Source: http://www.brinksgilson.com/aia-litigation-strategies
Timestamp: 2017-12-18 01:24:28
Document Index: 679620283

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 299', '§ 292', '§ 282', '§ 112', '§ 321', '§ 102']

AIA Litigation Strategies | Brinks Gilson & Lione
The conversion from the longstanding first-to-invent system to a first-inventor-to-file system for granting patent rights may be the most significant change in legal practice to be imposed by the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (AIA). But the AIA's full effect on patent litigation will not completely manifest itself for many months—if not years—after the AIA is fully implemented on March 16, 2013.
35 USC § 299: Restrictions on Joinder
To the relief of many potential defendants, the AIA includes a key provision restricting joinder in a single patent infringement lawsuit.
Sign joint defense agreements with other defendants to share legal strategies and defense information.
35 USC § 292: False Patent Marking
In 2009, in Forest Group Inc. v. Bon Tool Co., 590 F3d 1295 (Fed. Cir. 2009), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit held that any person could file a false marking suit and force defendants to pay up to $500 per instance of false marking, with damages to be evenly split between the plaintiff and the U.S. government. In the wake of this decision, hundreds of plaintiffs emerged with false marking claims.
35 U.S.C. § 282(3): Best Mode Defense
The AIA eliminates the longstanding option for alleged patent infringers to argue that a patent owner failed to disclose the “best mode” of practice when prosecuting their patent. As a result, a plaintiff can move to dismiss any best mode affirmative defenses. Companies accused of infringement may attempt to transform the best mode defense into a separate 35 U.S.C. § 112 defense of invalidity on the basis of indefiniteness, lack of enablement or inadequate written description in the patent in dispute.
35 U.S.C. Chapter 32, §§ 321-29: Transitional Post-Grant Review Period for Business Method Patents
The AIA gives a defendant accused of business method patent infringement the option of requesting a post-grant review of prior art as much as a year after the infringement suit is filed. A petitioner under this transitional program is required to show a degree of certainty (that it is more likely than not) that their position will prevail on at least one of the claims. Also important, prior art can include not only patents and printed publications, but also non-published knowledge or use prior to the invention. Furthermore, this transitional post-grant review imposes less estoppel than for other types of patents; during trial or an ITC investigation, petitioners are only barred from raising issues that were previously raised during the post-grant review; they are free to introduce issues that could have been raised—but were not—during post-grant review. Petitioners can file an interlocutory appeal if the district court denies a request to stay the litigation.
Litigation strategies: A patentee plaintiff may respond to an inequitable conduct defense by filing a supplemental examination to 'cure' its patent. The defendant should consider filing a reexamination or inter partes review to publicize its side of the story before the USPTO issues a ruling.
35 U.S.C. § 102: Provisions to be Implemented on March 16, 2013
The AIA’s conversion to a first-inventor-to-file system, is manifested in Section 102 provisions concerning prior art. In general, for applications filed on or after March 16, 2013, the patent filing date and the invention date are one and the same. Any information published or otherwise disclosed anywhere in the world before the filing date is considered to be prior art.
Impact on litigation: Section 102’s impact on litigation will remain unclear until it is fully effective.
If you have any questions or wish to discuss how the AIA legislation may impact you, please contact your attorney at Brinks Gilson & Lione.