Source: https://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s2686.html
Timestamp: 2019-04-21 15:12:25+00:00

Document:
37 CFR 1.985 Notification of prior or concurrent proceedings in inter partes reexamination.
(a) In any inter partes reexamination proceeding, the patent owner shall call the attention of the Office to any prior or concurrent proceedings in which the patent is or was involved, including but not limited to interference or trial before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, reissue, reexamination, or litigation and the results of such proceedings.
(b) Notwithstanding any provision of the rules, any person at any time may file a paper in an inter partes reexamination proceeding notifying the Office of a prior or concurrent proceeding in which the same patent is or was involved, including but not limited to interference or trial before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, reissue, reexamination, or litigation and the results of such proceedings. Such paper must be limited to merely providing notice of the other proceeding without discussion of issues of the current inter partes reexamination proceeding.
It is important for the Office to be aware of any prior or concurrent proceedings in which a patent undergoing inter partes reexamination is or was involved, and any results of such proceedings. In accordance with 37 CFR 1.985, the patent owner is required to provide the Office with information regarding the existence of any such proceedings, and the results thereof, if known. This requirement includes supplemental examination proceedings and reviews before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board in addition to the examples provided in 37 CFR 1.985(a) reproduced above. Ordinarily, while an inter partes reexamination proceeding is pending, third party submissions filed after the date of the order are not entered into the reexamination file or the patent file, unless the third party is a third party reexamination requester. However, in order to ensure a complete file, with updated status information regarding prior or concurrent proceedings regarding the patent under reexamination, the Office will, at any time, accept from any parties, for entry into the reexamination file, copies of notices of suits and other proceedings involving the patent and copies of decisions or papers filed in the court from litigations or other proceedings involving the patent. Such decisions include final court decisions (even if the decision is still appealable), decisions to vacate, decisions to remand, and decisions as to the merits of the patent claims. Non-merit decisions on motions such as for a new venue, a new trial/discovery date, or sanctions will not be entered into the patent file, and will be expunged from the patent file by closing the appropriate paper if they were entered before discovery of their nature. Further, papers filed in the court from litigations or other proceedings involving the patent will not be entered into the record (and will be expunged if already entered) if they provide a party’s arguments, such as a memorandum in support of summary judgment. If the argument has an entry right in the reexamination proceeding, it must be submitted via the vehicle (provision(s) of the rules) that provides for that entry right. It is not required nor is it permitted that parties submit copies of copending reexamination proceedings and applications (which copies can be mistaken for a new request/filing); rather, submitters may provide a notice identifying the application/proceeding number and its status. Any submission that is not permitted entry will be returned, expunged, or discarded, at the sole discretion of the Office.
It is to be noted that if the Office, in its sole discretion, deems the volume of the papers filed from litigations or other proceedings to be too extensive/lengthy, the Office may return, expunge or discard, at its sole discretion, all or part of the submission. In such an instance, a party may limit the submission in accordance with what is deemed relevant, and resubmit the papers. Persons making such submissions must limit the submissions to the notification, and must not include further arguments or information. Where a submission is not limited to bare notice of the prior or concurrent proceedings (in which a patent undergoing reexamination is or was involved), the submission will be returned, expunged or discarded by the Office. It is to be understood that highlighting of certain text by underlining, fluorescent marker, etc., goes beyond bare notice of the prior or concurrent proceedings. Any proper submission pursuant to 37 CFR 1.985 will be promptly entered into the record of the reexamination file, and will be considered by the examiner as to its content, when the proceeding comes up for action on the merits. Thus, for example, if the patent owner properly files in a reexamination proceeding, pursuant to 37 CFR 1.985, an enterable paper from the discovery stage of litigation of the patent being reexamined, the paper would be entered into the reexamination file and considered by the examiner, the next time the proceeding comes up for action on the merits. See MPEP § 2686.04 for Office investigation for prior or concurrent litigation.
37 CFR 1.989 Merger of concurrent reexamination proceedings.
It may also be desirable in certain situations to suspend one of the proceedings for a specified period of time. For example, a suspension of a first reexamination proceeding may be issued to allow time for the decision on the second request. A suspension will only be granted in exceptional (extraordinary) instances because of the statutory requirements that examination proceed with “special dispatch”, and the express written approval by OPLA must be obtained. Suspension will not be granted when there is an outstanding Office action.
When a “Notice of Intent To Issue Inter Partes Reexamination Certificate” (NIRC) is appropriate, a notice will be printed for the merged proceeding and scanned into the files of the merged proceeding. Both reexamination files will then be processed. The CRU should prepare the file of the concurrent proceedings in the manner specified in MPEP § 2687, before release to Office of Data Management (via the CRU).
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 314(c), “[u]nless otherwise provided by the Director for good cause, all inter partes reexamination proceedings under this section…shall be conducted with special dispatch within the Office.” This statutory provision is grounded on the need for certainty and finality as to the question of patentability raised by the request for reexamination. Thus, if a second request for reexamination will unduly delay the first reexamination proceeding, the two proceedings generally will not be merged. If the Office were to merge the two proceedings, the first reexamination proceeding would need to be withdrawn from its place in the process, thus delaying, instead of advancing, prosecution. This would run contrary to the statutory “special dispatch” requirement of 35 U.S.C. 314 and its intent. On the other hand, if the Office does not merge, the first reexamination proceeding can be concluded, and any question of patentability raised by the second reexamination request can be resolved in the second proceeding, with no delay resulting. The second request is then considered based on the claims in the patent as indicated in the issued reexamination certificate, rather than the original claims of the patent. However, the Office always retains the authority to merge because in some instances, it may be more efficient to merge the two proceedings, which would foster “special dispatch.” The instances where the Office may, or may not, merge an ongoing reexamination proceeding with a subsequent reexamination proceeding, are addressed on a case-by-case basis.
37 CFR 1.993 Suspension of concurrent interference and inter partes reexamination proceeding.
If a patent in the process of inter partes reexamination is or becomes involved in an interference or trial before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, the Director may suspend the inter partes reexamination, interference, or trial. The Director will not consider a request to suspend an interference or trial unless a motion under § 41.121(a)(3) of this title to suspend the interference or trial has been presented to, and denied by, an administrative patent judge and the request is filed within ten (10) days of a decision by an administrative patent judge denying the motion for suspension or such other time as the administrative patent judge may set.
37 CFR 41.8 Mandatory notices.
(2) Each judicial or administrative proceeding that could affect, or be affected by, the Board proceeding.
(b) For contested cases, a party seeking judicial review of a Board proceeding must file a notice with the Board of the judicial review within 20 days of the filing of the complaint or the notice of appeal. The notice to the Board must include a copy of the complaint or notice of appeal. See also §§ 1.301 to 1.304 of this title.
37 CFR 41.103 Jurisdiction over involved files.
A patent being reexamined in an inter partes reexamination proceeding may be involved in an interference proceeding with at least one application, where the patent and the application are claiming the same patentable invention, and at least one of the application’s claims to that invention are patentable to the applicant. See MPEP Chapter 2300.
The general policy of the Office is that a reexamination proceeding will not be delayed, or stayed, because of an interference or the possibility of an interference. The reason for this policy is the requirement of 35 U.S.C. 314(c) that all reexamination proceedings be conducted with “special dispatch” within the Office.
In general, the Office will follow the practice of making the required and necessary decisions in the inter partes reexamination proceeding and, at the same time, going forward with the interference to the extent desirable. (See Shaked v. Taniguchi, 21 USPQ2d 1289 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1991), where it was pointed out that neither the reexamination nor the interference will ordinarily be stayed where both proceedings are before the Office.) It is to be noted that 37 CFR 41.103 provides the Board with the flexibility to tailor a specific solution to occurrences where reexamination and interference proceedings for the same patent are copending, as such occurrences may arise. Decisions in the interference will take into consideration the status of the reexamination proceeding and what is occurring therein. The decision as to what actions are taken in the interference will, in general, be taken in accordance with normal interference practice.
Although a patent being reexamined via a reexamination proceeding may become involved in an interference proceeding, the reexamination proceeding itself can never be involved in an interference proceeding. See 35 U.S.C. 135(a) which states that “[w]henever an application is made for a patent which, in the opinion of the Director, would interfere with any pending application, or with any unexpired patent, an interference may be declared”. The reexamination proceeding is neither an application nor a patent.
See MPEP § 2284 for a discussion of the situation where an amendment seeking to provoke an interference with a patent involved in a reexamination proceeding is filed in a pending application. The practice and procedure in this area as to inter partes reexamination proceedings parallels that of ex parte reexamination proceedings.
A miscellaneous motion under 37 CFR 41.121(a)(3) to suspend an interference pending the outcome of a reexamination proceeding may be made at any time during the interference by any party thereto. See 37 CFR 41.123(b) for the proper procedure. The motion must be presented to the Administrative Patent Judge (APJ) who will decide the motion based on the particular fact situation. However, suspension is not favored. Normally, no consideration will be given such a motion unless and until a reexamination order is issued, nor will suspension of the interference normally be permitted until after any motions have been disposed of in the interference proceeding. If the motion under 37 CFR 41.121(a)(3) is denied by the APJ, a request to stay the interference may be made to the Director of the USPTO under 37 CFR 1.993. A request to stay an interference under 37 CFR 1.993 will be decided by the Chief Administrative Patent Judge of the Board.
In view of the provisions of 37 CFR 1.913, “[a]ny person may, at any time during the period of enforceability of a patent” file a request for inter partes reexamination. Under 37 CFR 41.8(a), the patent owner must notify the Board that a request for reexamination was filed within twenty days of receiving notice of the request having been filed. Such requests for reexamination will be processed in the normal manner. No delay, or stay, of the reexamination will occur where the third party requester is not a party to the interference, or where the requester is a party to the interference but does not timely petition for a stay or delay. If the examiner orders reexamination pursuant to 37 CFR 1.931 and subsequently, in the reexamination proceeding, rejects a patent claim corresponding to a count in the interference, the attention of the Board shall be called to the rejection.
Any petition to stay an inter partes reexamination proceeding, because of an interference, which is filed prior to the first Office action in the reexamination proceeding will not be considered, and will be returned to the party submitting the petition, or it will be expunged, if the petition has been scanned into the Office's IFW system prior to its discovery. See 37 CFR 1.939 and MPEP § 2625. The decision returning or expunging such a premature petition will be made of record in the reexamination file. A petition to stay the reexamination proceeding because of the interference may be filed by the patent owner after the first Office action in the reexamination proceeding. If a party to the interference, other than the patent owner, is also a requester of the reexamination, that party may also petition to stay the reexamination proceeding after the first Office action. If the party to the interference other than patent owner is not the reexamination requester, any petition by that party is improper under 37 CFR 1.905 and will not be considered. Any such improper petitions will be returned to the party submitting the same. Premature petitions to stay the reexamination proceedings, i.e., those filed prior to the first Office action in the reexamination proceeding, will be returned by a Legal Advisor of the Office of Patent Legal Administration (OPLA) as premature. Petitions to stay filed subsequent to the date of the first Office action in the reexamination proceeding will be referred to OPLA for decision by a Senior Legal Advisor of that Office. All decisions on the merits of petitions to stay a reexamination proceeding because of an interference will be made in OPLA.
If one or more claims of a patent which is involved in an interference are canceled or amended by the issuance and publication of a reexamination certificate, the Board must be promptly notified.
Upon issuance and publication of the reexamination certificate, the patent owner must notify the Board of such issuance.
37 CFR 1.991 Merger of concurrent reissue application and inter partes reexamination proceeding.
If a reissue application and an inter partes reexamination proceeding on which an order pursuant to § 1.931 has been mailed are pending concurrently on a patent, a decision may be made to merge the two proceedings or to suspend one of the two proceedings. Where merger of a reissue application and an inter partes reexamination proceeding is ordered, the merged proceeding will be conducted in accordance with §§ 1.171 through 1.179, and the patent owner will be required to place and maintain the same claims in the reissue application and the inter partes reexamination proceeding during the pendency of the merged proceeding. In a merged proceeding the third party requester may participate to the extent provided under §§ 1.902 through 1.997 and 41.60 through 41.81, except that such participation shall be limited to issues within the scope of inter partes reexamination. The examiner’s actions and any responses by the patent owner or third party requester in a merged proceeding will apply to both the reissue application and the inter partes reexamination proceeding and be physically entered into both files. Any inter partes reexamination proceeding merged with a reissue application shall be concluded by the grant of the reissued patent.
37 CFR 1.995 Third party requester’s participation rights preserved in merged proceeding.
When a third party requester is involved in one or more proceedings, including an inter partes reexamination proceeding, the merger of such proceedings will be accomplished so as to preserve the third party requester’s right to participate to the extent specifically provided for in these regulations. In merged proceedings involving different requesters, any paper filed by one party in the merged proceeding shall be served on all other parties of the merged proceeding.
37 CFR 1.997 Issuance and publication of inter partes reexamination certificate concludes inter partes reexamination proceeding.
(a) To conclude an inter partes reexamination proceeding, the Director will issue and publish an inter partes reexamination certificate in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 316 setting forth the results of the inter partes reexamination proceeding and the content of the patent following the inter partes reexamination proceeding.
(d) If a certificate has been issued and published which cancels all of the claims of the patent, no further Office proceedings will be conducted with that patent or any reissue applications or any reexamination requests relating thereto.
(e) If the inter partes reexamination proceeding is terminated by the grant of a reissued patent as provided in § 1.991, the reissued patent will constitute the reexamination certificate required by this section and 35 U.S.C. 316.
37 CFR 1.176 Examination of reissue.
(a) A reissue application will be examined in the same manner as a non-reissue, non-provisional application, and will be subject to all the requirements of the rules related to non-reissue applications. Applications for reissue will be acted on by the examiner in advance of other applications.
The general policy of the Office is that the examination of a reissue application and an inter partes reexamination proceeding will not be conducted separately at the same time as to a particular patent. The reason for this policy is to permit timely resolution of both the reissue and the reexamination to the extent possible and to prevent inconsistent, and possibly conflicting, amendments from being introduced into the two files on behalf of the patent owner. If both a reissue application and a reexamination proceeding are pending concurrently on a patent, a decision will normally be made to merge the reissue application examination and the reexamination or to stay one of the two. See In re Onda, 229 USPQ 235 (Comm’r Pat. 1985). The decision as to whether the reissue application examination and the reexamination proceeding are to be merged, or which of the two (if any) is to be stayed, is made in OPLA.
A decision whether or not to merge the examination of a reissue application and an inter partes reexamination proceeding, or to stay one of the two, will not be made prior to the mailing of the order to reexamine the patent pursuant to 37 CFR 1.931. Until such time as the reexamination is ordered, the examination of the reissue application will proceed. A determination on the request for reexamination should not be delayed despite the existence of a copending reissue application, since 35 U.S.C. 312(a) requires a determination within three months following the filing date of the request. See MPEP § 2641. If the decision on the request denies reexamination (MPEP § 2647 ), the examination of the reissue application should be continued. If reexamination is to be ordered (MPEP § 2646), the signed order should be (after review by the Central Reexamination Unit (CRU) Supervisory Patent Reexamination Specialist (SPRS)) promptly forwarded to the CRU support staff for mailing; no first Office action will accompany the decision ordering reexamination. At the same time that the signed order is forwarded to OPLA, (A) OPLA should be notified that the proceedings are ready for consideration of merger, and (B) if any of the reexamination file, the reissue application, and the patent file are paper files, they should be hand delivered to OPLA.
If a reissue application is filed during the pendency of a reexamination proceeding, OPLA should be notified, as promptly as possible after the proceedings are ready for consideration of merger. If any of the reexamination file, the reissue application, and the patent file are paper files, they should be hand delivered to OPLA at the time of the notification to OPLA.
The decision on whether or not to merge the reissue application examination and the reexamination proceeding or which (if any) is to be stayed (suspended), will generally be made as promptly as possible after receipt of the notification to OPLA, and delivery of all the paper files to OPLA.
Until a decision is mailed merging the reissue application examination and the reexamination proceeding, or staying one of them, prosecution in the reissue application and the reexamination proceeding will continue and be conducted simultaneously, but separately.
The Office may in certain situations issue a certificate at the termination of the prosecution of a reexamination proceeding, even if a copending reissue application or another reexamination request has already been filed.
The decision on whether to merge the reissue application examination and reexamination proceeding, or stay one of them, will be made on a case-by-case basis. The decision to merge, or not to merge, is within the sole discretion of the Office to facilitate/carry out the orderly operation of the Office in addressing the proceedings. The status of the reissue application and the reexamination proceeding will be taken into account in the decision as to whether merger will be ordered, or one of the two proceedings stayed. Where there is “good cause” to stay the reexamination proceeding, the Director may do so pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 314(c).
If the reissue patent will issue before the determination on the reexamination request must be made, the determination on the request should normally be made after the granting of the reissue patent; and then the determination should be made on the basis of the claims in the reissue patent. The reexamination, if ordered, would then be based on the reissue patent claims rather than the original patent claims. Since the reissue application would no longer be pending, the reexamination would be processed in a normal manner.
Where a reissue patent has been issued, the determination on the request for reexamination should specifically point out that the determination has been made on the claims of the reissue patent and not on the claims of the original patent. Any amendment made in the reexamination proceeding should treat the changes made by the reissue as the text of the patent, and all bracketing and underlining made with respect to the patent as changed by the reissue. Note that the reissue claims used as the starting point in the reexamination proceeding must be presented in the reexamination proceeding as a “clean copy.” Thus, words bracketed in the reissue patent claim(s) would not appear at all in the reexamination clean copy of the claim(s). Also, words that were added via the reissue patent will appear in italics in the reissue patent, but must appear in plain format in the reexamination clean copy of the claim(s).
Where the reissue patent has issued prior to the filing of a request for reexamination of the original patent, see MPEP § 2640.
Where a reissue patent will not be granted prior to the expiration of the three-month period for making the determination on the reexamination request, a decision will be made after an order to reexamine is issued as to whether the reissue application examination and the reexamination proceeding are to be merged, or which of the two (if any) is to be stayed. In this situation, no first Office action will have accompanied the order for reexamination.
In making a decision on whether or not to merge the reissue application examination and the reexamination proceeding, consideration will be given as to whether issues are raised in the reissue application that would not be proper for consideration in reexamination and/or not be proper for comment by the reexamination third party requester. If such issues are raised, merger would ordinarily not be ordered, and one of the two proceedings stayed. Consideration will also be given to the status of the reissue application examination at the time the order to reexamine the patent pursuant to 37 CFR 1.931 is mailed. For example, if the reissue application is on appeal to the Board or to the courts, that fact would be considered in making a decision whether to merge the reissue application examination and the reexamination proceeding or stay one of them. See In re Scragg, 215 USPQ 715 (Comm’r Pat. 1982), In re Stoddard, 213 USPQ 386 (Comm’r Pat. 1982).
If merger of the reissue application examination and the reexamination proceeding is ordered, the order merging them will also require that the patent owner place the same claims in the reissue application and in the reexamination proceeding for purposes of the merger. The decision to merge may require an amendment to be filed by the patent owner to provide identical sets of claims, within a specified time set in the decision to merge.
If merger would be appropriate, but the examination of the reissue application has progressed to a point where a merger is not desirable at that time, then the reexamination proceeding will generally be stayed until the reissue application examination is complete on the issues then pending. After completion of the examination on the issues then pending in the reissue application examination, the stay of the reexamination proceeding will be removed. The proceedings would be merged if the reissue application is pending, or the reexamination proceeding will be conducted separately if the reissue application has become abandoned. The reissue application examination would be reopened, if necessary, for merger of the reexamination proceeding therewith. If a stay of a reexamination proceeding has been removed following a reissue application examination, the first Office action will set a shortened statutory period for response of one month or thirty days (whichever is longer) unless a longer period for response clearly is warranted by the nature of the examiner’s action. The second Office action will normally be final and will also set a one month or thirty days period for response. These shortened periods are considered necessary to prevent undue delay in concluding the proceedings and also to proceed with “special dispatch” in view of the earlier stay.
If the reissue application examination and reexamination proceedings are merged, the issuance of the reissue patent will also serve as the inter partes reexamination certificate under 37 CFR 1.997, and the reissue patent will so indicate.
When a reissue application is filed after an inter partes reexamination request has been filed, OPLA should be notified, as promptly as possible. A determination will be made as to whether reexamination should be ordered. If reexamination is ordered, no first Office action will accompany the decision ordering reexamination. The order and any of the files that are paper files should then be hand delivered to OPLA.
Where reexamination has already been ordered prior to the filing of a reissue application, OPLA should be notified, as promptly as possible, that the proceedings are ready for consideration of merger. If any of the reexamination file, the reissue application, and the patent file are paper files, they should be hand delivered to OPLA at the time of the email notification to OPLA.
In making a decision on whether or not to merge the reissue application examination and the reexamination proceeding, consideration will be given as to whether issues are raised in the reissue application that would not be proper for consideration in reexamination and/or not be proper for comment by the reexamination third party requester. If such issues are raised, merger would ordinarily not be ordered, and one of the two proceedings stayed. In addition, consideration will also be given to the status of the reexamination proceeding. For example, if the reexamination proceeding is on appeal to the Board or to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, or a Notice of Intent to Issue a Reexamination Certificate was issued for the reexamination proceeding, that fact would be considered in making a decision whether to merge the reissue application examination and the reexamination proceeding or stay one of them.
With respect to the appropriate examiner assignment of the merged reexamination proceeding and the reissue application examination, see MPEP § 2636.
The decision ordering merger will set forth the practice and procedure to be followed in the examination and prosecution of the merged reissue and inter partes reexamination proceeding. Any questions as to the practice and procedure set forth should be referred to OPLA. In addition, the examiner should consult with OPLA prior to issuing any Office action in the merged proceeding, in the same manner as he or she would consult with the OPLA in an inter partes reexamination proceeding that has not been merged.
Where merger is ordered, the patent owner is required to maintain identical amendments in the reissue application and the reexamination file for purposes of the merged proceeding. The maintenance of identical amendments in both files is required as long as the reissue and reexamination proceedings remain merged. Where identical amendments are not present in both files at the time merger is ordered, the patent owner will be required to submit an appropriate amendment placing the same amendments in both proceedings. This may be accomplished by amending either of the two proceedings (the reissue application or the reexamination) or both of them, as appropriate. The patent owner must not address any issue of patentability in the amendment. Amendments in a merged reexamination/reissue proceeding are submitted under 37 CFR 1.173, in accordance with reissue practice. In the event that an amendment to make the claims the same in each file is required by the merger decision (identical amendments to be placed in all files) but is not timely submitted, any claim that does not contain identical text in all of the merged proceedings should be rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112, paragraph 2, as being indefinite as to the content of the claim, and thus failing to particularly point out the invention.
(A) A reissue application was previously merged with an ex parte reexamination, and then an inter partes reexamination is filed. An order to reexamine is prepared, and the signed order and any paper files should be promptly processed for mailing of the order, and then consideration by OPLA as to whether or not to merge the proceedings. OPLA should be notified of potential merger consideration.
(B) A reissue application was previously merged with an inter partes reexamination, and then a request for ex parte reexamination is filed. After an order to reexamine has been issued, the TC Quality Assurance Specialist (QAS) will retain jurisdiction over the merged reexamination proceeding until the patent owner’s statement and any reply by the ex parte third party requester have been received for the ex parte reexamination request, or until the time for filing the same expires. OPLA should then be notified that the proceedings are ready for consideration of merger. If any of the reexamination files, the reissue application, and the patent file are paper files, they should be hand delivered to OPLA at the time of the notification to OPLA.
(C) An inter partes reexamination was merged with an ex parte reexamination, and then a reissue application is filed. Once the reissue application is received, OPLA should be promptly notified that the proceedings are ready for consideration of merger. If any of the reexamination files, the reissue application, and the patent file are paper files, they should be hand delivered to OPLA at the time of the notification to OPLA.
The decision to merge the three proceedings by OPLA will provide the guidance for conducting the merged proceeding. It is to be noted that the merger will not be carried out pursuant to MPEP Chapter 2200. Prosecution prior to the point of merger will remain as-is, in the files.
In the event the inter partes reexamination prosecution is terminated and only the ex parte reexamination and the reissue application remain, the prosecution will no longer be governed by the present section. Any further prosecution will be governed by MPEP Chapter 2200; specifically see MPEP § 2285.
No petition to merge the reexamination proceeding and the reissue application examination, or stay one of them, is necessary, since the Office will generally, sua sponte, make a decision to merge the reexamination proceeding and the reissue application examination or to stay one of them. If any petition to merge the reexamination proceeding and the reissue application examination, or to stay one of them because of the other, is filed prior to the determination (37 CFR 1.923) and the order to reexamine (37 CFR 1.931), it will not be considered, but will be returned to the party submitting the same by the CRU (or it will be expunged, if the petition has been scanned into the Office's IFW system prior to its discovery), regardless of whether the petition is filed in the reexamination proceeding, the reissue application, or both. This is necessary in order to prevent premature papers relating to the reexamination proceeding from being filed. The decision returning or expunging such a premature petition will be made of record in both the reexamination file and the reissue application file. See MPEP § 2667.
The patent owner may file a petition under 37 CFR 1.182 to merge a reexamination proceeding and a reissue application examination, or stay one of them because of the other, after the order to reexamine (37 CFR 1.931), in the event the Office has not acted prior to that date to merge or stay. The third party requester does not have a right to file a petition under 37 CFR 1.182 to merge a reexamination proceeding and a reissue application examination, since the reexamination third party requester does not have any standing to request relief with respect to a reissue application, to which requester cannot be a party. No such standing is provided for anywhere in the statute. Instead of filing a petition under 37 CFR 1.182 to merge a reexamination proceeding with a reissue application, a third party requester may file a notification of concurrent proceedings pursuant to 37 CFR 1.985(b). After being notified of the existence of a reissue application and after consideration of the merger and suspension options becomes ripe, the Office of Patent Legal Administration would sua sponte consider any action to be taken after the order to reexamine (37 CFR 1.931), in the event the Office has not acted prior to that date to merge or stay. The requester does have the right to file a petition under 37 CFR 1.182 to stay the reexamination proceeding that it requested.
Any merger or stay petition under 37 CFR 1.182 filed prior to the initial Office action on the merits must also be filed under 37 CFR 1.183 to waive the requirement of 37 CFR 1.939(b) that no paper shall be filed prior to the initial Office action on the merits of the inter partes reexamination proceeding. Any petition to merge or stay which is filed by a party other than the patent owner will not be considered, but will be returned to that party by OPLA (or expunged by OPLA, if the petition was inadvertently already entered).
Where the proceedings have been merged and a paper is filed which requires payment of a fee (e.g., excess claims fee, extension of time fee, petition fees, appeal fees, brief fees, oral hearing fees), only a single fee need be paid. For example, only one fee need be paid for an appellant brief, even though the brief relates to merged multiple examinations and copies of the brief are filed for each file in the merger (as is required). As to excess claim fees, reissue practice will control.
Pursuant to 37 CFR 1.955, an interview which discusses the merits of a proceeding is not permitted in an inter partes reexamination proceeding. Thus, in a merged proceeding of an inter partes reexamination and a reissue application, there will be no inter partes interview as to the substance of the proceeding. Also, there will be no separate ex parte interview as to the substance of the proceeding with either the patent owner (the reissue applicant) or the third party requester (of the reexamination). Accordingly, where a party requests any information as to the merits of the merged proceeding, the examiner will not conduct an interview with that party to provide the information. Further, an informal amendment by the patent owner (the reissue applicant) will not be accepted, because that would be tantamount to an ex parte interview. All communications between the Office and the patent owner (and the third party requester) which are directed to the merits of the merged proceeding must be in writing and filed with the Office for entry into the record of the proceeding.
See also MPEP § 1302.04et seq. as to examiner’s amendments not needing authorization by an applicant or a patent owner. Note, however, that in a merged reissue/inter partes reexamination proceeding (as opposed to an application per se) all such examiner’s amendments must be made by formal examiner’s amendment accompanying the Notice of Allowability, in order to provide notice of the changes made in the patent being reexamined to both the patent owner/reissue applicant and the third party requester.
Note that any change going to the merits of the case (i.e., more than a formal matter) could not be made by examiner’s amendment accompanying the Notice of Allowability. Rather, a change going to the merits would require (A) reopening of prosecution with the approval of the CRU Director, (B) an Office action suggesting the change to the patent owner/reissue applicant, (C) a formal amendment submitted by patent owner/reissue applicant, and (D) an opportunity for the third party requester to comment on the patent owner/applicant’s submission.
35 U.S.C. 314 Conduct of inter partes reexamination proceedings.
35 U.S.C. 317 Inter partes reexamination prohibited.
(b) FINAL DECISION.— Once a final decision has been entered against a party in a civil action arising in whole or in part under section 1338 of title 28, that the party has not sustained its burden of proving the invalidity of any patent claim in suit or if a final decision in an inter partes reexamination proceeding instituted by a third-party requester is favorable to the patentability of any original or proposed amended or new claim of the patent, then neither that party nor its privies may thereafter request an inter partes reexamination of any such patent claim on the basis of issues which that party or its privies raised or could have raised in such civil action or inter partes reexamination proceeding, and an inter partes reexamination requested by that party or its privies on the basis of such issues may not thereafter be maintained by the Office, notwithstanding any other provision of this chapter. This subsection does not prevent the assertion of invalidity based on newly discovered prior art unavailable to the third-party requester and the Patent and Trademark Office at the time of the inter partes reexamination proceedings.
35 U.S.C. 318 Stay of litigation.
Once an order for inter partes reexamination of a patent has been issued under section 313, the patent owner may obtain a stay of any pending litigation which involves an issue of patentability of any claims of the patent which are the subject of the inter partes reexamination order, unless the court before which such litigation is pending determines that a stay would not serve the interests of justice.
37 CFR 1.987 Suspension of inter partes reexamination proceeding due to litigation.
If a patent in the process of inter partes reexamination is or becomes involved in litigation, the Director shall determine whether or not to suspend the inter partes reexamination proceeding.
37 CFR 1.907 Inter partes reexamination prohibited.
(b) Once a final decision has been entered against a party in a civil action arising in whole or in part under 28 U.S.C. 1338 that the party has not sustained its burden of proving invalidity of any patent claim-in-suit, then neither that party nor its privies may thereafter request inter partes reexamination of any such patent claim on the basis of issues which that party, or its privies, raised or could have raised in such civil action, and an inter partes reexamination requested by that party, or its privies, on the basis of such issues may not thereafter be maintained by the Office.
35 U.S.C. 311 permits a request for inter partes reexamination to be filed “at any time.” Thus, requests for inter partes reexamination can be filed where the patent (for which reexamination is requested) is involved in concurrent litigation. The guidelines set forth below will generally govern Office handling of inter partes reexamination requests where there is concurrent litigation.
Where a request for reexamination indicates that litigation is stayed for the purpose of reexamination, all aspects of the proceeding will be expedited to the extent possible. Cases will be taken up for action at the earliest time possible, and Office actions in these reexamination proceedings will normally set a one-month shortened statutory period for response rather than the two months usually set in reexamination proceedings. Response periods may be extended only upon a strong showing of sufficient cause (see MPEP § 2665). The statutory requirement for “special dispatch” in reexamination often becomes important, and sometimes critical, in coordinating the concurrent litigation and reexamination proceedings.
(A) The Third Party Requester Was Not a Party to the Litigation.
When the initial question as to whether the art raises a question of patentability as to a patent claim is under consideration, the existence of a final court decision of claim validity in view of the same or different art does not necessarily preclude the presence of such a question. This is true because of the different standards of proof and claim interpretation employed by the district courts and the Office. See for example In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 322, 13 USPQ2d 1320, 1322 (Fed. Cir. 1989) (manner of claim interpretation that is used by courts in litigation is not the manner of claim interpretation that is applicable during prosecution of a pending application before the PTO) and In re Etter, 756 F.2d 852, 225 USPQ 1 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (the 35 U.S.C. 282 presumption of patent validity has no application in reexamination proceedings). Thus, while the Office may accord deference to factual findings made by the court, the determination of whether a basis for reexamination exists will be made independently of the court’s decision on validity, since the decision is not controlling on the Office. See In re Swanson et al, 540 F.3d 1368, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2008).
A non-final holding of claim invalidity or unenforceability will also not be controlling on the question of whether a substantial new question of patentability or reasonable likelihood of prevailing is present.
Only a final holding of claim invalidity or unenforceability (after all appeals) is controlling on the Office. In such cases, a substantial new question of patentability or reasonable likelihood of prevailing would not be present as to the claims held invalid or unenforceable. See Ethicon v. Quigg, 849 F.2d 1422, 7 USPQ2d 1152 (Fed. Cir. 1988).
(B) The Third Party Requester Was a Party to the Litigation.
Final Holding upholding validity: The provisions of 35 U.S.C. 317(b) and 37 CFR 1.907(b) apply. Where a final decision was entered against a party in a federal court civil action (arising in whole or in part under 28 U.S.C. 1338) that the party did not sustain its burden of proving invalidity of a patent claim in suit, that party and its privies may not request inter partes reexamination of any such patent claim on the basis of issues which that party or its privies raised or could have raised in the civil action. Further, an inter partes reexamination already requested by that party, or its privies, on the basis of such issues will not be maintained by the Office, i.e., the proceeding will be concluded. Note, however, that the statute does not preclude an ex parte reexamination by the same third party requester. See also subsection V. below.
(1) Was the federal court decision adverse to the third party requester as to at least one claim of the patent?
(2) Was the federal court decision a final decision, after all appeals?
(3) Is the issue being raised in the reexamination request the same issue as was raised in the federal court during the civil action, or an issue that the third party requester could have raised in the federal court during the civil action?
- If the answer to all of questions (1)-(3) is “yes” for one or more (but not all) of the claims for which reexamination was requested in the proceeding; those claims will not be treated. The examiner’s action will point out the claims not treated and the reason why, i.e., a discussion of the above considerations (1)-(3). The guidelines set forth above in subsection II.(A) will be used for the claims remaining.
- If the answer to question (1) or to question (3) is “no” for all claims for which reexamination was requested, then the examination of the reexamination proceeding will proceed without any discussion on the record of considerations (1)-(3), using the guidelines set forth above in subsection II.(A).
- If, for any claim for which reexamination was requested, the answer to both of questions (1) and (3) is “yes”, but the answer to question (2) is “no”, then examination of the reexamination proceeding will proceed using the guidelines set forth above in subsection II.(A). The examiner’s action will contain a discussion of considerations (1)-(3).
If the examiner subsequently becomes aware that the federal court decision has become final or if the answer to each of questions (1)-(3) is “yes” for all claims for which reexamination was requested in the proceeding, then the examiner should notify his or her SPRS, who will contact OPLA for further guidance. See also subsection V. below.
Final Holding of invalidity: A final holding of claim invalidity or unenforceability (after all appeals) is controlling on the Office. In such cases, a substantial new question of patentability or reasonable likelihood of prevailing would not be present as to the claims held invalid or unenforceable. See Ethicon v. Quigg, 849 F.2d 1422, 7 USPQ2d 1152 (Fed. Cir. 1988). Where all claims for which reexamination was requested are affected, the reexamination will be vacated/terminated by the CRU Director. A non-final holding of claim invalidity or unenforceability, however, will not be controlling on the question of whether a substantial new question of patentability or reasonable likelihood of prevailing is present.
For a discussion of the policy in specific situations where a federal court decision has been issued, see MPEP § 2642 and subsection V. below.
Note the following two Federal Circuit decisions involving reexamination proceedings where the court affirmed the Office’s rejections even though parallel district court proceeding upheld the validity of the claims. In re Trans Texas Holdings Corp., 498 F.3d 1290, 83 USPQ2d 1835 (Fed. Cir. 2007) and In re Translogic Technology, Inc., 504 F.3d 1249, 84 USPQ2d 1929 (Fed. Cir. 2007).
In Trans Texas, the patent being reexamined was subject to an infringement suit, in which the district court had issued its claim construction ruling (in a district court opinion) as to the definition of a term. The parties ultimately reached a settlement before trial, and the district court issued an “Order of Dismissal with Prejudice.” The patent owner relied on that district court claim construction ruling in a reexamination proceeding, and argued that the Office was bound by that district court claim construction ruling, under the doctrine of issue preclusion. The Federal Circuit stated that issue preclusion could not be applied against the Office based on a district court holding in an infringement proceeding, since the Office was not a party to that earlierinfringement proceeding.
Note also In re Swanson et al.,, 540 F.3d 1368, 88 USPQ 2d 1196 (Fed. Cir. 2008) where the Federal Circuit held that the prior federal court judgment upholding validity over a specific prior art reference (in Abbott Labs. v. Syntron Bioreseach, Inc., 334 F.3d 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2003)), did not preclude the Office’s finding that a substantial new question of patentability existed as to the same claims based on the same prior art reference applied in the same manner in the subsequent ex parte reexamination proceeding, and did not preclude the Office’s finding that the patent claims were unpatentable.
Finally, see In re Baxter International Inc., 678 F.3d 1357, 102 USPQ2d 1925 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (patent reexamination should take notice of a court decision but the Office need not come to the same conclusion as the court).
In view of the statutory mandate to make the determination on a request for reexamination within three months, the determination on the request based on the record before the examiner will be made without awaiting a decision by the federal court. It is not realistic to attempt to determine what issues will be treated by the federal court prior to the court’s decision. Accordingly, the determination on the request will be made without considering the issues allegedly before the court. If reexamination is ordered, the reexamination generally (see discussion immediately below) will continue until the Office becomes aware that a court decision has issued. At such time, the request will be reviewed in accordance with the guidelines set forth below.
"Whatever else special dispatch means, it does not admit of an indefinite suspension of reexamination proceedings pending conclusion of litigation. If it did, one would expect to find some intimation to that effect in the statute, for it would suggest the opposite of the ordinary meaning. But there is none."
"The Commissioner… has no inherent authority, only that which Congress gives. It did not give him authority to stay reexaminations; it told him to conduct them with special dispatch. Its silence about stays cannot be used to countermand that instruction."
35 U.S.C. 314 provides for special dispatch in inter partes reexamination “[u]nless otherwise provided by the Director for good cause.” Accordingly, where there is good cause for the Director of the USPTO to suspend (stay) reexamination proceedings pending the conclusion of litigation, a suspension will be effected. This matter will be approached on a case-by-case basis. See subsection V. below for an actual situation where there was pending litigation having the potential to terminate a reexamination prosecution under 35 U.S.C. 317(b), and a suspension was granted.
It should be noted that a suspension will not be considered on its merits prior to ordering of reexamination. Until that point, there is no proceeding to suspend, and the Office must issue its decision on the request within the statutorily mandated three months. Also, suspension will not be considered on its merits when there is an outstanding Office action. In order to ensure consideration on the merits of a petition to suspend where there is an outstanding Office action, the patent owner must: (1) provide a complete response to the outstanding Office action, and (2) include a petition to suspend under 37 CFR 1.182.
It should also be noted that if, pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 318, a court stays litigation as to the patent being reexamined, action in the reexamination proceeding would not be suspended. This is so because action in the reexamination proceeding would be needed to resolve the “issue of patentability of any claims of the patent which are the subject of the inter partes reexamination order” set forth in 35 U.S.C. 318.
Pursuant to 37 CFR 1.985(a), the patent owner in an inter partes reexamination proceeding must promptly notify the Office of any federal court decision involving the patent.
Upon the issuance of a holding of claim invalidity or unenforceability by a federal court, reexamination of those claims will continue in the Office until the decision becomes final. A non-final court decision concerning a patent under reexamination shall have no binding effect on a reexamination proceeding.
Where an inter partes reexamination proceeding is currently pending and a final federal court decision issues after all appeals, the parties are required to notify the Office of the final court decision. The reexamination proceeding is reviewed to see if no substantial new question of patentability remains or reasonable likelihood of prevailing remains (as to one or more claims) due to a holding that patent claims, which are under reexamination, are invalid. If the final court decision holds the claims to be not invalid, and if a party to the reexamination proceeding (such as, e.g., the patent owner) wishes the Office to terminate the proceeding pursuant to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 317(b), the party may notify the Office of the final court decision by filing a grantable petition under 37 CFR 1.182 to terminate prosecution of the claims under reexamination which were finally held to be not invalid, in accordance with the guidelines set forth in subsection V below.
A final court holding of invalidity/unenforceability is binding on the Office. Upon the issuance of a final holding of invalidity or unenforceability, the claims held invalid or unenforceable will be withdrawn from consideration in the reexamination if the Office is notified of the final court decision. The reexamination will continue as to any remaining claims. If all of the claims being examined are finally held invalid or unenforceable, and if the Office is notified of the final court decision, the reexamination will be vacated/terminated by the CRU Director as no longer containing a substantial new question of patentability or reasonable likelihood of prevailing. If not all claims being examined were held invalid, a substantial new question of patentability or reasonable likelihood of prevailing may still exist as to the remaining claims. In such a situation, the remaining claims would be examined; and, as to the claims held invalid, form paragraph 26.80 should be used at the beginning of the Office action.
Claims  of the  patent are not being reexamined in view of the final decision of . Claims  were held invalid by the .
1. In bracket 1, insert the claims held invalid.
3. In bracket 3, insert the decision (e.g., ABC Corp. v. John Doe, 888 F. 3d 88, 999 USPQ2d 99 (Fed. Cir. 1999) or XYZ Corp. v. Jones, 888 F. Supp. 2d 88, 999 USPQ2d 1024 (N.D. Cal. 1999)).
The issuance of a final court decision after all appeals (in a civil action arising in whole or in part under 28 U.S.C. 1338) upholding validity during an inter partes reexamination, where the person who filed the request was a party to the litigation, will have the effect that the Office will discontinue examination of all claims affected by the validity holding if a grantable petition under 37 CFR 1.182 to terminate reexamination of those claims is filed in accordance with guidelines set forth in subsection V. If the provisions of 37 CFR 1.907(b) apply such that all of the claims in the reexamination proceeding cannot be maintained, reexamination is terminated. If the provisions of 37 CFR 1.907(b) apply to some of the claims, but not all of the claims in the proceeding; those claims to which 37 CFR 1.907(b) applies will not be treated. The examiner’s action will point out the claims not treated, and the reason why those claims cannot be maintained in the reexamination under 37 CFR 1.907(b). Action will be given on the remaining claims. Note that the provisions of 37 CFR 1.907(b)cannot be waived since they track the statute, pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 317. See subsection V. below.
The issuance of a final court decision upholding validity during an inter partes reexamination, where the person who filed the request was not a party to the litigation, will have no binding effect on the examination of the reexamination. This is because the court stated in Ethicon v. Quigg, 849 F.2d 1422, 1428, 7 USPQ2d 1152, 1157 (Fed. Cir. 1988) that the Office is not bound by a court’s decision upholding validity and should continue the reexamination. The court noted that district courts and the Office use different standards of proof in determining invalidity and unpatentability, and thus, on the same evidence, could quite correctly come to different conclusions. Specifically, invalidity in a district court must be shown by “clear and convincing” evidence, whereas in the Office it is sufficient to show non-patentability by a “preponderance” of the evidence. Since the “clear and convincing” standard is harder to satisfy than the “preponderance standard,” a court’s decision upholding validity is not controlling. Deference will, however, ordinarily be accorded to the factual findings of the court, where the evidence before the Office and the court is the same. If sufficient reasons are present, claims upheld by the court may be rejected in reexamination.
A party to a pending inter partes reexamination proceeding such as, e.g., the patent owner, may request the Office to terminate prosecution of patent claims under reexamination, which are finally held to be not invalid by a federal court, by filing a grantable petition under 37 CFR 1.182 to terminate prosecution of those claims, in accordance with the guidance set forth below.
Congress specifically provided estoppel provisions to shut down an inter partes reexamination of a patent claim when a “final decision” upholding the validity of that claim has been reached in a civil action or in a prior inter partes reexamination proceeding. See pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 317(b); pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 315(c). Thus, if a party’s challenge to the validity of certain patent claims has been finally resolved, either through civil litigation or the inter partes reexamination process, then (A) that party is barred from making a subsequent request for inter partes reexamination (or filing a new civil action) challenging the validity of those same claims, and (B) “an inter partes reexamination previously requested by that party or its privies on the basis of such issues may not thereafter be maintained by the Office.” Id.
The statute and legislative history of the estoppel provisions make it clear that the inter partes reexamination of a claim (requested by a party) must be terminated once a final decision upholding the validity of that claim (challenged by the same party) has issued “after any appeals,” and not simply after a district court decision which is still pending on appeal. If there remains any time for an appeal, or a request for reconsideration, from a court (e.g., district court or Federal Circuit) decision, or such action has already been taken, then the decision is not final, and the estoppel does not attach. While Congress desired that the creation of an inter partes reexamination option would lead to a reduction in expensive patent litigation, it nonetheless also provided in the statute that a court validity challenge and inter partes reexamination of a patent may occur simultaneously; but once one proceeding finally ends in a manner adverse to a third party, then the issues raised (or that could have been raised) with respect to the validity of a claim in that proceeding would have estoppel effect on the same issues in the other proceeding.
This is a statutory estoppel which can attach to an inter partes reexamination third party requester that is also a party to litigation concerning the patent for which reexamination has been requested.
4. The issue(s) raised in the reexamination proceeding are the same issue(s) that were raised or could have been raised by the requester in the civil action.
The evidence should include a copy of the district court decision, any jury verdict, any decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC), including any mandate, any dismissal of an appeal by the CAFC, and any ruling by the United States Supreme Court on a petition for certiorari. Submission of a copy of the district court’s docket is also recommended. The copy of the docket may provide evidence, for example, that no further appeal has been taken in the litigation, or if (and when) a trial has been held, where appropriate.
Regarding item no. 1, evidence that the third party requester was party to the litigation may be provided by filing a copy of the court decision or other court document which provides the name of the requester as, for example, a defendant in the litigation.
Regarding item no. 2, the petition must be accompanied by evidence that the decision is final, after all appeals. If there remains any time for an appeal, or a request for reconsideration, from a court (e.g., district court or Federal Circuit) decision, or such action has already been taken, then the decision is not final, and the estoppel does not attach. Such evidence may include any decision by the CAFC, including any mandate, any dismissal of an appeal by the CAFC, any ruling by the United States Supreme Court on a petition for certiorari, and/or a copy of the district court’s docket.
Regarding item no. 3 above, the evidence must show which claims were before the court at the time of the court’s decision. A “claim in suit” is a claim that was before the court at the time of the court’s decision, and not merely a claim that was asserted at some point in the litigation. If a claim under reexamination was not the subject of the court’s decision, then the estoppel provisions of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 317(b) do not apply to the final outcome of the litigation as to that patent claim, because there is no “final decision that the party has not sustained its burden of proving the invalidity” of that patent claim. Thus, prosecution of the non-litigated claims would not be “terminated” in the reexamination proceeding.
Pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 317(b) specifically requires a decision by the court that the requester “has not sustained its burden of providing the invalidity of any patent claim in suit” (emphasis added). The statute does not refer, for example, to any patent claim that “could have been” in suit. Pursuant to the statute, the patent claims that were before the court at the time of the court’s decision must initially be determined. Further, each claim that is determined to be “in suit,” i.e., each claim that is determined to be before the court at the time of the court’s decision, must have a corresponding final decision of non-invalidity. Once the claims in suit have been identified and once the “final decision has been entered . . .,” the statute then prohibits the Office from maintaining an inter partes reexamination “of any such patent claim” (i.e., the patent claim in suit), “on the basis of issues which . . . [the requester] raised or could have raised” in the litigation (emphasis added). Accordingly, the phrase “raised or could have raised” applies only to patent claims that were in suit and for which a final decision on non-invalidity has been entered. Thus, the issue is not whether the requester “could have raised” claims that were not in suit. Rather, once the claims that were actually before the court with respect to the issue of non-invalidity at the time of the court’s decision are determined, the issue is whether any issues raised in the reexamination proceeding with respect to those claims either were raised or could have been raised by the requester in the litigation.
Evidence showing which claims were before the court may include a copy of the jury verdict form, or any other court document which shows which claims were before the court at the time of the court’s decision. Also, where appropriate, a copy of the court’s docket may provide evidence, in combination with another court document such as a complaint and/or defendant’s answer, of which claims were before the court at the time of the court’s decision, by showing that the specific patent claims before the court at the time of the complaint and defendant’s answer have not been reduced or modified prior to the court’s decision.
Further, if a third-party requester asserts patent invalidity in a civil action and a final decision is entered that the party failed to prove the assertion of invalidity . . . after any appeals, that third-party requester cannot thereafter request inter partes reexamination on the basis of issues which were or which could have been raised. However, the third-party requester may assert invalidity based on newly discovered prior art unavailable at the time of the civil action or inter partes reexamination. Prior art was unavailable at the time if it was not known to the individuals who were involved in the civil action or inter partes reexamination proceeding on behalf of the third-party requester and the USPTO.
106 Cong. Rec. S14720, Nov. 17, 1999. See also 106 Cong. Rec. H11805, Nov. 9, 1999.
Thus, to show that a reference is “available”, the patent owner must provide sufficient evidence that the reference was known to the requester (i.e., actual knowledge) at a time when it could have been raised in the civil action; such as, e.g., prior to any trial.
The petitioner may provide, for example, a discussion or comparison of the prior art raised in the reexamination proceeding and any prior art actually raised at trial. Any argument that the prior art was raised at trial must be accompanied by evidence such as, for example, a court document that lists the prior art raised, such as a copy of a jury verdict form. The petitioner may also provide evidence that the prior art raised in the reexamination proceeding could have been raised by the requester in the civil action by filing, for example, a copy of defendant’s invalidity contentions, which lists the prior art known to the requester before any trial began, and by comparing the prior art listed with the prior art raised in the reexamination proceeding.
The statute thus authorizes the Director of the USPTO to suspend (stay) reexamination proceedings, where there is good cause to do so, pending the conclusion of litigation based on a potential for termination of a reexamination prosecution under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 317(b). Thus, a district court decision that is pending appeal on the validity of the same claims considered in an inter partes reexamination proceeding, where the requester of the reexamination proceeding (or its privies) is also a party to the litigation, may provide the requisite statutory “good cause” for suspension, due to the possibility that the pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 317(b) estoppel may attach in the near future to bar/terminate the reexamination proceeding. Any such fact situation is resolved on a case-by-case basis.
Congress, in creating the inter partes reexamination statutory framework in 2002, borrowed heavily from the existing ex parte reexamination regime. For example, inter partes reexamination proceedings, like ex parte reexaminations, must be conducted with “special dispatch.” Pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 314(c). Unlike ex parte reexamination, however, Congress provided the Office with the statutory authority and discretion to suspend inter partes reexamination proceedings for “good cause.” See pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 314(c).
A grant of a petition to suspend an inter partes reexamination proceeding pending potential termination due to litigation is extremely rare, due to the difficulty in determining the probability that the district court will, or will not, be reversed on appeal, or when the litigation might finally be concluded, after all appeals. Because the Office is required to conduct reexamination proceedings with special dispatch, inter partes reexamination proceedings are rarely suspended solely because there is a potential for termination due to pending litigation.
1. The third party requester is a party to the litigation.
2. The claims at issue in the litigation are identical to the claims under reexamination. The pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 317(b) estoppel applies only to patent claims that were litigated in the suit, i.e., claims that were before the court at the time of the court's decision (the litigated claims). If a claim under reexamination is not the subject of the litigation, then the estoppel provisions of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 317(b) would not apply to the final outcome of the litigation as to that patent claim. Indeed, there would be no “final decision that the party has not sustained its burden of proving the invalidity” of that patent claim. Thus, there is no “potential for termination” of this reexamination proceeding as to the non-litigated claims.
3. The issue(s) raised in the reexamination proceeding are the same issue(s) that were raised or could have been raised by the requester in the litigation. The pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 317(b) estoppel applies only to issues which the requester or its privies raised or could have raised in the civil action. The estoppel does not apply where new issues are raised in the request, or raised in the reexamination proceeding at a time when the new issues could also have been raised in the litigation.
If new art is raised in the reexamination proceeding and was not raised in the litigation (civil action), and the art could not have been raised in the litigation, then estoppel does not attach. The patent owner has the burden of showing that the art applied in the request or later raised in the reexamination proceeding was available, i.e., known, to the third-party requester at a time when they could have been placed in the litigation, such as, e.g., prior to trial. See subsection V.A. above.
4. The litigation has advanced to a late enough stage that there is a sufficient probability that a final decision will be adverse to the requester. The pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 317(b) estoppel applies only in a situation where a final decision adverse to the requester has already been issued. If there remains any time for an appeal, or a request for reconsideration, from a court (e.g., district court or Federal Circuit) decision, or such action has already been taken, then the decision is not final, and the estoppel does not attach.
5. There is a concurrent ex parte reexamination proceeding for the patent. As stated in MPEP § 2286: “The issuance of a final federal court decision upholding validity during an ex parte reexamination also will have no binding effect on the examination of the reexamination. This is because the court states in Ethicon v. Quigg, 849 F.2d 1422, 1428, 7 USPQ2d 1152, 1157 (Fed. Cir. 1988) that the Office is not bound by a court’s holding of patent validity and should continue the reexamination.” If there is a concurrent ex parte reexamination proceeding having overlapping issues with an inter partes reexamination proceeding where the estoppel has the potential to attach, but no final decision has been issued, then the Office may in some instances (depending on the individual facts and circumstances), go forward with statutorily required “special dispatch” as per Ethicon in a merged proceeding containing both the inter partes reexamination and the ex parte reexamination. This is a matter of administrative convenience to avoid rework and make the process more efficient. Again, OPLA should be consulted.
In reexamination control numbers 95/000,093 and 95/000,094 (the ‘093 and ‘094 proceedings), action was suspended based on ongoing litigation. After a district court decision adverse to requester, it was determined that “good cause” existed to wait for the outcome of the Federal Circuit appeal, because the reexamination proceedings were only at their beginning stages, while the concurrent litigation was potentially near its final resolution. Requester had chosen to permit the district court litigation to proceed for three years before filing its requests for reexamination, the filing taking place only after judgment was entered in patent owner’s favor in the litigation. Had requester filed its requests for reexamination earlier, the reexamination proceedings would have been much farther along in the process, and may likely have been completed at the Office before the district court issued its decision. Moreover, had requester filed its reexamination requests earlier in the litigation, the district court might have stayed the litigation to await the Office’s decisions in the two reexamination proceedings. After choosing to go years through the entire district court litigation proceeding without asking for the Office’s input, requester was not in a position to complain that a suspension of the ‘093 and ‘094 reexamination proceedings would deprive requester of a chance to obtain the Office’s decision, when there was a strong possibility that the Federal Circuit’s decision would estop the Office from issuing any decision at all. In short, requester could not have it both ways. Requester waited three years after the district court case began, and waited until after the district court issued a final decision, such that its district court litigation could in no way be affected by any decision on its reexamination requests. Requester’s delay was the reason that the ‘093 and ‘094 reexaminations could very well be mooted before any reexamination decision issued and the USPTO Director found “good cause” to suspend the proceedings. On May 22, 2006, the U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Virginia, in Sony Computer Entertainment America Inc. v. Dudas, 85 USPQ2d 1594 (E.D. Va 2006), issued a decision upholding the Office’s finding of “good cause” to suspend the ‘093 and ‘094 inter partes reexamination proceedings. Requester chose its route (litigation) and had to deal with the consequences of its decision, i.e., a suspension of the reexamination proceedings.
On the other hand, see reexamination control numbers 95/000,020, 95/000,071 and 95/000,072, for decisions in which action was not suspended, because the specific facts dictated otherwise.
In order to ensure that the Office is aware of prior or concurrent litigation, the examiner is responsible for conducting a reasonable investigation for evidence as to whether the patent for which reexamination is requested has been, or is, involved in litigation. The investigation will include a review of the reexamination file, the patent file, and the results of the litigation computer search.
The Leahy-Smith America Invents Act amended 35 U.S.C. 315(d) and added 35 U.S.C. 325(d) to provide that, during the pendency of an inter partes review, post grant review or covered business method review (“PTAB Review Proceeding”), if another proceeding (e.g., a reexamination proceeding) or matter involving the patent is before the Office, the Director may determine the manner in which the PTAB Review Proceeding and the other proceeding or matter may proceed. Accordingly, if an examiner becomes aware of a PTAB Review Proceeding for the same patent that is being reexamined, the reexamination proceeding must be referred to the examiner’s SPRS who will coordinate with the PTAB before taking any action on the reexamination proceeding.

References: § 2686
 § 2687
 § 41
 v. 
 § 2284
 § 2625
 § 1
 § 1
 § 2641
 § 2647
 § 2646
 § 2640
 § 2636
 § 2285
 § 2667
 § 1302
 § 2665
 v. 
 V. 
 V. 
 v. 
 § 2642
 V. 
 v. 
 V. 
 v. 
 v. 
 V. 
 V. 
 v. 
 § 2286
 v. 
 v.