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.

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.
ADDMG CLE 10/12 Chris Regan. Improve Patent Quality and Reduce Litigation Burdens  The challenge options  Paper submissions  PTO trials  Basic mechanics.
© 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.
Joint Meeting of PIPLA and NJIPLA February 7, 2012 Kenneth N. Nigon RatnerPrestia 1.
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.
© COPYRIGHT DICKSTEIN SHAPIRO LLP. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. The Leahy-Smith America Invents Act: Changes to United States Patent Law and Practice Steven.
Director’s Meeting Legislation and Case Law Update by Dave Risley July 29, 2011.
What Do In-House Counsel Need to Know? AIA Proceedings Molly Kocialski, Senior Patent Counsel, Oracle Dion Messer, General Counsel - IP, Limelight Networks.
Greg Gardella Patent Reexamination: Effective Strategy for Litigating Infringement Claims Best Practices for Pursuing and Defending Parallel Proceedings.
Speeding It Up at the USPTO July 2013 July 23, 2013.
Post-Issuance Proceedings Under the AIA Thomas F. Cotter Briggs and Morgan Professor of Law University of Minnesota Law School.
Administrative Trials
America Invents Act (AIA) Changes in Patent Law That Impact Companies May Mowzoon: Mowzoon Law Office, PLLC 1.
1 1 AIPLA Firm Logo 1 AIPLA Firm Logo American Intellectual Property Law Association CURRENT TRENDS/EFFECTS OF AIA on US Patent Practice at the US Patent.
© 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
HOW WILL THE AMERICA INVENTS ACT (AIA) CHANGE THE WAY WE PROTECT AMERICAN IMAGINEERING? Michael A. Guiliana April 24, 2012 Disney’s Grand Californian Hotel.
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.
AIA Strategies.
A Comparative Analysis of Patent Post-Grant Review Procedures in the U
IP Gespräche 2009 Frankfurt ● Karlsruhe ● Basel ● Zürich Strategic Uses of U.S. Reexamination Proceedings – Strengthen Your Market Position and Avoid U.S.
PRESENTATION TITLE 1 America Invents Act: Creating “Rocket Docket” Patent Trials in the Patent Office.
America Invents The Patent Reform Act of 2011 March 29, 2011.
Anthony Venturino MILANO 10 February 2012 SELECTED PROVISIONS OF THE LEAHY Smith AMERICA INVENTS ACT OF 2011 AIPPI - AIPLA 1 © AIPLA
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,
Impact of US AIA: What Really Changed? 1 © AIPLA 2015.
1 Patent Law in the Age of IoT The Landscape Has Shifted. Are You Prepared? 1 Jeffrey A. Miller, Esq.
2011 US Patent Law Reform & A Global Prosecution Strategy by Lowe Hauptman Ham & Berner LLP Suite Diagonal St Alexandria VA Tel. (703)
1 1 AIPLA Firm Logo American Intellectual Property Law Association Update on Inter Partes Disputes and the PTAB _____ John B. Pegram Fish & Richardson.
Wolf, Greenfield & Sacks, P.C. | 600 Atlantic Avenue | Boston, Massachusetts | | fax | wolfgreenfield.com Life Under AIA:
Christopher J. Fildes Fildes & Outland, P.C. Derivation Proceedings and Prior User Rights.
The America Invents Act Patent Reform in 2011 Presented by Justin Leonard.
1 1 AIPLA Firm Logo American Intellectual Property Law Association EMERGING TRENDS IN INTER PARTES REVIEW PRACTICE TOM ENGELLENNER Pepper Hamilton, LLP.
Post Grant Challenges: Strategy and Considerations after the America Invents Act of 2011 IP Law & Management Institute November 7, 2011 Justin J. Oliver.
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.
1 1 AIPLA Firm Logo American Intellectual Property Law Association The Presumption of Patent Validity in the U.S. Tom Engellenner AIPLA Presentation to.
1 1 AIPLA Firm Logo American Intellectual Property Law Association Interplay between Litigation and the AIA __________ An Overview John B. Pegram Fish.
Challenges Associated With, And Strategies For, U.S. Patent Litigation Russell E. Levine, P.C. Kirkland & Ellis LLP LES Asia.
America Invents Act. FITZPATRICK, CELLA, HARPER & SCINTO © 2011 | 2 First-to-File  U.S. will switch to a first-inventor-to-file.
© COPYRIGHT DICKSTEIN SHAPIRO LLP. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. Post Grant Proceedings Before the USPTO and Litigation Strategies Under the AIA Panelists:David.
America Invents Act  Date of enactment: 9/16/11  First-to-file provisions effective 18 months after enactment – March 16, 2013  Applications filed on.
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.
TOM ENGELLENNER Pepper Hamilton, LLP IP in Japan Committee Meeting AIPLA Annual Meeting, Washington D.C. October, 2015 USPTO Rule Changes and IPR Procedures.
Peter C. Schechter Vice-Chair, AIPPI-US Div. of AIPLA Partner, Osha Liang LLP Post-Issuance Review Proceedings: Update & Trends in IPR & PGR 1 © AIPLA.
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:
T HE L EAHY -S MITH A MERICA I NVENTS A CT The Toledo Intellectual Property Law Association Presented By: November 16, 2011.
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.
PTAB Litigation 2016 Part 6 – Patent Owner Response 1.
Presentation at Biotechnology/ Chemical/Pharmaceutical Customer Partnership Program Partnership Program March 15, 2005 POST-GRANT REVIEW: A COMPARISON.
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.
Omer/LES International/
Inter Partes Review and District Court
PTAB Litigation 2016 Part 1 – PTAB Basics and Procedure
PTAB Litigation 2016 Part 12 – PTAB Popularity and Reasons
Patent Practice in View Of PTAB AIA Proceedings
POST Grant RevieW UPDATES
CBM/PGR Differences Differences in time periods of availability, parties who have standing, grounds of challenge available, standards of review, and.
PTAB Bootcamp: Nuts and Bolts of IPRs, PGRs, and CBMs
James Toupin POST-GRANT REVIEW: A COMPARISON OF USPTO
Presentation transcript:

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 & R OONEY PC 1737 King Street, Suite 500 Alexandria, VA September 25, 2012

The New  Post-grant review (“PGR”)  Inter partes review (“IPR”)  Derivation proceedings  Supplemental examination BIPC.COM 1

The Old  Reissue  Ex parte Reexamination  Interferences/Derivation proceedings (claims having an effective filing date prior to March 16, 2013) BIPC.COM 2

The No Longer  Inter Partes Reexamination (eliminated September 16, 2012)  Interferences (claims having an effective filing date on or after March 16, 2013) BIPC.COM 3

Know the Law BIPC.COM  Understanding Options for Post Grant Review Starts with Knowing the Law □Some options apply only to cases filed on or after March 16, 2013 □Other Options apply to all cases □Old Law/New Law—What standard applies? 4

New Prior Art Provisions Apply to Applications and Patents BIPC.COM  Applies to any application for patent, and to any patent issuing thereon □That contains or that contained at any time a claim to invention that has an effective date on or after March 16,

New Prior Art Provisions Apply to Applications and Patents Claiming Priority BIPC.COM  A specific reference under 120, 121 or 365(c) of Title 35 to any patent or application □That contains or that contained at any time a claim to an invention that has an effective date on or after March 16,

Filing Strategies  Informal survey suggests filing new applications prior to March 16, 2013  Most common reasons □AIA expands available prior art to include foreign applications as of filing date in foreign country □AIA expands on sale bar to activities in foreign countries □AIA removes swear behind options □AIA subjects claims to PGR (IPR available for all claims) BIPC.COM 7

POST-GRANT REVIEW (PGR) 8

Post-Grant Review (PGR) Procedure BIPC.COM 9

Post-Grant Review (PGR) THRESHOLD  More likely than not that at least one challenged claim is unpatentable PTO BRANCH  Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) IDENTIFICATION OF REAL PARTY IN INTEREST  All Real Parties in Interest must be identified ESTOPPEL  After final PTAB decision, the Real Party in Interest (RPI) is estopped from challenging its patent in the USPTO, ITC, or District Court on ANY ground that the RPI raised or could have reasonably raised during PGR BIPC.COM 10

Post-Grant Review (PGR) WHO CAN INITIATE?  Third Party QUALIFICATION*  Any patent having a claim with an effective filing date on or after March 16, 2013 TIMING  Within 9 months after issuance of patent or reissue GROUNDS FOR FILING  Any ground except failure to comply with best mode requirement *Business Method Patents BIPC.COM 11

Post-Grant Review (PGR) PTO FILING FEES  $35,800 Petition Fee (for up to 20 claims)  $800 for each claim in excess of 20 APPEALS COURT  Federal Circuit SETTLEMENT  Yes BIPC.COM 12

Post-Grant Review (PGR) BIPC.COM 13 PGR Petition can only be filed within 9 months of issue date of patent or reissue.

Interim Procedures for Business Method Patents WHO CAN INITIATE?  Third Party sued or charged with infringement QUALIFICATION  Only “a covered business method patent” TIMING  Only between September 16, 2012 and September 16, 2020 GROUNDS FOR FILING  §§ 102/103 based on patents and publications BIPC.COM 14

BIPC.COM INTER PARTES REVIEW (IPR) 15

Inter Partes Review (IPR) Procedure BIPC.COM 16

Inter Partes Review (IPR) WHO CAN INITIATE?  Third Party QUALIFICATION  Any patent TIMING  The later of 9 months after issuance of patent or reissue OR  After termination of Post-Grant Review GROUNDS FOR FILING  §§ 102/103 based on patents and publications BIPC.COM 17

Inter Partes Review (IPR) THRESHOLD  A reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least one challenged claim IDENTIFICATION OF REAL PARTY IN INTEREST  All Real Parties in Interest must be identified ESTOPPEL  After final PTAB decision, the Real Party in Interest (RPI) is estopped from challenging its patent in the USPTO, ITC, or District Court on ANY ground that the RPI raised or could have reasonably raised during IPR BIPC.COM 18

Inter Partes Review (IPR) PTO FILING FEES  $27,200 Petition Fee (for up to 20 claims)  $600 for each claim in excess of 20 APPEALS COURT  Federal Circuit SETTLEMENT  Yes BIPC.COM 19

Inter Partes Review (IPR) BIPC.COM 20 IPR Petition can only be filed 9 months after issue date of patent or reissue OR termination of PGR, whichever is later.

Inter Partes Review (IPR) BIPC.COM 21 IPR Petition must be filed within 1 year of service of Complaint alleging infringement. IPR Petition may not be filed if a civil action challenging the validity of a claim is filed.

Compare With Litigation  Burden of Proof □Preponderance of Evidence vs. Clear and Convincing Evidence  Claim Construction □Broadest Reasonable Construction vs. Construction That Upholds Validity (file history estoppel)  Decision Maker □Technically Trained and Familiar With Patent Law vs. Judge/Jury  Timing □One Year (with short extension) vs. Multiple Years  Cost □Tens of Thousands Up to Several Million vs. Several Million and Up  Discovery □Limited vs. Broad BIPC.COM 22

Compare With Reexamination  Burden of Proof □Preponderance of Evidence  Claim Construction □Broadest Reasonable Construction  Decision Maker □Panel of Three APJs vs. Examiner  Timing □One Year (with short extension) vs. Multiple Years  Cost □Tens of Thousands Up to Several Million vs. Tens of Thousands  Participation □Full vs. Limited BIPC.COM 23

PGR/IPR Relationship to Civil Action  PRG/IPR barred by previously filed civil action □PRG/IPR Petitions barred if petitioner has already filed a civil action challenging validity of a claim of the patent □IPR Petition barred if filed more than one year after being served with complaint  Counterclaims □Do not constitute a civil action challenging the validity of a claim BIPC.COM 24

PGR/IPR Relationship to Civil Action  Civil action stayed by PRG/IPR □Civil action filed after PRG/IPR Petition is automatically stayed until: A.Patent owner moves court to lift stay; B.Patent owner files a civil action or counterclaim alleging petitioner has infringed the patent; or C.Petitioner moves the court to dismiss the action. BIPC.COM 25

Preliminary Injunctions  If a civil action alleging infringement of a patent is filed within 3 months after the date on which the patent is granted, the court may not stay its consideration of the patent owner’s motion for a preliminary injunction on the basis of PRG. BIPC.COM 26

BIPC.COM SUPPLEMENTAL EXAMINATION 27

Supplemental Examination WHO CAN INITIATE?  Patent Owner QUALIFICATION  Any patent OR  Any information believed to be relevant to the patent (Declarations, public sale before critical date, submission of litigation papers, incorrect entity status claimed) TIMING  Before patent expires GROUNDS FOR FILING  Any information relevant to patentability BIPC.COM 28

Supplemental Examination THRESHOLD  Substantial new question of patentability ESTOPPEL  Patent is prevented from being held unenforceable in a court proceeding on the basis of conduct relating to information that had not been considered or was incorrect, if submitted or corrected during Supplemental Examination BIPC.COM 29

Supplemental Examination PTO FILING FEE  $5,140 EFFECT OF CONCURRENT PROCEEDING  Patent is not unenforceable on basis of information that was considered, reconsidered or corrected during Supplemental Examination APPEALS COURT  Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) BIPC.COM 30

Summary BIPC.COM 31 ProceedingApplicabilityEffective Date TimingThresholdEstoppelPossibility of Settlement ReissuePatent owners to correct errors in their patents HistoricBefore patent expiration date N/A Inter Partes Reexam Any third party to challenge patentability based on patents and publications 11/29/ /15/2012 Before patent expires or 6 months after expiration SNQ before 09/16/2011 or after IF reasonable likelihood that petitioner would prevail on at least 1 claim Any ground raised or could have been raised during reexamination N/A Ex Parte Reexam Any person to challenge patentability based on patents and publications HistoricBefore patent expires or 6 months after expiration SNQNoneNo Inter Partes Review Third party to challenge patentability based on patents and publications 09/16/20129 months after issuance of patent or reissue OR after termination of PGR Reasonable likelihood that petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 claim Any ground raised or could have been reasonably raised during IPR Yes

Summary BIPC.COM 32 ProceedingApplicabilityEffective Date TimingThresholdEstoppelPossibility of Settlement Post-Grant Review Third party to challenge patentability on any ground except failure to comply with best mode requirement 09/16/2012Within 9 months after issuance of patent or reissue More likely than not that at least 1 challenged claim is unpatentable Any ground raised or could have been reasonably raised during PGR Yes Supplemental Examination Patent owner to submit information relevant to patentability 09/16/2012Before patent expires SNQNoneN/A PGR for business method patents Third party to challenge patentability on patents and publications (requires petitioner to be sued for or charged with infringement of covered business method patent) 09/16/ /16/2020 Before patent expiration More likely than not that at least 1 challenged claim is unpatentable Any ground raised or could have been reasonably raised during PGR Yes

Summary BIPC.COM 33 ProceedingApplicabilityEffective Date TimingThresholdEstoppelPossibility of Settlement DerivationInventor to challenge patentability of an earlier application by showing that the invention was derived from the inventor of the later application 03/16/2012Within 1 year of publication of a claim to the derived invention Claim same or substantially same invention within 1 year of first publication of claim N/AYes

BIPC.COM Questions? 34