Patent Law Practice Center

The Disharmonious Loss Of The Hilmer Doctrine

The following analysis of  the new 35 USC § 102(a)(2) provision in the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act eliminating the Hilmer doctrine and giving prior art effect to U.S. patent applications as of their foreign filing dates comes from Courtenay Brinckerhoff ,writer of PharmaPatents Blog and Partner at Foley & Lardner.

Here is an excerpt from the article originally published on Pharma Patents:

One of the many changes included in the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act relates to the date that a U.S. patent application is effective as prior art. While eliminating the Hilmer doctrine and giving prior art effect to U.S. patent applications as of their foreign priority dates might seem to be a step towards international harmonization, it actually may widen the gulf between the U.S. and the rest of world. (more…)

America Invents: A Simple Guide to Patent Reform, Part 2

Written by Gene Quinn, of IPWatchdog and Practice Center Contributor.

I have done quite a bit of writing about the America Invents Act, but I have been a bit derelict in providing the sequel to America Invents: A Simple Guide to Patent Reform, Part 1. Part of the reason, if not the entirety of the reason, is that the major parts of the American Invents Act that remain are anything but simple.

I was speaking with John White via telephone yesterday about the America Invents Act.  Yes, John and I are thoroughly immersed in this legislation and coming up with wrinkle after wrinkle that you probably never thought about.  Fun I know, but that is what two wild, crazy and tremendously charismatic patent attorneys talk about!  In any event, I told him I was having difficulty and asked him — how do you describe prior user rights, post-grant review and supplemental examination simply?  His response: “You don’t.”  We went on to talk about how first to file isn’t all that simple either, although the name suggests otherwise.  This thing, the monstrosity that is the America Invents Act, will be a full employment act for lawyers!  But when is it ever good for clients when it is good for the attorneys?

In any event, on this note I embark upon Part 2, which will seek to make sense of prior user rights, post-grant review, preissuance submission and patentability changes. This will leave inter partes review, supplemental examination and derivation proceedings for the finale — Part 3.  I will endeavor to describe these in the most straight forward way possible, but I am going to completely punt on Section 18 as it pertains to business methods and post-grant review, at least for now.  I just see no way to explain that in a “simple” way.  Notwithstanding, look for an article on Section 18 soon (a relative term I know), along with an article about specific peculiarities and likely unintended consequences of the Act.

Click here for Gene Quinn’s full article on IPWatchdog.

How Long Will Inter Partes Review Really Take?

Written by Scott McKeown, Partner at Oblon Spivak, Practice Center Contributor and author of Patents Post Grant blog.

Practical Pendency of IPR to be 18-24 Months

In promulgating the new Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceeding as part of the America Invents Act (AIA) Congress hoped to address a major criticism of inter partes patent reexamination (IPX), namely, the significant length of time necessary to conclude these proceedings.

IPX first includes an examination phase handled by patent examiners of the Central Reexamination Unit. Once the examination phase concludes, an IPX may be appealed to the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences (BPAI). Thereafter, an IPX may be further appealed to the CAFC. This three-phase process cannot be navigated quickly. That is to say, IPXs fully contested through CAFC appeal remain pending some 6-8 years from the time of the initial request.

Pendency is an important factor for challengers considering alternatives for quickly resolving a patent dispute. Likewise courts will often cite to the significant delay of IPX as justification to deny a request to stay ongoing litigation proceedings pending a parallel IPX. (more…)

America Invents Act: How the New Law Impacts Your Clients and Your Patent Practice, Part 2

On September   26, 2011, I attended PLI’s program on the America Invents Act via webcast.  For those of you who were lucky enough to attend it, I’m sure you would agree  that the panel of experts delivered an extremely informative and concise program.  As I listened to each speaker deliver his/her presentation, it confirmed that the AIA is a major overhaul of the U.S. patent law.  It’s going to take quite some time for the patent community to really get a handle on all the nuances of the legislation.  With that being said, the program’s esteemed panel did an excellent job breaking down the various provisions in AIA and helping to make sense of  how it pertains to your patent practice.  According to Gene Quinn, of IPWatchdog and Patent Center Contributor, PLI is considering reprising the presentation for an audience at PLI’s New York City location. Keep you posted.

In a previous post, I highlighted the key points from Robert A. Armitage’s, of Eli Lilly and Company, presentation entitled ”A New 102: Reform, Not Recodification”.  Here are highlights from Janet Gongola’s, Patent Reform Coordinator at the USPTO, presentation entitled “USPTO Implementation of the America Invents Act”.

Challenges of Implementation:

1. Numerous provisions to implement simultaneously – need to ensure that regulations and/or guidance is complementary and not at odds
2. Short time periods – date of enactment, 12 months, 18 months
3. Cooridantion required among various USPTO business units as well as other governmental entities: Patents, Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences, Finance
4. Operational matters, for example, IT Updates, training, hiring personnel

Group 1 Rulemakings and Other Actions (60-Day and Under Effective Dates) (more…)

New Inter Partes Review Grounds To Stay Most Patent Litigation?

Written by Scott McKeown, Partner at Oblon Spivak and Practice Center Contributor.

Estoppel Provisions Disfavor Parallel Proceedings

During a  [recent] webinar on post grant USPTO proceedings, I compared the current estoppel provisions of inter partes patent reexamination to that ofInter Partes Review. The Inter PartesReview (IPR) estoppel provisions are similar in some respects to the currentinter partes patent reexamination (IPX) provisions, but differ in significant respects.

In some ways, the new estoppel provisions are designed to address shortcomings of the existing IPX estoppel provisions. For example, whileIPX estoppel does not apply to ITC proceedings, the IPR provisions extend estoppel to ITC proceedings. Additionally, while the IPX provisions use the terminology “raised or could have raised,” the new IPR provisions recite “raised or reasonably could have raised during Inter Partes Review.” Ostensibly, this language softening is designed to provide some slight wiggle room to account for the late found reference in a far away library of Siberia.

Of perhaps much greater interest however is the aspect of IPR estoppel that may compel judges to stay a parallel litigation pending IPR. (more…)