Source: http://www.bakerbotts.com/insights/publications/2018/11/priority-in-prior-art
Timestamp: 2019-04-22 16:40:31+00:00

Document:
Many issued patents are still governed by pre-America Invents Act (“AIA”) statutes. Among them is pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 102(e), which allows issued U.S. patents and certain published patent applications to be used as prior art as of their respective U.S. filing dates.1 When challenging validity using prior art under § 102(e), challengers often rely on a prior art reference’s claim of priority to a provisional application filed before the earliest filing date of the challenged patent. Although practitioners are generally aware that the disclosure relied on in the prior art reference must be supported by the description of the earlier-filed provisional application, it may be less widely known that the Federal Circuit has imposed an additional requirement -- the earlier-filed application also must support the claims of the prior art reference (whether an issued patent or published patent application). Failure to show the requisite support of the reference’s claims can doom an invalidity challenge. This article examines the Federal Circuit decisions on the issue, a pending petition for certiorari that could impact the current rule, and best practices where prior art under § 102(e) is at issue.
Absent intervention from the Supreme Court, however, parties should be prepared to follow the rule set out in Dynamic Drinkware and Amgen when dealing with prior art patents and published patent applications under § 102(e). Patentees facing validity challenges based on issued patents or published patent applications that rely on a claim of priority to an earlier-filed provisional application should be prepared to challenge that claim to priority. This has the effect of shifting the burden to the party challenging validity to prove that the patent or published application is entitled to the priority date of the earlier-filed application for prior art purposes.19 Parties challenging validity should be prepared to demonstrate (1) that the description from the earlier-filed application was “carried over” to the issued patent or published patent application relied-upon and (2) that the claims of the issued patent or published application are supported by the earlier-filed provisional application in accordance with pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph (taking into account both the enablement and written description requirements of that section).
Similarly, practitioners involved in prosecuting patents before the USPTO should be prepared to use the rule articulated in Dynamic Drinkware and Amgen to their advantage.20 When faced with a rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102 or § 103 that relies on the filing date of an earlier-filed provisional application to predate the applicant’s invention, practitioners should look for opportunities to argue that either the description of the earlier-filed provisional application was not “carried over” into the issued patent or published patent application relied on by the examiner and/or that the earlier-filed application fails to provide the requisite written description support for the claims of the relied-upon reference.
2 800 F.3d 1375, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
3 See Dynamic Drinkware v. Nat’l Graphics, Inc., IPR2013-00131, Paper No. 42 at 6 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 12, 2014).
4 See Dynamic Drinkware, 800 F.3d at 1381.
5 See IPR2013-00131, Paper No. 42 at 6-7.
6 “An application for patent filed under section 111(a) or section 363 of this title for an invention disclosed in the manner provided by the first paragraph of section 112 of this title in a provisional application filed under section 111(b) of this title, by an inventor or inventors named in the provisional application, shall have the same effect, as to such invention, as though filed on the date of the provisional application filed under section 111(b) of this title . . .” 35 U.S.C. § 119(e)(1) (2006).
7 Dynamic Drinkware, 800 F.3d at 1381 (citing In re Wertheim, 646 F.2d 527, 537 (CCPA 1981)).
9 872 F.3d 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2017).
10 See id. at 1380.
11 See id. at 1379-80.
14 Crouch, Federal Circuit Backtracks (A bit) on Prior Art Status of Provisional Applications and Gives us a Disturbing Result, https://patentlyo.com/patent/2015/09/provisional-applications-disturbing.html.
15 Petition for Writ of Certiorari, Ariosa Diagnostics, Inc. v. Illumina, Inc., No. 18-109 (Jul. 24, 2018).
17 270 U.S. 390 (1926).
18 Petition for Writ of Certiorari, Ariosa Diagnostics, at 18.
19 The Federal Circuit has described that while the burden of persuasion to prove unpatentability rests with the challenger, the burden of production may shift, at least in PTAB proceedings. For example, in Dynamic Drinkware, the petitioner had the initial burden of production to argue that a prior art reference anticipated the claims under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e). The burden then shifted to the patent owner to argue that the prior art reference either did not anticipate or was not prior art. Having made an argument that the reference was not prior art because of an alleged earlier reduction to practice, the burden shifted back to petitioner to show that the prior art reference was entitled to the benefit of a filing date prior to the date of patent owner’s alleged reduction to practice. See Dynamic Drinkware, 800 F.3d 1375.
20 The United States Patent and Trademark Office has revised M.P.E.P § 2136.03 based on the holding in Dynamic Drinkware and, according to an April 5, 2018 memorandum, will update the M.P.E.P. to incorporate the changes effected by Amgen in due course.

References: § 102
 § 102
 § 102
 § 102
 § 112
 § 102
 § 103
 v. 
 § 119
 v. 
 § 102
 § 2136