Source: https://www.pharmapatentsblog.com/2013/12/16/the-leahy-patent-transparency-and-improvements-act/
Timestamp: 2019-03-19 20:50:15
Document Index: 744535979

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 106', '§ 102', '§ 119', '§ 120', '§ 119', '§ 118', '§ 1', '§ 120', '§ 120', '§ 120', '§ 291', '§ 112', '§ 112', '§ 32']

Patent Reform: The Leahy Patent Transparency And Improvements Act | PharmaPatents
Home > Obviousness Type Double Patenting > Patent Reform: The Leahy Patent Transparency And Improvements Act
Section 9 of S. 1720 would create a statutory basis for obviousness-type double patenting for first-inventor-to-file patents in new 35 USC § 106. The proposed statute uses the same language as the corresponding proposal in the Goodlatte Act, and raises the same concerns as possibly going both too far and not far enough in codifying the doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting for first-inventor-to-file patents, as explained in this article.
(A) an oath or declaration meeting the requirements of subsection (a) was executed by the individual and was filed in connection with the earlier-filed application executed by or on behalf of the individual was filed in connection with the earlier filed application and meets the requirements of this section as effective on the date such oath or declaration was filed ….
Technical Correction To Grace Period Exception For Inventor’s Own Disclosure
Section 10 of S. 1720 would amend 35 USC § 102(b)(1)(A) as follows:
Technical Correction To Right To Claim Priority For Applications Filed By Assignee
Section 10 of S. 1720 would amend 35 USC § 119(e)(1) and 35 USC § 120 as follows:
An application for patent for an invention disclosed in the manner provided by the first paragraph of section 112(a) (other than the requirement to disclose the best mode) of this title in an application previously filed in the United States, or as provided by section 363 of this title, which names an the inventor or a joint inventor in the previously filed application shall have the same effect, as to such invention, as though filed on the date of the prior application, if filed before the patenting or abandonment of or termination of proceedings on the first application or on an application similarly entitled to the benefit of the filing date of the first application and if it contains or is amended to contain a specific reference to the earlier filed application. ….
It is my understanding that the proposed changes to § 119(e)(1) are intended to harmonize its language with an assignee’s right to file an application (which came into effect with 35 USC § 118 on September 16, 2012). Thus, the changes remove the requirement that the second application be “filed … by an inventor” named in the first application, and require instead that the second application “name” an inventor named in the first application. (The USPTO long has interpreted the “filed … by” requirement as being satisfied when the same inventor is named, as reflected in 37 CFR § 1.78).
Thus, if my understanding is correct, the newly proposed changes to § 120 apply to amended language in § 120 that applies only to “first-inventor-to-file” applications/patents. If Senator Leahy intends to correct that technical error in the AIA and make the entire “filed by … names” amendments to § 120 effective as of September 16, 2012, S. 1720 may need to reference both versions of the statute.
Technical Correction To Derivation Statute
Section 10 of S. 1720 amends 35 USC § 291(b) as follows:
Clarification Of Effective Date Of Changes To 35 USC § 112
Section 10 of S. 1720 clarifies the effective date of the AIA changes to 35 USC § 112:
Extension of the Limitations Period for Disciplinary Proceedings
Section 10 of S. 1720 extends the limitations period for commencing a disciplinary proceeding under 35 USC § 32: