamination if SNQ is found No Patent Owner’s Statement Not Limited to Printed Publications Increased Petition Fees - $1,930 Applies to Ex Parte and Inter Partes Reexams  New Fees for Ex Parte Reexamination Not Associated With Supplemental Examination $17,750 All But $4,320 Refunded if Request is Refused 15

Supplemental Examination  Fraud  If The PTO Becomes Aware of Material Fraud During Supplemental Examination or Ex Parte Reexamination It Shall Refer The Matter To The Attorney General  “Material Fraud” For Purposes of The Statute Is Narrower Than Therasense Inequitable Conduct 16

Supplemental Examination  Fees  Fees set under 37 C.F.R. §41(d)(2) Must be set to recover average cost of service  Also have fee setting authority under §10(d) and (e) of AIA Rules for this authority are not in place  Fees will be reviewed when rules for §10 authority are final 17

Supplemental Examination  Estoppel  Patent Shall Not Be Held Unenforceable For Information Reviewed In Supp Exam and Associated Ex Parte Reexam Proceeding  Two Exceptions Actions under Food, Drug and Cosmetics act brought before Supplemental Examination Defenses in ITC and Patent actions considered in a Supp Exam unless Supp Exam (and Reexam) completed before Action 18

Thank You 19