Posts Tagged: "patent prosecution"

In Part I, the authors reviewed the law behind subsequent patent applications. In Part II, we reviewed the different types of subsequent applications. Part III will discuss some of the implications of these. When an applicant seeks to add new claims pursuant to a continuation or divisional application, U.S. Patent Law explicitly requires that the original specification provide adequate support for the new claims by the original specification satisfying the Section 112(a) written description and enablement requirements for the new claims. 35 U.S.C. § 120. The same is also true for continuation-in-part (CIP) applications claiming overlapping subject matter but not for claims comprising “new matter” because the new matter claimed must find support in additional disclosure, i.e., in material added to the CIP application itself.

The worldwide COVID-19 pandemic has dampened many commercial operations in countries around the world, including the United States. Although the U.S. stock market underwent a historical pull-back and rebound in a matter of a few short months, new unemployment filings are still at record highs and corporate budgets have been slashed to minimize expenses. In a large sense, corporate profits for the first half of 2020 are down for many companies compared to the end of 2019, though the technology sector is down less than others. As companies scramble to reduce expenses, IP budgets may be on the chopping block. One approach for reducing IP expenditures is to cut prosecution costs by abandoning applications, and patent application abandonments have indeed increased. Another approach for reducing expenditures is to file fewer patent applications (which may offer added cost savings as USPTO fees have now risen – with some fees increased by 25%-200%). Some predicted that new patent application filings would drop significantly, possibly as high as a year-over-year decline of 20% vs. 2019.

Yesterday, a group of 324 American innovators sent a letter to the bipartisan leadership of the Senate and House Judiciary Committees to express support for several improvements in the patent system implemented by U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) Director, Andrei Iancu, over the last several years. The letter also expressed support for recently proposed rulemaking concerning the USPTO’s discretion in instituting inter partes review Proceedings (IPR). The group of innovators included universities, nonprofit foundations, individual inventors, startups, small businesses, manufacturing, technology and life sciences companies.

As computing power and large datasets become more available, the use of artificial intelligence (AI) in technology is exploding around the world. As an indicator of the impact of AI, private equity investment in AI start-ups attracted 12% of worldwide private equity investments in the first half of 2018, reflecting a four-fold increase from just 3% in 2011, across all major economies. In the United States, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) has taken steps to adapt to AI inventions, asking in August of 2019 for public comment on questions ranging from AI inventorship to how to best consider AI elements of inventions. The World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) has also asked similar questions, as part of its conversation on intellectual property (IP) and AI, which published its first Draft Issues Paper on IP policy and AI in December of 2019 and is continuing to hold meetings on the topic.

In Part I of this five-part guide to U.S. subsequent patent applications, the authors reviewed the law governing such applications. In Part II, we review the different types of subsequent applications. A continuing patent application is “an application filed subsequently to another application, while the prior application is pending, disclosing all or a substantial part of the subject-matter of the prior application and containing claims to subject-matter common to both applications, both applications being filed by the same inventor or his legal representative.” In re Febrey, 135 F.2d 751, 757 (CCPA 1943) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). A continuation application is “a second application for the same invention claimed in a prior nonprovisional application and filed before the original prior application becomes abandoned or patented.”

Naming the correct inventors is critical when drafting a U.S. patent. Patents must have all inventors properly named. Deciding who is an inventor is a complicated task and great care must be taken to not add or omit people who are not inventors. It is possible that failure to properly name the inventors could result in losing your patent or its value. If inventors have been improperly added or omitted, the patent must be corrected or it could be declared invalid.

On August 18, 2020, the USPTO issued a guidance memorandum on the treatment of applicant statements in the challenged patent in inter partes review (IPR) proceedings under Section 311, which addresses the use of applicant statements as Applicant Admitted Prior Art (AAPA). When an IPR is filed, the basis of that IPR must be prior art consisting of either a patent or printed publication. An interesting situation arises when the disclosure of the challenged patent itself admits or allegedly admits certain material as prior art. This situation has presented itself to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (Board) on a number of occasions and has received inconsistent treatment. The purpose of this memorandum is to clarify that an applicant’s own statements in the challenged patent cannot serve as the basis for instituting an IPR. But the use of AAPA is still available as evidence the Board may consider for more limited purposes.

While researching the newly codified Manual of Patent Examination Procedure (MPEP) Section 706.07(b), we noticed some petitions filed more than two months after the final Office action mail date were decided on their merits while other petitions were dismissed as untimely. Here, in Part III of the series, we examine the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office’s (USPTO’s) seemingly arbitrary treatment of petitions filed more than two months after the final Office action. We also expose procedural traps where deciding officials side-step addressing the merits by dismissing certain ones as untimely. Importantly, we uncovered recent changes in how petitions are decided and identified an increased number and manner of petitions dismissed by the USPTO as untimely.

Every time a patent application is filed, we have to ask, “Who are the inventors?” It is a simple question, but the answer can be complicated. And there can be severe consequences if you get it wrong. You could lose your patent. As the Grail Knight in the Indiana Jones movie stated so well, “You must choose, but choose wisely.” As you know, patents typically have a number of claims broken down into independent and dependent claims. So, you have to look at each of the claims and determine who conceived the invention. There can be cases where different inventors conceived different parts of the invention in different claims. What’s important to understand is that you must include as named inventors anyone who conceived of an invention in any claim – even dependent claims.

Patent practitioners (hopefully) know that there are many types of patent applications and, at times, have filed a continuation, continuation-in-part, or divisional application. “Continuation practice” was the once commonly used phrase to describe subsequent U.S. patent applications, which also used to include file wrapper continuations (FWC), now replaced by the more modern request for continued examination (RCE). These types of subsequent patent applications can be used strategically to build a portfolio of patents for a client for a given subject matter. See, e.g., the patents asserted in WesternGeco LLC v. ION Geophysical Corp., 585 U.S. ___, 138 S.Ct. 2129 (2018). However, many patent practitioners are not fully aware of the implications of each such subsequent application, either for prosecution or for litigation. This five-part series will review these types of applications and their implications and ultimately provide some relevant practice tips.

s one of the world’s most vibrant markets, the number of patents granted in South Korea by the Korean Industrial Property Office (KIPO) has been steadily rising. In just a single year, 2018, patent filings increased by nearly 5% over the previous year – and 3.6% of these (47,410 applications) were filed by international claimants. As with any country, South Korea has its own intellectual property standards and requirements. Here’s what you need to know to extend protection of your IP to South Korea. 

Legal writing has long attracted criticism. In Gulliver’s Travels, Jonathan Swift complained of lawyers’ “peculiar cant and jargon of their own, that no other mortal can understand.” (p. 317.) More recently, Loyola Law School professor Robert Benson lamented how “[l]egalese is characterized by passive verbs, impersonality, nominalizations, long sentences, idea-stuffed sentences, difficult words, double negatives, illogical order, poor headings, and poor typeface and graphic layout.” Robert W. Benson, “The End of Legalese: The Game is Over,” 13 N.Y.U. Rev. L. & Soc. Change 519, 531 (1984). Ouch. Patent disclosures often reveal the same warts. But if “[t]he purpose of the written description requirement is to assure that the public receives sufficient knowledge,” Zoltek Corp. v. United States, 815 F.3d 1302, 1308 (Fed. Cir. 2016), why must we suffer such side effects? Drafters guilty of these crimes must’ve forgotten the public’s right to “receive meaningful disclosure in exchange for being excluded from practicing the invention.” Enzo Biochem, Inc. v. Gen-Probe Inc., 323 F.3d 956, 970 (Fed. Cir. 2002).

The USPTO recently revised Manual of Patent Examination Procedure (MPEP) Section 706.07(b) to retroactively impose a first action final rejection (FAFR) policy that significantly reduces patent applicants’ options (MPEP, E9R10.2019. Fed. Reg. Vol. 85, No. 133 page 41,571). In Part 1 of this two-part series, we analyzed the final agency decision provided by the USPTO as basis for the FAFR policy change. Here, in Part II, we analyze petition decisions relating to FAFRs made on amended claims filed in continuing applications. We discovered, when determining the propriety of a FAFR, the USPTO has been comparing whether claims are drawn to same invention using two separate legal standards: identical scope or patentably indistinct. The majority of the patent corps apply the 1969 legal standard which limits FAFR to claims of identical scope as previously examined. The results of our analysis indicated the new patentably indistinct standard authorizing FAFR on substantially amended claims originated in one Technology Center (TC), was upheld by the FA Decision (defined below), and then adopted by another TC in 2018. Codifying two alternative FAFR standards in the June 2020 MPEP permits all patent examiners to arbitrarily impose FAFRs on substantively amended claims, if they so wish.

In his address to the Intellectual Property Owners Virtual Annual Meeting yesterday, USPTO Director Andrei Iancu said that, despite sharp declines in filings and renewals, COVID-19 seems to have spurred innovation in some areas. “Small and micro entity patent filings are at a historic high, with more than 112,000 filed during the first 11 months of fiscal year 2020,” Iancu said. In an August interview with IPWatchdog Founder and CEO Gene Quinn, Iancu discussed one of the COVID-19 relief programs the Office has instituted to support small inventors during the pandemic. A pilot that offers free prioritization of COVID-19 related patent applications has been working well, Iancu told Quinn, and is expressly geared to assisting smaller entities.

The USPTO recently revised the Manual of Patent Examination Procedure (MPEP) Section 706.07(b) to retroactively impose a first action final rejection (FAFR) policy that significantly reduces a patent applicant’s options (MPEP, E9R10.2019. Fed. Reg. Vol. 85, No. 133 page 41,571). Here, in Part I of this two-part series, we identify and analyze the final agency petition decision behind the policy change. In Part II, we provide summary and analysis of petition decisions relating to premature final office actions. Codifying the new FAFR standard in the June MPEP revision opens the door for all patent examiners to impose FAFRs on substantively amended claims, if they so wish.