Patent Law Practice Center

Invention details need not be public to be prior art under AIA

The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit recently issued a major decision interpreting provisions of the America Invents Act (AIA), specifically the AIA on-sale bar provisions. In Helsinn Healthcare S.A. v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., the Federal Circuit panel of Judges Dyk, Mayer and O’Malley determined: “after the AIA, if the existence of the sale is public, the details of the invention need not be publicly disclosed in the terms of sale” for the sale to be invalidating. In so reaching this ruling, the Federal Circuit has largely done away with the belief that the AIA created some kind of “safe harbor” for sales that did not disclose the details of the claimed invention.

After first determining that a sale had occurred, the Federal Circuit turned to the language of the statute and the legislative history of the AIA. “We next address whether the AIA changed the meaning of the on-sale bar under 35 U.S.C. § 102 so that there was no qualifying sale as to the ‘219 patent,” Judge Dyke wrote.

(more…)

Modern patent practice is all about prior art

The patent process can be expensive, so the last thing you want to do is spend a lot of money preparing and filing an application when there is “knock-out” prior art easily found that will prevent a patent, or at least make any patent that is obtained extremely narrow. For this reason, many choose to begin the patent process with a patent search. Proceeding without a search is particularly problematic today given the likelihood that any valuable patent will be challenged in a post grant proceeding at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Getting rights you have confidence in has to be the name of the game.

Challenging patents in post grant proceeding also requires a competent, thorough search too, for many obvious reasons and at least one not-so-obvious reason. When a challenger seeks to take out claims to a patent, the current rules are significantly slanted in favor of the challenger and against the patent owner. The challenger does not really need to take out all the claims to a patent in post grant. Instead, you may opt to find the best prior art available and focus on a limited number of truly vulnerable claims (of which there are typically several to choose). Put all your attention on those vulnerable claims, get those claims declared invalid, and then circle back with a reexamination request where the burden will then be shifted to the patent applicant.

(more…)

CAFC: Pre-AIA 102(g)(2) Captures Reduction in US on Invention Conceived in Russia

On February 12, 2014, the Federal Circuit issued its decision in Solvay S.A. v. Honeywell International. In this case, Solvay S.A. appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit from a judgment of the United States District Court for the District of Delaware in favor of defendant Honeywell International. The district court held that asserted claim 1 of Solvay’s U.S. Patent No. 6,730,817 was invalid under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 102(g)(2). The question at the heart of this appeal, as dictated by the specific factual scenario, was whether an invention conceived by a foreign inventor and reduced to practice in the United States qualifies as prior art under § 102(g)(2). This was the operative question because engineers working at the Russian Scientific Center for Applied Chemistry (“RSCAC”) first conceived the invention, which was reduced to practice in this country by Honeywell personnel pursuant to the RSCAC’s instructions, and they did not abandon, suppress, or conceal it.

At trial, Honeywell argued that the invention was conceived by Russian inventors outside the United States and reduced to practice in the United States by Honeywell personnel following the Russian inventors’ instructions before the ’817 patent’s priority date. As a result, Honeywell argued, the invention qualifies as §102(g)(2) prior art. A jury ultimately determined that, as required by § 102(g)(2), the Russian Scientific Center for Applied Chemistry did disclose the invention of claim 1 in the 1994 Russian patent application, which means that they did not abandon, suppress, or conceal the invention. Based on the jury verdict, the district court entered judgment for Honeywell, finding asserted claim 1 invalid under § 102(g)(2).

(more…)

Register Now for “Prior Art, Obviousness, and the America Invents Act in 2012”

Patent reform has arrived: what will be its impact on those touchstones of patentability, prior art and obviousness?  102 was already a complicated concept for patent practitioners, having undergone evolving interpretations in the PTO and CAFC.  How will the AIA now complicate matters further?  How does the concept of “prior art” and circumstance collide in the 21st century? How does prior art on the web impact the practice? What is truly enabled?

On June 4, 2012, PLI is hosting a seminar entitled, “Prior Art, Obviousness, and the America Invents Act in 2012.” This program will allow you to obtain an essential working understanding of this complicated statute, including recent re-interpretations, case law, and explore the statutory revisions.  Meanwhile, obviousness, the most common reason any application is rejected or patent held invalid, is changing as a result of KSR (already 5 years old). Explore 103 from inside and outside the PTO as both the CAFC and PTO try to shoehorn their past decisions into a KSR pigeonhole!

The program is geared to patent lawyers who have some familiarity with existing 35 USC Sections 102/103 and regularly work with the statute in either litigation or patent prosecution. The course will advance the knowledge of all attendees from their respective starting points and provide new insights into the statute, recent amendments, and case law. Seminar attendance includes course handbook and associated course materials. A downloadable course handbook will also be available several days prior to the program start for your review.

Don’t hesitate! Register for Prior Art, Obviousness, and the America Invents Act in 2012 here.

Crowd-Sourcing for Prior Art

A recent Wall Street Journal article takes a look at the latest application of crowd-sourcing, this time within the patent industry. As the patent wars rage on, tech companies are soliciting help from the public to crowd-source evidence of prior art. Such evidence is used in patent infringement litigation to invalidate the patents these tech companies are allegedly infringing. The article highlights Article One Partners LLC, a New York-based company hired by major tech-companies to conduct research or prior art in hopes of invalidating the underlying patent.

Here is an excerpt from the Wall Street Journal article entitled, Tech Firms Crowd-Source to Fight Suits, which can be read in full here.

Article One, a New York-based company founded 3½ years ago, opened its Silicon Valley office last August in Palo Alto and has benefited as patent suits have proliferated in the region. With tech companies chasing hot technologies like smartphones and social networking, rivals are increasingly looking to settle their differences in court. Article One says its largest concentration of clients—some 15%—are in Silicon Valley.

Overall, about three-quarters of Article One’s cases are related to high-tech. The site currently features studies seeking prior art on technologies ranging from virtual keyboards to digital payments. Clients pay about $25,000 a study, or they pay varying annual subscription fees. The amount includes the awards for the people who find the best research.