Source: http://www.pharmapatentsblog.com/2012/02/28/what-happens-when-interfering-applications-straddle-the-first-to-file-effective-date/
Timestamp: 2014-04-16 21:58:49
Document Index: 24285887

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 102', '§ 102', '§ 102', '§ 102', '§ 102', '§ 102']

What Happens When Interfering Applications Straddle The First-To-File Effective Date? | PharmaPatents
Home > Patent Reform > What Happens When Interfering Applications Straddle The First-To-File Effective Date?
Posted By Courtenay Brinckerhoff on 28 February 2012 Posted in Patent Reform
The March 16, 2013 Effective Date As I wrote previously, one of the more complex aspects of the America Invents Act relates to the effective date and applicability of the first-to-file provisions of new 35 USC § 102. As a general rule, applications with any claim that has an effective filing date on or after March 16, 2013 will be subject to the new version of § 102. On the other hand, applications with any claim that has an earlier effective filing date still will be subject to the current versions of 35 USC §§ 102(g), 135 and 291:
The First-To-File Issues Assuming that no interference is declared between Application A and Application B, Inventor A could pursue claims to the Invention in the CIP Application. The CIP Application will be subject to the new version of § 102 because it includes at least one claim with an effective filing date after March 16, 2013 (the claims to the “Improvement”).
Any claims directed to the Invention will be accorded an effective filing date of Application A, and so Application B (filed after Application A) will not be prior art against those claims. (Claims directed to the Improvement will be accorded an effective filing date of the CIP application, and so both Application A and Application B will be prior art against those claims.)
The Interference Issues Luckily for Inventor B, the CIP application still will be subject to current §§ 102(g), 135 and 291. This means that Inventor B still could defeat Inventor A in an interference by proving an earlier date of invention. The Hole In The Safety Net While 35 USC §§ 102(g), 135 and 291 protect Inventor B from losing an interfering application or patent to Inventor A, they do not prevent Inventor A from obtaining a patent to the Invention under all circumstances. For example, if Application B is abandoned before the CIP is examined, there would be no interference, and the CIP could be granted with claims directed to the Invention.
Applicants in Inventor B’s position may want to monitor the status of earlier-filed applications cited against it (such as Application A) for related applications filed on or after March 16, 2013.
Applicants in Inventor A’s position may want to consider filing a CIP application on or after March 16, 2013, in order to be in a position to obtain a patent if Application B is abandoned.