Posts in Government

In going from the current “first to invent” to the new “first to file” regime mandated by the America Invents Act (AIA), much attention has been focused on the amorphous “grace period” provision provided to patent applicants for certain activities undertaken by them prior to filing for a U.S. patent. Much less attention was paid to the amendments made to sections 203(c)(2) and 203(c)(3) of the Bayh-Dole compliance obligations which were directly impacted by this change in definition from the old “statutory bar” provision (based on publication, on sale, or public use of the invention caused by the patent applicant), to this new “grace period” provision. But even more astounding (and unsettling) are the unrecognized consequences caused by the AIA in “realistically” meeting certain Bayh-Dole compliance obligations by going from the current “first to invent” to the new “first to file” regime.

This week marks the first anniversary of the Supreme Court issuing its decision in Bilski v. Kappos. The decision held that the machine-or-transformation test is not the exclusive test for patent eligibility, and that the three traditional exclusions of natural phenomena, abstract ideas, and laws of nature still apply. The summary of cases prepared by Attorneys Holoubek and Sterne is excellent! It is absolutely must reading for attorneys prosecuting and litigating in this space.

United States House of Representatives passed H.R. 1249, which is known as the America Invents Act by a vote of 304-117. This bill differs from the Senate version of patent reform, S. 23, so there will be no bill going to the desk of President Obama just yet. There are important differences between the two bills, chief among them is funding for the United States Patent and Trademark Office.

Shortly after 2pm Eastern Time the United States House of Representatives voted on the Managers Amendment to the America Invents Act, H.R. 1249. The Managers Amendment passed by a vote of 283 – 140. The House then proceeded to address several amendments to H.R. 1249. The handwriting seems to be on the wall. The House is poised to pass H.R. 1249, together with prior user rights and without giving the United States Patent and Trademark Office access to the fees it collects without the blessing and approval of appropriators.

Obviously, Congressman Rogers is not being completely straight forward. The funds that exceed the appropriation to the USPTO would be available for use by the USPTO if and only if that is consistent with grants by appropriators. That is a far cry from saying the USPTO would get to keep 100% of the user fees it receives. Of course, this would not be the first time that Congressman Rogers was less than completely accurate regarding PTO funding.

General Electric was not the only large U.S. corporation not to pay taxes. According to Citizens for Tax Justice, General Electric had some company. In fact, American Electric Power, Dupont, Verizon, Boeing, Wells Fargo, FedEx and Honeywell all had tax rates between -0.7 percent and -9.2 percent for the stretch between 2008 to 2010. On the other hand, the United States Patent and Trademark Office continues to have user funds siphoned off, making the USPTO a much larger taxpayer than the largest U.S. corporations.

The United States Patent and Trademark Office has just announced the expansion of the PCT-PPH pilot program with the Korean Intellectual Property Office (KIPO), as well as two new PPH pilot programs; a new pilot project for the Patent Prosecution Highway with the Nordic Patent Institute (NPI) based on NPI’s Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT) work products and a new pilot project for the Patent Prosecution Highway (PPH) with the Israel Patent Office (ILPO).

The reality is that from 1790 to 1836 patents were given to the first to file. Between 1836 and 1870 a panel of arbitrators would decide disputes between conflicting patents and patent applications, but were not required to grant the patent to the first and true inventor. Moreover, even with the passage of the Patent Act of 1870, the first act that specifically and unambiguously gives the Patent Office the authority to grant a patent to one who is not the first to file, the power to grant to the first to invent is conditional, not mandatory. This permissive language persists through the Patent Act of 1939, and ultimately into the regime we have today, which was ushered in by the 1952 Patent Act.

Despite the fact that Congressmen Ryan and Rogers would like this to be about the Obama Administration, the fact is that Senator Tom Coburn (R-OK) is the one who championed the amendment in the Senate that would give the Patent Office the ability to keep the fees it collects. Senator Coburn is known as “Senator No” for his staunch fiscally conservative stance on virtually all issues. So if you are willing to let facts influence your viewpoint there is absolutely no way that Patent Office funding within proposed patent reform can be an issue upon which Republicans can beat up Democrats. It was a leading fiscally conservative Republican in the Senate who brought the USPTO funding issue out of obscurity and to the top of the agenda.

What I can report is that the USPTO did, in fact, meet the April 12, 2011, deadline and the newly testable material is being tested as advertised. The USPTO is also continuing to update the exam through a rigorous process of writing, vetting, and testing new questions. In addition to covering long-standing areas of patent practice, questions are being added to the database that are directed to new and emerging trends in the law and evolving rules of procedure. The subject matter covered by the exam as a whole will continue to test rules, laws and regulations that have been in existence for years, but will also increasingly include questions testing the changes.

The ink is hardly dry on the Supreme Court decision in Stanford v. Roche and already those who oppose patent reform are concocting one of the most ridiculous arguments I have ever seen to oppose first to file provisions. There are some, including at least one Member of Congress, that have started saying that the Supreme Court’s decision in Stanford v. Roche makes it clear that the first to file provisions of patent reform are unconstitutional. Just sit right back and allow me to explain to you exactly why that is perhaps the most specious argument I have ever heard.

So why would large companies be such supporters of first to file? What if first to file was the Trojan Horse that carried prior user rights? Prior user rights will not benefit the individual or the small business. Prior user rights unambiguously will benefit the large corporations who innovate and then shelf technology for one reason or another, or those who exploit the technology in secret. Perhaps they choose not to pursue a patent because it isn’t perceived to be a meaningful innovation, or worth the cost and time of pursuing a patent. Perhaps the innovation gets weeded out along the way, never getting green-lighted past a certain point. These trade secrets today are not prior art thanks to 102(g). Remove 102(g) and insert a prior user rights regime and all those secrets that large companies hide, fail to pursue or willfully keep from the public will allow them to ignore the patent rights of those who innovate and actually disseminate that information to the public.

The effort to shoehorn foreign patent priority concepts and torture a well-developed 200 year-old American patent system that has a proven record as the best in the world into foreign structures that are inconsistent with the American Constitution and its laws is a futile effort that would likely be met with successful challenge on constitutional grounds. The illusory “harmonization” goal with no demonstrated tangible benefits compared to the existing system does not justify embarking on a risky legal adventure that will destabilize the American patent system and will doom it to decades of economically taxing legal uncertainty.

Today the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) announced that it is carefully studying the important en banc decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in the case of Therasense v. Becton, Dickinson to assess how it may impact agency practices and procedures. The agency also announced that it expects to soon issue guidance to applicants related to the prior art and information they must disclose to the Office in view of Therasense.

Judge Rader wrote: “Left unfettered, the inequitable conduct doctrine has plagued not only the courts but also the entire patent system.” Chief Judge Rader would go on to say that materiality is a “but-for” test, and actually breathed real life into the intent requirement, saying: “Proving that the applicant knew of a reference, should have known of its materiality, and decided not to submit it to the PTO does not prove specific intent to deceive.” The Federal Circuit did decline to adopt the USPTO version of the duty of candor outlined in Rule 56, which I have advocated for, instead opting for an even better, more patentee friendly standard than I myself have advocated for over the years. Today is a good day no doubt. Intent now actually requires intent, and a reference must actually be material in order to satisfy the materiality requirement. What a radical concept!