Posts Tagged: "America Invents Act"

The AIA is the tough patent law for the U.S. because of the following reasons: (1) U.S. applicants cannot get benefit of the standard and absolute grace periods on the earliest effective filing date in a foreign countries whereas foreign applicant can get benefit of their own standard grace period (usually six months) and complete benefit of AIA’s standard and absolute grace periods in the U.S. on the earliest effective filing date. (2) U.S. patents claiming foreign priority becomes stronger prior art under AIA §102 (d). (3) Prior art of public use and on sale is now worldwide activity.

While the search for prior art won’t likely be impacted, the value of the prior art located will be dramatically impacted according to Ken Hattori, partner in the Washington, D.C. firm of Westerman, Hattori, Daniels & Adrian, LLP. “US patents with a foreign priority claim will become tremendously stronger as prior art,” says Hattori. “The subject matter disclosed in the US patent has an effectively filed date as priority date since the Hilmer doctrine is eliminated.” This is significant because “there will be no Section 112 requirement for the description of the subject matter disclosed in the foreign specification. Thus, the subject matter in a prior art US patent or application will go back to the foreign filing date as a reference.”

We also know from past history that when the Patent Office first starts to test new material they disproportionately weight it in the database of questions so you are likely to be heavily tested. We anticipate that the newly testable material will generate between 15 to 20 questions on the Patent Bar Exam starting immediately, or nearly immediately. This newly testable information comes on the heels of AIA phase 1 and KSR, Bilski and 112 Guidelines that all started to become tested in April 2011. We anticipate that the newly testable material that has come online since April 2011 will make up approximately one-third of your exam. That is 3o-35 questions.

The PTO, the House and Senate Judiciary Committee staffs, and some segments of the patent community, mainly those that were supporters of the AIA, had drafted a a proposed technical corrections bill. Obviously, if a proposed change is purely technical in nature, there shouldn’t be a lot of trouble passing it, but what is technical and what is not technical can be a rather subjective test. There has been some talk about efforts to change the AIA in ways that would have substantive effect on the law . And it’s those issues that have garnered some attention in recent months. There was some discussion about changing the estoppel standard for the post grant review provisions of the AIA, and there have been some proposals regarding a proposed expansion of prior user rights being kicked around as well. If those are on the table or appear in a technical corrections package, “technical” in quotes, I think it would be difficult to pass such a measure this calendar year. Nevertheless, that doesn’t mean that those who support those changes won’t continue to press for them and try to see them enacted, if not this year maybe next year.

Cooney is a prominent behind the scenes player in Washington, DC. He is a partner in the American Continental Group, a D.C. based consulting and lobbying firm that boasts one of the most prominent IP practice groups in town. Cooney and the American Continental Group were intimately involved in working behind the scenes on the America Invents Act (AIA), as well as the predecessor legislation that was circulating through Congress for years before it ultimately passed. With the anniversary of the passage this month I asked Manus if he would go on the record to talk about his experiences, legislation and lobbying in general, as well as what is on the horizon for the future.

The most significant reform to the U.S. patent system in more than a century took a major step forward at 12:01 am Sunday, as numerous provisions of the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act of 2011 went into effect. The new rules will spur innovation and economic growth by streamlining the patent application process and introducing new procedures to ensure patent quality. Seven reforms to U.S. patent law went into effect one year after the signing of the bipartisan patent reform legislation by President Barack Obama on September 16, 2011.

In order for one to file a statement of the patent owner in Federal court the submissions must: (1) Identify the forum and proceeding in which patent owner filed each statement, and the specific papers and portions of the papers submitted that contain the statements; and (2) explain how each statement is a statement in which patent owner took a position on the scope of any claim in the patent. See Section 1.501(a)(3). The required explanation must include discussion of the pertinence and manner of applying any prior art submitted to at least one claim of the patent. See Section 1.501(a)(b)(1). The explanation may also include discussion of how the claims differ from any prior art submitted or any written statements and accompanying information submitted under paragraph.

At the conclusion of the supplemental examination if the certificate issued indicates that a substantial new question of patentability is raised an ex parte reexamination will be ordered by the USPTO. The resulting ex parte reexamination, which will address each and every substantial new question identified, will substantially be conducted according to the rules and procedures associated with ex parte reexamination. Notwithstanding, there is one very notable exception — the ex parte reexamination is not limited to patents and printed publications. Additionally, a less consequential procedural distinction is that the patent owner will not have the right to file a statement pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 304.

Section 42.405(c) provides that a derivation is not sufficiently shown unless it is supported by substantial evidence. This includes at least one affidavit addressing communication and lack of authorization. Further, the showing of
communication must be corroborated. One open practical question is whether derivation proceedings will be at all useful. How will the inventor alleging derivation be in possession of sufficient evidence to demonstrate communication and lack of authorization? The best evidence of each will be in the hands of the party who is the alleged deriver, not the inventor claiming to be the source of the invention. Moreover, proving a negative (i.e., lack of authorization) may be challenging, as proving a negative can always be.

One of the primary objectives of the America Invents Act (AIA) was to streamline the filing and prosecution of patent applications. Under the AIA, the oath or declaration requirements for applicants have been substantially modified, with assignees now being permitted to apply for patents effective September 16, 2012. Provisions of the AIA (35 USC § 118) allow an assignee, or one to which the inventor is obligated to assign the invention, to make an application for patent. Additionally, a party who has a “sufficient proprietary interest” in the invention may make an application for patent as an agent of the inventor upon “proof of pertinent facts” of such interest.

The recurring theme will be decreased fees for those who qualify for micro-entity status, but increased fees for everyone else. That is great, but micro-entity status will not even apply to all independent inventors, but only a subset of independent inventors who are at the lowest end of the income scale and who have had very few patents or patent applications. Thus, even the professional garage inventor will be a small entity and will pay more — in some cases substantially more — than they pay now. Not to mention the small businesses that are the engine of the U.S. economy. These fees will be a real and substantial impediment to the patent process for those individuals and businesses that we need to be encouraging and incentivizing the most.

The proposed fees are at least 22 percent lower for a routine patent process—i.e., filing, search, examination, publication, and issue fees—than the current fee schedule. The current proposed fees also are lower than those originally proposed by the USPTO in February. The USPTO is opening a 60-day comment period in which the public can provide input on the latest proposal. Following the comment period, the Office will prepare the final fee-setting rule, which would go into effect no less than 45 days after it is published in the Federal Register.

Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and USPTO Director David Kappos will participate in both events, joined by several senior USPTO officials. An in-person roundtable addressing the upcoming shift to a first-inventor-to-file system will be held Thursday, Sept. 6, from 1:30 to 4:30 p.m. at the USPTO headquarters in Alexandria, Va. It is open to the public and will be webcast. A separate webinar will be held Sept. 7 from 12:30 to 1:30 p.m. to discuss all aspects of the AIA.

The U.S. Department of Commerce’s United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) announced today that it will publish final rules in the Federal Register on August 14, 2012, to implement three administrative trial provisions of the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (AIA); inter partes review, post-grant review, and the transitional program for covered business method patents. The administrative trial final rules offer a third party a timely, cost-effective alternative to district court litigation for challenging the patentability of a claimed invention in an issued patent. These rules become effective on September 16, 2012. With this publication, all of the administrative trial rules the USPTO was tasked by the AIA to complete will have been published.

For the international community, however, there is an important change slated for September 16, 2012.  The AIA will changewho is entitled to be an applicant in U.S. national applications. This change will impact applicants who have filed under the Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT).  The change removes the requirement that the inventors be named as applicants solely for the purposes of U.S. designation.