Posts Tagged: "America Invents Act"

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.

If you believe that prior user rights are insignificant and don’t deserve discussion you have permission to keep your head firmly planted in the sand. Everyone else keep reading. Think of all that will easily be fair game in discovery. The defendant has the burden of proof and controls the evidence. Judges are going to allow liberal discovery, particularly where the evidence is uniquely held by the defendant and cannot otherwise be obtained by the patentee. When things go wrong it will be the lawyers who are at the short end of the pitch-fork. Don’t let that be you!

Many people situated variously within and outside of the patent system of the United States urged the adoption of first-to-file. There are, however, many questions about the scope and possible impact of the AIA. Exactly how it will all play out remains to be seen. A significant question is what will be the likely impact of the AIA upon the operations of the USPTO, an organization that has been so greatly over-burdened in recent times. Anyone interested in reading this is likely old enough to have heard the old saying “Be careful what you wish for – you may get it.” Now we have it.

There are two free webinars this week relative to the America Invents Act to alert you to. Given the enormity of the changes and how every time I read the legislation I seem to find something new, you might want to take time to sign up for both. The first will be hosted by the United States Patent and Trademark Office on Monday, October 31, 2011 beginning at 1:00 pm ET. The second, which will focus specifically on how the AIA will impact your business, is provided by K&L Gates and will be on Thursday, November 3, 2011 from 3:00pm to 4:30 pm ET.

Exactly who is to blame if a pharmaceutical company, say Eli Lilly, decides to invest billions of dollars and build a facility when they haven’t adequately protected their own intellectual property? Moreover, who is to blame if that company consciously chooses to resort to trade secret protection, which we all know is exceptionally fragile, as the foundation to build a multi-billion dollar investment? For crying out loud, the very premise that a patentee could force the closure of a manufacturing facility employing hundreds or thousands of people and interrupt the production and distribution of anything, let alone something as consequential as a pharmaceutical, is nothing more than fantasy. Talk about chicken little! Only someone unfamiliar with the evolution of the law relative to preliminary and permanent injunctions in patent litigation could with a straight face much such an argument. Indeed, the mother of all straw arguments!

Don’t forget that as of the end of the 2011 fiscal year on September 30, 2011, the PTO has a “backfile” of nearly 679,000 patent applications that have not yet been given even a first Office Action. It will take at least 3 to 4 years, likely longer, to resolve all the patent applications currently pending. If you factor in appeals from those cases, continuation applications and requests for continued examination and we are realistically talking about 7 to 8 years for this chunk of applications to work their way through the system, with the inevitable outlier patent application that will take 10+ years thanks to multiple delaying episodes (i.e., chaining RCEs and an appeal together, for example). On top of this, we will still be filing patent applications subject to the old, first to invent system through March 15, 2013. This, as well as reexamination timeline realities (i.e., statute of limitations survives 6 years past a patent falling into the public domain), means that the “old law” will remain relevant to life at the Patent Office for quite some time.

Notwithstanding the inherent unreliability of legislative history and the truly scary prospect of trying to get inside the head of Members of Congress, it seems fairly clear to me that the America Invents Act, which was signed into law by President Obama on September 16, 2012, contains at least a handful of things that can only be characterized as unintended consequences. Among them are: (1) U.S. patents issued from foreign filings will be prior art as of the foreign filing date; (2) commonly owned patent applications cannot be used against each other for novelty purposes; and (3) the creation of an post grant challenge limbo because of the delay in initiating post-grant review procedures.

The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) released two Federal Register Notices on October 7, 2011, seeking written comments and announcing two public hearings for two studies the agency is required to conduct under the America Invents Act. Specifically, Congress is requiring the USPTO to study and report on the availability of prior user rights in foreign countries as well as options to aid small businesses and independent inventors in securing patent protection for their inventions. The USPTO reports for both studies are due in mid-January 2012.

I have done quite a bit of writing about the America Invents Act, but I have been a bit derelict in providing the sequel to America Invents: A Simple Guide to Patent Reform, Part 1. Part of the reason, if not the entirety of the reason, is that the major parts of the American Invents Act that remain are anything but simple. On this note I embark upon Part 2, which will seek to make sense of prior user rights, post-grant review, preissuance submission and patentability changes. This will leave inter partes review, supplemental examination and derivation proceedings for the finale — Part 3.

So what does this AIA “mumbo jumbo” mean in plain English? Well, to me and especially to others who have previously opined on this provision of the AIA, it means you not only don’t blow “novelty” in the U.S. by “publishing” the subject matter of your claimed invention (although you’ll blow “absolute novelty” elsewhere, including Europe, unless you do what I suggest below), but you can essentially “foul the nest” of others that follow after your “published” date. Even better, when you “publish” the subject matter of your claimed invention, you also put a non-patent application “date stake” in the ground as to what you have “published” that is resistant to subsequent intervening “prior art” of third parties when you do file your U.S. application (within a year of that “published” date).

If (B) gives a blanket exclusion to subject matter, which cannot be used as prior art after a disclosure by an inventor, that would lead to nearly ridiculous results. Imagine for example that an inventor discloses a specific embodiment of a coffee cup and then subsequently another who did not derive independently comes up with and discloses a coffee cup with a lid. If (B) does more than relate to a personal grace-period the subsequent disclosure could not be used against the first to publish inventor as prior art because it relates to the same “subject matter.” That would mean that the inventor could incorporate the cup and the lid into his/her patent application and obtain claims. You might be tempted to say that is impossible, but if the cup with the lid is not prior art then under what rationale could an examiner issue a good rejection? This would lead to results that turn the patent system upside down, and was clear evidence to me that those arguing that 102(b)(1)(B) excluded out subsequent independently disclosed inventions was fanciful at best.

There will be plenty of time to drill down on the particulars of the America Invents Act. The Act is dense, language choices from section to section in some places change and in other places remains the same, making you suspect that different terms must mean different things but the same term in different places has to mean the same thing, right? That being said, I thought I might take this opportunity to provide a high level overview of the America Invents Act.  What follows is discussion of 5 provisions contained in the Act.  Look for an overview breakdown of additional provisions (prior user rights, supplemental examination, post-grant review, etc.) coming soon.

It is fair to say that enactment of the AIA is not what most stakeholders championed early on. Many small inventors and innovation companies feel that some of the provisions are not in their best interest. IT would have preferred a bill that did more to change how patents are valued and enforced. Nevertheless, to most stakeholder, the final version of the bill is an improvement over previous versions of patent legislation. When patent reform legislation was first introduced in 2005, its primary objective was to reduce the infringement liability of large technology aggregators by significantly limiting equitable and monetary remedies, restrict venue, and make issued patents far easier to invalidate through post-grant review. In addition, earlier versions of the bill would have given the USPTO unprecedented substantive rulemaking authority and increased the cost and burden of filing a patent application. In combination, these measures would have significantly undermined the enforceability and value of patent rights, while increasing the cost, complexity, and uncertainty of obtaining patents. All of these reforms were advanced by a IT interests set on weakening the ability of small innovators to obtain and enforce patents.