Patent Law Practice Center

Reissue & Reexam Live Blog: Ethical Considerations

The last panel of the day – Ethical Considerations in Reissues and Reexaminations. The panel includes Gerald Murphy, Jr., Partner at Birch Stewart Kolasch & Birch and Practice Center Contributor, and Barbara Mullin of Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld.  Here are some highlights from the panel:

• Reissue and Reexam overlap where the error is overly broad claiming in view of prior art.  If patentee becomes aware of prior art that does not invalidate the claims but does raise a substantial new question of patentability and there are no other errors in the patent that render it wholly or partly inoperative or invalid, only option is ex parte reexam.  If patentee can identify another error in addition to new prior art, Reissue becomes available. 
• Both Reissue and Reexam can give rise to charges of inequitable conduct.
• Patents being reissued and reexamined may present unique issues because: they are often very important, the amount of available “information” potentially material to patentability might be much greater than the information available during the original prosecution, and/or parallel litigation is not unusual. (more…)

Bilski’s Lessons: Three Months Later

Kenneth W. Brothers, a Partner at Dickstein Shapiro LLP and a presenter at PLI’s upcoming 5th Annual Patent Law Institute, sent in this article he wrote along with Philip G. Hampton, II wherein they discuss what has happened since the Supreme Court’s Bilski decision.  Here is an excerpt and a link to the full article.

After the Supreme Court issued its decision on Bilski v. Kappos, we predicted that much ink would be spilled analyzing the fractured opinions and opaque basis for the majority decision.  While the PTO has issued interim guidelines, since June, only one district court has attempted to apply the Bilski decision and the decision has only been mentioned in two Federal Circuit decisions.

Applying Bilski. The patent bar will devote years deciphering this decision, since the majority decision failed to enunciate either a clear standard for patentability under §101 or clear guidelines for determining what is a valid business method patent.  We expect that lower court decisions likely will fall into three general categories:  (1) adherence to the Federal Circuit’s machine-or-transformation test; (2) seat-of-the-pants determinations of whether the patent-in-suit is directed to abstract; or (3) a genuine attempt to weigh multiple factors to determine patentability. (more…)

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…)

Federal Circuit Keeps Door Open For New Evidence In Section 145 Actions

Jeanne Gills, Partner at Foley & Lardner and Practice Center Contributor, sent along an article she wrote with colleagues, Stephen B. Maebius and Courtenay C. Brinckerhoff discussing the  recent Federal Circuit decision in the Hyatt v. Kappos en banc re-hearing.

On Monday, November 8, 2010, the Federal Circuit issued its decision in the en banc re-hearing of Hyatt v. Kappos (No. 2007-1066)). The en banc Court departed from the August 11, 2009 panel decision and held that a patent applicant may introduce new evidence against the USPTO in a district court action under 35 USC § 145 (“Civil Action to Obtain a Patent”) provided such evidence relates to issues that were raised before the USPTO. This decision will be welcomed by patent applicants who have received negative USPTO decisions on patentability, and reflects the realities—and difficulties—of marshalling evidence during patent prosecution. For additional background on the appeal, see Hyatt v. Kappos: Will a Bad Case Make Bad Law?.

The Panel Decision

After the USPTO Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences affirmed certain rejections of his patent application claims, Mr. Hyatt filed an action in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia under 35 USC § 145. To support his claim for a patent, Mr. Hyatt submitted a declaration to address the rejections. The district court granted the USPTO’s motion to exclude the declaration because Mr. Hyatt had been negligent in not submitting it during the USPTO proceedings. (more…)

What is Prior Art?

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

Unfortunately there is no easy answer to the question of prior art, particularly for those who are new to the patent field. We can start off with the understanding that a particular reference or piece of knowledge will be considered to be prior art that must be overcome by a patent applicant if the patent examiner is legally allowed to use it against the applicant to reject one or more claims in a pending application. Likewise, a reference or piece of knowledge will be prior art if it can legally be used to invalidate one or more claims of an issued patent during litigation.

The trouble with explaining what prior art is stems from the fact that everyone already thinks they know what it is. Conceptually we do not want to issue patents for inventions that are not considered new, which seems fair enough. The trouble is defining what is “new.” For now, let’s just say that prior art must be a reference of some type (i.e., a patent or a printed publication) or some type of knowledge or event (i.e., public knowledge, public use or a sale of a product) that demonstrates that the invention in question is not new. (more…)