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…)

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

On Monday, 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, Monday’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 the meantime, here are some highlights from Robert A. Armitage’s, of Eli Lilly and Company, presentation entitled “A New 102: Reform, Not Recodification”….

-AIA leaves only a 4-prong set of requirements for patentability-

  1. Sufficient differentiation from prior public disclosures and earlier patent filings of others.
  2. Sufficient disclosure to identify the claimed embodiments and to enable them to be put to a specific, practical, and substantial use.
  3. Sufficient definiteness to differentiate subject matter claimed from subject matter that is not.
  4. Sufficient concreteness to avoid excessively conceptual or otherwise abstract subject matter. (more…)

America Invents: A Simple Guide to Patent Reform, Part 1

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

[Yesterday] I spoke at the Practising Law Institute program on the America Invents Act. We had a good turnout in the room and an excellent turnout via webcast. The program was 4 hours long, and truthfully we could have gone on for at least several more hours without running out of material. For those who stayed online we ran long by about 20 minutes, and stayed talking with attendees and answering questions of live attendees for another 20 minutes. We are already talking about reprising the presentation for an audience at PLI’s New York City location on Seventh Avenue, so stay tuned.

There will be plenty of time to drill down on the particulars of the America Invents Act. The Act is dense, language choices from section to section in some places change and in other places remains the same, making you suspect that different terms must mean different things but the same term in different places has to mean the same thing, right? Our moderator, Denise Kettelberger (Faegre & Benson) said that patent attorneys should really read the Act about 10 times, which is really good advice.  Every time you read it you notice something a little different, and during the presentation of others today I found myself taking notes and looking up things in the Act with new understandings.  This is a major re-write of patent laws and not one that is at all simple.

Click here for the full IPWatchdog.

 

Senate Passes House Patent Reform Bill (H.R. 1249)-President Now Expected to Sign!

The United States Senate passed the America Invents Act on September 8, 2011 by a vote of 89-9.  The bill will now be forwarded on to the White House for President Obama’s signature, upon which the law is officially enacted. Our friends at Foley & Lardner sent in this article highlighting key changes to the U.S. patent system that will be brought about by the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act.

On September 8, 2011, by a vote of 89-9, the Senate approved the House version of the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (H.R. 1249), leaving only President Obama’s signature as the final step to make patent reform a reality (he has already stated he is ready to sign this bill). Prior to the final vote, the Senate voted to reject or table all amendments, avoiding the need to send the bill back to the House for consideration. This vote means that the final text of the new law is that found in H.R. 1249 as passed by the House on June 23, 2011. Further information on the Act can be found at Foley.com/patentreform.

The Leahy-Smith America Invents Act makes the most sweeping changes to U.S. patent law in many decades, including moving the U.S. towards a first-to-file system, expanding prior user rights as a defense to infringement, eliminating interference proceedings, and creating new USPTO proceedings for post-grant review. While many provisions of the law will not take effect for at least one year after the date of enactment, several key provisions have an immediate effect, and many provisions will have a retroactive effect after their phase-in. (See Foley’s PharmaPatentsBlog for a more detailed review of different effective dates). (more…)

Recent Developments and Potential Changes in the Litigation of False Marking Claims Under 35 U.S.C. § 292

 Our friends at Fenwick & West sent in this alert discussing the recent developments in False Marking law and what the impact of these changes may be on the body of law. 

 A number of notable developments in Patent False Marking law over the last month indicate that courts and legislators continue to focus on clarifying the reach of the law. Suits brought under U.S.C. Section 292, the False Marking Statute, provide penalties against any person that marks an “unpatented article” with any word or number indicating that the article is patented with the intent to deceive the public. This provision permits enforcement via qui tam actions, whereby any person, not merely one who has been harmed, may sue on the behalf of the government and claim half of the award. 

False marking suits became more attractive after the Federal Circuit’s December 2009 decision in Forest Group Inc. v. Bon Tool Co., 590 F.3d 1295 (Fed. Cir. 2009), which held that penalties in false marking actions must be imposed on a per article basis. The statute provides that such penalties amount to “not more than $500 for every such offense,” so the new rule had the potential to lead to hefty fines for mass-produced articles. It has been estimated that over 800 false marking cases have been filed since December 2009. (more…)