- Posts by Rory P. PheifferPartner
Rory P. Pheiffer is a partner and the Deputy Chair of Nutter’s Intellectual Property Department. He is also a member of both the Emerging Companies and Life Sciences and Medical Devices groups. His practice covers a broad spectrum ...
The Post-Prosecution Pilot Program, dubbed “P3” by the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), offers applicants a new, and arguably improved, path through the after-final landscape. P3 provides applicants the opportunity to orally present proposed amendments or arguments to a panel of examiners after a final rejection has been issued but before filing a notice of appeal. As the USPTO’s latest rollout under the Enhanced Patent Quality Initiative, P3 incorporates effective features of the existing Pre-Appeal Brief Conference Pilot program (Pre-Appeal) and the After Final Consideration Pilot 2.0 program (AFCP). Applicants should consider taking advantage of this no-fee program to make their case for allowance, propose non-broadening amendments, and receive feedback from a larger pool of examiners prior to filling a notice of appeal or Request for Continued Examination (RCE).
Long delays at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) can be frustrating and detrimental to a company. What options exist to speed up patent prosecution? Rory Pheiffer, a partner in Nutter’s Intellectual Property Department, analyzes five programs that can accelerate patent prosecution in the piece “Getting on the Patent Fast Track While Keeping Competitors in the Rearview Mirror.”
A website recently launched that aggregates individual examiner data in real-time to provide practitioners with information they may find helpful in determining prosecution strategies that may be effective in achieving allowance before a particular examiner. The website, known as Examiner Ninja, allows a user to look-up data about any examiner at the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO). The website presents data about allowance rates when various prosecution strategies are utilized, and also provides data about how quickly an examiner takes particular types of action during prosecution. The data is provided for each examiner, and each individual examiner’s data is compared to the same data for all examiners in that particular examiner’s art unit, and to all examiners at the USPTO.
To date, the Supreme Court has granted certiorari (commonly referred to as cert) to five patent-related cases this term, which will result in three oral arguments likely to be decided before the end of the term. Two of the cases were consolidated into a single argument, while another case was subject to a Grant-Vacate-and-Remand (GVR) order, meaning the previous decision by the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) has been vacated by the Supreme Court and the case must be reconsidered by the CAFC. There are also over 20 pending Petitions for Writ of Certiorari, which may result in additional patent matters being heard by the Court this term.
Most patent owners are aware that under 35 U.S.C. § 154(d), publication of a United States patent application confers provisional rights to the patent owner. The provisional rights allow an owner to collect damages for infringement of issued claims dating back to the date of publication provided that the claims are substantially similar to the claims that are included in the published application. It can often be difficult for a patent owner to prove that issued claims are substantially similar to published claims. However, even if a patent owner is able to prove claim similarity from publication to issuance, a further obstacle to collect pre-issuance damages was solidified by the Federal Circuit recently in Rosebud LMS v. Adobe Systems—the statutory requirement of actual notice. In the recent Federal Circuit decision, the Court found that constructive notice was insufficient to meet the actual notice requirement under 35 U.S.C. § 154(d), and that instead a patent owner must prove the infringer was actually aware of the patent at issue.
In a decision likely to be lauded by patent applicants and owners, the Federal Circuit recently issued an opinion that affirms its staunch position that the bar to prove a patent owner made a disclaimer that impacts the claim scope is high. The opinion provides some useful quotes that prosecutors and litigators representing applicants and owners will likely be interested in calling upon when presenting argument against assertions that a previously taken position amounts to a disclaimer or disavowal by the applicant/owner.
Now that our readers have had their fill of turkey and all the fixings, they can gorge on an abundance of patent petitions data. Earlier this year, Director of the USPTO Michelle Lee announced a new public, user-friendly tool to obtain information about the abundance and success rate of petitions of every nature. The information generally includes:
- The average number of days a petition is pending before a decision is made;
- The grant rate for a petition; and
- The office within the USPTO that makes the decision on the petition.
Earlier this fall the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) announced the “Streamlined, Expedited Patent Appeal Pilot for Small Entities” program (the Streamlined, Expedited program), which allows small and micro entities to expedite a single ex parte patent appeal pending before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (Board). In order to take advantage of this program, a patent applicant must:
- Be a small or micro entity appellant;
- Have only a single ex parte patent appeal pending before the Board as of September 18, 2015;
- Have no claim involved in the appeal that can be subject to a rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112;
- For each ground of rejection that is applied to more than one claim, select a single claim as representative and only discuss that claim in the appeal for that ground;
- Agree to waive any requested oral hearing; and
- Acknowledge that any oral hearing fees paid in connection with the appeal will not be refunded.
Summary: While the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (AIA) brought sweeping changes to the United States patent system, including moving to a first-to-file system and implementing and modifying a number of post-grant proceeding options, one less heralded change is the expansion of the third party preissuance submission process, by which a third party can submit prior art references in a pending U.S. patent application for consideration by the examiner. The revised preissuance submission process is significantly more robust and accessible than its pre-AIA counterpart. Key features of the process such as low cost, anonymity, and preclusion from estoppels make it a potentially attractive tool for challenging pending applications. However, a third party’s participation in the patent prosecution process is still limited and the submitted references may even inadvertently strengthen any patent that issues from the application in which the submission is filed. Accordingly, third parties should carefully consider the limitations and risks associated with the process before filing a preissuance submission.
In the beginning of October, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) announced that it is extending two programs that patent applicants find useful in the later stages of prosecution—the After Final Consideration Pilot 2.0 (AFCP) and the Quick Path Information Disclosure Statement (QPIDS) programs.
Maximizing the protection and value of intellectual property assets is often the cornerstone of a business's success and even survival. In this blog, Nutter's Intellectual Property attorneys provide news updates and practical tips in patent portfolio development, IP litigation, trademarks, copyrights, trade secrets and licensing.