Posts Tagged: "aia"

Earlier today David Kappos, the Director of the USPTO, testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee at the Senate’s first oversight hearing of the America Invents Act. Among other things, Director Kappos noted that the USPTO continues to move forward on AIA implementation, saying that the much anticipated new rules packages to implement the next round of AIA changes will be released on or before August 16, 2012. Kappos also revealed that the USPTO received over 600 comments relative to the location of the additional Satellite Patent Offices called for in the AIA. Kappos told the Senators that he expects to complete that review process and announce the next Satellite location something this summer. Kappos also discussed patent harmonization, Track One, the Patent Prosecution Highway, the new pro bono program and more.

The amend to the rules of practice in patent cases is for the purpose of implementing the micro entity provision of the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (AIA). If an applicant qualifies as a micro entity, then the applicant is eligible to pay reduced patent fees once the USPTO exercises its fee setting authority under the AIA. The fee setting provision in the AIA sets the micro entity discount at 75% of the fees set or adjusted for filing, searching, examining, issuing, appealing, and maintaining patent applications and patents.

Attendees agreed that it’s critical for companies to gain greater leverage to deter nuisance lawsuits and manage costs by reducing the cost of litigation defense. According to those surveyed this is accomplished, at least in part, through the use of joint defense groups (JDGs), where parties engage in shared co-counsel to reduce defense costs. JDGs have been used in approximately two-thirds of all NPE cases, and three-quarters of those surveyed reported working in some capacity with JDGs.

Section 273 uses language that is untested in the court system. Clarity with respect to statutory construction is especially important to those who wish to take advantage of a prior use but will only later find out when tested during litigation that their use does not qualify under the statute. As argued by Sen. Roy Blunt, “assurances are all the more important for U.S. companies in the biotechnology field with extraordinarily long lead times for commercialization of its products.” [2] Therefore the scope of protection and reliance upon the defense is concerning to those who might enjoy this defense which may lead to a detrimental reliance on the part of those would be prior users.

How this will philosophically change things remains unclear because the America Invents Act requires that the petition filed to institute a derivation proceeding demonstrate that the claimed invention in the subject application or patent was derived from an inventor named in the petitioner’s application without authorization. The Patent Office has also recognized the similarity between derivation proceedings and interference practice, saying: “Petitions to institute derivation proceedings, while distinct from interference practice, raise similar issues to those that may be raised in interferences in a motion for judgment on priority of invention. Currently, motions for judgment on priority of invention, including issues such as conception, corroboration…” See 77 Fed. Reg. 7035 (10 February 2012).

Ray Niro is a nationally recognized trial attorney specializing in the enforcement of patent, trade secret and related intellectual property rights. The name Niro, however, is not like any other in the patent industry. It was as a consequence of a lawsuit one of his clients brought against Intel in 2001 that the term “patent troll” was coined. On March 12, 2012, Niro went on the record with me in an exclusive interview. We discussed many things, including the nearly constant attempts to erode patent rights, make it more difficult for patent owners to seek redress for infringement and what the America Invents Act will mean for patent litigation moving forward. We also discussed the undeniable reality that there are bad actors in the industry.

Prior user rights also implicate free rider problems with respect to a subsequent patent that an inventor obtains covering the subject matter of the secret prior user. At the point of publication the prior user no longer maintains a trade secret. At the point of issuance, the patentee and the prior user relatively co-exist with each other in the market. The patentee excludes others from the market except for the prior user. The prior user then enjoys the benefits and advantages associated with the patentee excluding others from operating in the market, while being free from liability to the patentee. In this regard, the prior user enjoys the period of time operating the technology in secret in addition to 20 years of excluding others provided by the competitor.

However, if prior users are keeping their technology secret while being protected, that leap-frogging from one breakthrough to the next be impeded. Disclosure is the backbone of the progression of the sciences for this reason. “[T]he ultimate goal of the patent system is to bring new designs and technologies into the public domain through disclosure.” Bonito Boats v. Thunder Craft Boats, 489 U.S. 141, 151 (1989). Sharing ideas allows others to improve upon the state of the art and as a result, better products such as medicine and consumer electronics are brought to market thereby driving our economy and benefiting the welfare of the U.S. as a whole. Prior user rights, on the other hand, will inhibit this progression.

The troubling news starts with the fact that a technical amendments bill to the America Invents Act (AIA) that is working its way around Capitol Hill, and in true government by ambush fashion it could work its way into a bill at any time! What is the big deal about technical amendments? The problem is that not all of the amendments will be “technical.” For example, there is a plot afoot to change the estoppel provisions in the AIA relative to post-grant review and inter partes review. In my opinion there would have been absolutely no chance that the America Invents Act would have passed if the estoppel provisions for post-grant review only applied to issues actually raised.

The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) has proposed a consolidated set of rules related to trial practice before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. The proposed rules implement the provisions of the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act relating to inter partes review, post-grant review, the transitional program for covered business method patents, and derivation proceedings.

Under the America Invents Act (AIA), the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), for the first time in its history, was given the authority to work with IP stakeholders to set fees through the regulatory process. The agency took a first step towards that end this week when it published proposed fees for all of the patent services it provides.

The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) is proposing rules of practice in patent cases to implement the supplemental examination provisions of the America Invents Act. The USPTO is also proposing to adjust the fee for filing a request for ex parte reexamination and to set a fee for petitions filed in ex parte and inter partes reexamination proceedings to more accurately reflect the cost of these processes. The USPTO published these proposed rules in the Federal Register on January 25, 2012.

Therefore, returning to my hypothetical inquiry above, assume a continuation is filed on or after March 13, 2013, but is accomplished in such a manner so that its does not qualify to be treated as a patent application under current law. This means, as a consequence, that if, for example, the parent application when originally filed relied upon the one year grace period or if someone else files a patent application describing the subject matter of the invention before the filing of the parent application (but otherwise was not the “first to invent”), the claims of the continuation will be rendered unpatentable. Furthermore, since it would have been possible to file the continuation in a manner so that current law continued to apply even after March 13, 2013, one might imagine that a patent prosecutor in this situation may be subject to liability and/or perhaps a bar complaint. If I now have your attention, continue reading, because this situation can take place much more easily than I certainly would have imagined.

On September 17, 2011, I attended the Signing of the America Invents Act at Thomas Jefferson High School for Science and Technology. A young lady named Rebecca Hyndman, who is a senior at the high school, introduced President Obama, which took place immediately prior to his signing the Act into law. Rebecca was chosen for this honor because at the age of just 14 she acquired a patent for her own innovation. Recently, I ran into her father, Kelly Hyndman, at another IP event. While discussing the AIA signing ceremony, I asked Mr. Hyndman if he would mind my interviewing his daughter for our blog. With his blessing I conducted the following Interview.