Patent Law Practice Center

Supplemental Examinations to Consider, Reconsider, or Correct Patent-Related Information

The following article was sent in by Lisa A. Dolak , an Angela S. Cooney Professor of Law, Syracuse University College of Law and Practice Center Contributor.

A recent legislative proposal would authorize the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) to undertake a “supplemental examination” of an issued patent to “consider, reconsider, or correct information believed to be relevant to the patent.”  It would further bar the federal courts from holding a patent unenforceable “on the basis of conduct relating to information” considered during supplemental examination.

The obvious intent of the proposal is to constrain the federal courts’ power to entertain inequitable conduct-based challenges.  Its emergence is unsurprising, given the mounting dissatisfaction with the courts’ application of the inequitable conduct doctrine. However, because the bill proposes to provide patent owners a forum for effectively purging the taint associated with undisclosed or misrepresented information, it raises a number of questions, including questions relating to potential disciplinary consequences for practitioners. (more…)

Prosecuting Patent Applications: Establishing Unexpected Results

Today’s guest post was written by Garth M. Dahlen, Ph.D., Partner at Birch, Stewart, Kolasch & Birch, LLP.

The purpose of this article is to provide suggestions on how to effectively make a showing of unexpected results during prosecution before the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office in order to overcome a rejection based on obviousness under 35 U.S.C. §103(a).

I. General Comments

“One way for a patent applicant to rebut a prima facie case of obviousness is to make a showing of ‘unexpected results,’ i.e., to show that the claimed invention exhibits some superior property or advantage that a person of ordinary skill in the relevant art would have found surprising or unexpected. The basic principle behind this rule is straightforward – that which would have been surprising to a person of ordinary skill in a particular art would not have been obvious.” In re Soni, 54 F.3d 746, 750, 34 USPQ2d 1684, 1687 (Fed. Cir. 1995). (more…)

Taking Advantage of the First Action Interview Pilot Program

This post comes from Robert Hulse (Partner at Fenwick & West and Practice Center Contributor)

The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) introduced its “First Action Interview Pilot Program” about two years ago. This program enables patent applicants to conduct an interview with the assigned patent examiner, by phone or in person, before the examiner issues a first office action. In the first office action, the patent examiner either allows the application or identifies grounds to reject the application based on the results of the examiner’s search of the prior art and review of the patent application.

Historically, patent applicants could conduct an interview with the patent examiner after the first office action was issued, but not before this time. With this program, the USPTO has attempted to bring the benefits of the interview earlier in the process by focusing the examiner on relevant aspects of the invention at the beginning of examination and helping the applicant understand the examiner’s interpretation of the patent claims that define the invention. (more…)

There is No Prior Art for My Invention

Written by Gene Quinn (of IPWatchdog and Practice Center Contributor)

I frequently am told by inventors that they have searched the marketplace and cannot find anything like their invention. I am also frequently told that they have done a patent search and cannot find anything that remotely resembles what they have come up with. While there are many reasons for not finding prior art, just because you do not find prior art does not mean that there is no prior art that needs to be considered. In fact, it would be extremely rare (if not completely impossible) for there to be an invention that does not have any relevant prior art.  Said another way, unless you have invented something on the level of an Einstein-type invention there is prior art.  Even the greatest American inventor, Thomas Edison, faced prior art for the vast majority of his inventions.

Prior art is probably best understood as information that can be used by the patent examiner to reject claims in a patent application. This information is most commonly prior publications, such as technical articles, issued patents or published patent applications. It is also possible for prior art to consist of actions, such as a sale within the United States more than 12 months prior to a patent application being filed, or public use in the United States more than 12 months prior to a patent application being file. For more on this see What is Prior Art? (more…)

Microsoft v. i4i: Amici Make Strong Argument for Supreme Court Review of Patent Invalidity Standard

The following post comes from one of our newest Practice Center Contributor’s Clement S. Roberts.  Mr. Roberts is a founding partner at Durie Tangri where his practice focuses on intellectual property litigation and on complex commercial cases with a high-technology component.

A broad spectrum of academics and industry lined up Friday to support Microsoft’s request for Supreme Court review of its ongoing patent litigation against i4i.  In the underlying litigation, i4i won a pile of money on a patent dealing with the idea of separately storing metacodes and text in a markup language document.    While the litigation has an interesting factual history, the issue on appeal is a purely legal one – namely the application of the “clear and convincing evidence” standard to questions of invalidity.

As most people reading this blog already know, in order to invalidate a patent, a defendant must prove that the patent is invalid by “clear and convincing” evidence.  Ostensibly, this rule exists in order to reflect deference to the fact that the patent has been examined and found valid by an expert at the Patent and Trademark Office.    See e.g. American Hoist & Derrick co. v. Sowa & Sons, Inc, 725 F.2d 1350 at 1359 (Fed. Cir. 1984) (taking note of “the deference that is due to a qualified government agency presumed to have properly done its job.”).

Especially when taken together, however, the amicus briefs in Microsoft v. i4i overwhelmingly show that this is an exceptionally bad rule – at least when applied (as it is now) to all questions of invalidity. (more…)