When the Federal Circuit denied the Request for Panel Rehearing and Rehearing en banc in In re Baxter, the court let stand its two decisions that affirmed conflicting rulings on the validity of the same patent. In Fresenius USA, Inc. v. Baxter Int’l, Inc., 582 F.3d 1288 (Fed. Cir. 2009), the court affirmed the district court decision that upheld the validity of claims 26-31 of U.S. Patent 5,247,434, while in its May 17, 2012 decision in In re Baxter, the court affirmed the USPTO Board decision that the claims were invalid as obvious. Parallel litigation and USPTO proceedings involving the same patent may become more rare now that the America Invents Act (AIA) has replaced inter partes reexamination with inter partes review and placed restrictions on parallel litigation proceedings, but still could arise from pending inter partes reexamination proceedings or from ex parte reexamination proceedings, which are not subject to the same restrictions.Continue reading this entry
Responding to public feedback, the USPTO announced that it has dropped a controversial proposal that would have required all requests for ex parte reexamination to identify the requester’s “real party in interest.” The change is one of several new provisions in a Final Rule, released August 6, 2012, which implements a new estoppel provision in the America Invents Act (AIA) barring ex parte reexamination of a patent following the completion of an inter partes review or post-grant review. Third-party requesters and patent owners alike will need to be familiar with the Final Rule which goes into effect on September 16, 2012. Continue reading this entry
One important strategy for adopting to the first-to-file system of the America Invents Act will be to segregate subject matter that has an effective filing date of March 15, 2013 or earlier from subject matter that has an effective filing date of March 16, 2013 or later. This is because even after March 16, 2013, it will be possible to pursue subject matter with an earlier effective filing date under the current first-to-invent system as long as it is segregated from subject matter with a later effective filing date. (For a more detailed explanation, see my previous article on The First-To-File Poison Pill.) While my previous article on the Ides of March outlined several reasons why it could be important to obtain an effective filing date of March 15, 2013 or earlier, Max Colice, a patent agent and member of the Electronics practice at Foley & Lardner LLP, has pointed out yet another reason to segregate subject matter before and after the first-to-file effective date.
Please welcome Andrew Baluch as a new contributing author for PharmaPatentsBlog!
There is a lot to like about the USPTO’s proposed rules for the new patent trial proceedings that the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) will conduct under the America Invents Act (AIA). On the whole, the proposed rules released last month appear to be sound, well-written, and based largely on the “Standing Order” governing current Interference proceedings. The team of administrative judges that drafted the proposals should be commended for their work.
But, as with any project of this size, there is bound to be some oversight and possible overreach. After studying the seven Federal Register notices spanning 133 pages that comprise the post-grant rules packages, I particularly was struck by three specific proposed rules. As explained below, these three proposed rules appear to be unnecessary, unsupported by the law, and should be dropped. The USPTO would be doing everyone a favor, including itself, if it simply omits the following from its final rules.Continue reading this entry
On January 5, 2012, the USPTO issued a Federal Register Notice with proposed rules to implement provisions of the America Invents Act relating to the citation of prior art and written statements in a granted patent. While I wrote about those changes previously, the same rules package includes proposed changes to the ex parte reexamination rules that I write about here. The USPTO will consider written comments received by March 5, 2012. Continue reading this entry
In Duramed Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Paddock Laboratories, Inc., the Federal Circuit rejected Duramed’s arguments that prosecution history estoppel did not bar application of the doctrine of equivalents under Festo because the equivalent at issue was not foreseeable. In so doing, the Court illuminated the rather narrow applicability of the “unforeseeable” route to rebutting a presumption of prosecution history estoppel.