America Invents Act AIA Implementation in 2012 Peter

America Invents Act (AIA) Implementation in 2012 Peter D. Sabido Intellectual Property Attorney Kolisch Hartwell, P. C. sabido@khpatent. com February 15, 2013 © Kolisch Hartwell 2013 All Rights Reserved, Page 1

Overview • Inventor’s Oath or Declaration • Citation of Written Statements in Patent File • Inter Partes Review • Post-Grant Review • Third Party Submission of Prior Art • Supplemental Examination • Transitional Program for Covered Business Method Patents • Priority Examination for Important Technologies © Kolisch Hartwell 2013 All Rights Reserved, Page 2

Inventor’s Oath or Declaration (§ 4) • Assignee can be the applicant § • Assignments can be used § • • Must include required oath or declaration statements Postponement of filing of oath or declaration § • Still need inventor’s oath or declaration Until application is otherwise in condition for allowance Substitute statement in lieu of oath or declaration Defective oath or declaration is curable § Patent not invalid or unenforceable if cured © Kolisch Hartwell 2013 All Rights Reserved, Page 3

Citation of Written Statements in Patent File (§ 6) • • For issued patents Any person may file a written submission with: § § • Statements must identify: § § § • Prior art consisting of patents or printed publications Statements of patent owner filed by the patent owner in a proceeding regarding claim scope Forum and proceeding in which patent owner filed statement Specific papers submitted that contain the statements How each statement is a statement regarding claim scope Explanation required § Pertinence and manner of applying to at least one claim © Kolisch Hartwell 2013 All Rights Reserved, Page 4

Post Grant Review (§ 6) • May be filed starting September 16, 2012 § § • Various statutory ground(s) based on: § § • Only business method patents and patents involved in interferences Can file for any patent as of March 16, 2013 Patents and printed publications Other factual evidence and expert opinions Must be filed: § § Before filing a civil action challenging validity of patent Within nine months of the patent grant © Kolisch Hartwell 2013 All Rights Reserved, Page 5

Post Grant Review (§ 6) [contd. ] • Granted if: § § • Subsequent civil action challenging validity of patent automatically stayed until: § § § • “More likely than not” that at least one of challenged claims is unpatentable Raises a “novel or unsettled legal question” that is important to other patents or patent applications Patent owner moves court to lift stay Patent owner files action or counterclaims for infringement Petitioner moves court to dismiss action No stay of motion for preliminary injunction § Infringement action filed within 3 months of patent grant date © Kolisch Hartwell 2013 All Rights Reserved, Page 6

Post Grant Review (§ 6) [contd. ] • Estoppel with respect to any ground raised or reasonably could have raised: § § § • • No estoppel if settled before decision on merits Patent owner may file motion to amend patent: § § • USPTO proceeding Civil action ITC proceeding Can cancel, amend, or substitute claims Cannot enlarge scope or add new matter Petitioner may appeal written final decision to the Federal Circuit © Kolisch Hartwell 2013 All Rights Reserved, Page 7

Inter Partes Review (§ 6) • • Replaces existing Inter Partes Reexamination Procedure Available for all patents 35 U. S. C. § 102 or § 103 grounds based on patents and printed publications Must be filed: § § § • Before filing a civil action challenging validity of patent Within one year of being served with infringement complaint After later of nine months after grant date or termination of postgrant review Granted with “reasonable likelihood” that the third party will prevail © Kolisch Hartwell 2013 All Rights Reserved, Page 8

Inter Partes Review (§ 6) [contd. ] • • Same automatic stay as post grant review Same estoppel as post grant review Patent owner may file motion to amend patent Petitioner may appeal written final decision to the Federal Circuit © Kolisch Hartwell 2013 All Rights Reserved, Page 9

Third Party Submission of Prior Art (§ 8) • • Filed for pending patent applications Documents: § § § • • Explanation of relevancy Must be filed prior to earlier of: § § • Patents Published patent applications Other printed publications Notice of allowance Later of six months after publication date or the date of a first Office action on the merits No service requirement © Kolisch Hartwell 2013 All Rights Reserved, Page 10

Supplemental Examination (§ 12) • • • For patent owner after patent has issued Filed at any time during enforceability period of patent Any information in writing “believed to be relevant to the patent” § • • Limit of twelve items per request Ex parte reexamination ordered if “substantial new question of patentability” Proceed under ex parte reexamination procedures § Except for patent owner statement © Kolisch Hartwell 2013 All Rights Reserved, Page 11

Supplemental Examination (§ 12) [contd. ] • Effect § • Patent not unenforceable on basis of conduct relating to information if information was considered, reconsidered, or corrected during supplemental examination Exceptions § § Prior allegations in civil action or FDCA notice Defense in patent enforcement actions o Unless supplemental examination (and any reexamination ordered) concluded before action brought © Kolisch Hartwell 2013 All Rights Reserved, Page 12

Covered Business Method Patents (§ 18) • • Specific post-grant reviewing proceeding Covered business method patents: § § • • Method or apparatus that performs data processing or other operations used in practice, administration, or management of a financial product or service Does not include patents for “technological inventions” May be requested only if sued for patent infringement Various statutory grounds based on published and nonpublished evidence Estoppel only in other USPTO proceedings Program expires on September 16, 2020 © Kolisch Hartwell 2013 All Rights Reserved, Page 13

Priority Exam for Important Technologies (§ 25) • • Prioritization of examination of applications for products, processes, or technologies that are important to the national economy or national competitiveness As of February 5, 2013, the USPTO has not released any information regarding implementation © Kolisch Hartwell 2013 All Rights Reserved, Page 14

Peter D. Sabido Intellectual Property Attorney Kolisch Hartwell, P. C. 520 SW Yamhill Street, Suite 200 Portland, Oregon 97204 (503) 224– 6655 sabido@khpatent. com © Kolisch Hartwell 2013 All Rights Reserved, Page 15