Source: http://www.pharmapatentsblog.com/2012/01/13/proposed-aia-implementation-rules-citation-of-prior-art-and-written-statements/
Timestamp: 2015-01-25 20:18:08
Document Index: 502527274

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 301', '§ 1', '§ 1', '§ 1', '§ 1', '§ 301', '§ 1', '§ 1', '§ 1', '§ 1', '§ 1', '§ 1', '§ 301', 'art 1', '§ 301', '§ 301', '§ 314', '§ 301', '§ 301', '§ 314', '§ 301']

Proposed AIA Implementation Rules: Citation Of Prior Art And Written Statements | PharmaPatents
Home > Patent Reform > Proposed AIA Implementation Rules: Citation Of Prior Art And Written Statements
Proposed AIA Implementation Rules: Citation Of Prior Art And Written Statements
On January 5, 2012, the USPTO issued a Federal Register Notice with proposed rules to implement provisions of the America Invents Act relating to the citation of prior art and written statements in a granted patent. The USPTO will consider written comments received by March 5, 2012. (The same Federal Register Notice also sets forth proposed rules to implement some of the estoppel provisions of the new inter partes review and post-grant review proceedings that I will address in a separate article.) The AIA Provisions
The proposed rules are designed to implement Section 6(g) of the AIA, which provides:
This section of the AIA takes effect September 16, 2012, and will apply “to any patent issued before, on, or after that effective date.”
The current version of 35 USC § 301 provides for the submission of prior art only:
The proposed rules would amend 37 CFR § 1.501 to read as follows:
(a) Information content of submission:
(b) Explanation included:
A submission pursuant to paragraph (a) of this section:
(c) Reexamination pending:
If a reexamination proceeding has been requested and is pending for the patent in which the submission is filed, entry of the submission into the official file of the patent is subject to the provisions of §§ 1.502 and 1.902.
(d) Identity:
If the person making the submission wishes his or her identity to be excluded from the patent file and kept confidential, the submission papers must be submitted anonymously without any identification of the person making the submission.
(e) Service of the submission:
A submission made under this section must reflect that a copy of the submission has been served upon the patent owner at the correspondence address of record in the patent, in accordance with § 1.248, or that a bona fide attempt of service was made. A submission that fails to include either proof of service or a sufficient explanation and proof of a bona fide attempt of service will not be entered into the patent file, and will be expunged if inadvertently entered.
(f) Consideration of statements of patent owner:
Statements of the patent owner and accompanying information submitted under paragraph (a)(2) of this section shall not be considered by the Office for any purpose other than as provided for in 35 U.S.C. 301(d). If reexamination is ordered, the patent owner statements submitted pursuant to section 301(a)(2) will be considered when determining the scope of any claims in the patent subject to reexamination.
These proposed amendments to 37 CFR § 1.501 reflect the new ability to submit “claim scope statements” in addition to prior art, and related provisions of the amendments to 35 USC § 301.
The proposed rules also would make the following changes to 37 CFR §§ 1.510, 1.515, and 1.552 to permit the consideration of claim scope statements in ex parte reexamination proceedings that have been ordered, but not permit their consideration when deciding whether to order an ex parte reexamination:
1.510 Request for ex parte reexamination.
(2) An identification of every claim for which reexamination is requested, and a detailed explanation of the pertinency and manner of applying the cited prior art to every claim for which reexamination is requested. For each statement and accompanying information of the patent owner submitted pursuant to § 1.501(a)(2) which is relied upon in the detailed explanation, the request must explain how that statement is being used to determine the proper meaning of a patent claim in connection with the prior art applied to that claim and how each relevant claim is being interpreted. If appropriate, the party requesting reexamination may also point out how claims distinguish over cited prior art.
§ 1.515 Determination of the request for ex parte reexamination.
(a) Within three months following the filing date of a request for an ex parte reexamination, an examiner will consider the request and determine whether or not a substantial new question of patentability affecting any claim of the patent is raised by the request and the prior art cited therein, with or without consideration of other patents or printed publications. A statement and any accompanying information submitted pursuant to § 1.501(a)(2) will not be considered by the examiner in the examiner’s determination on the request. The examiner’s determination will be based on the claims in effect at the time of the determination, will become a part of the official file of the patent, and will be mailed to the patent owner at the address provided for in § 1.33(c) and to the person requesting reexamination.
§ 1.552 Scope of reexamination in ex parte reexamination proceedings.
My Preliminary Comments
Several points raised in the Federal Register Notice and reflected in the proposed rules caught my attention.
First, the USPTO is interpreting the amendments to 35 USC § 301 as permitting the citation of statements that the patent owner made in a Federal court or USPTO proceeding, and as not permitting the citation of statements that the patent owner might have made outside of such a proceeding, even if such statements are made of record in the proceeding by another party. The USPTO cites the following legislative history in support of this interpretation:
This addition will counteract the ability of patent owners to offer differing interpretations of prior art in different proceedings.
H.R. Rep. No. 112–98, Part 1, at page 46 (2011).
Stakeholders should consider whether they agree with this interpretation of the statute.
Second, the USPTO is interpreting the reference in 35 USC § 301 to a “Federal court” to include the U.S. Court of International Trade.
Third, the USPTO is interpreting the reference in 35 USC § 301 to proceedings under 35 USC § 314 as referring to inter partes review proceedings, but not in inter partes reexamination proceedings. As such, the USPTO is interpreting 35 USC § 301 as permitting the use of claim scope statements in inter partes review proceedings, but not in inter partes reexamination proceedings that may be ongoing when the amended version of 35 USC § 301 takes effect on September 16, 2012. The USPTO bases this interpretation on the fact that the amendments to 35 USC § 314 that replace inter partes reexamination proceedings with inter partes review proceedings also take effect on September 16, 2012.
Fourth, the USPTO is interpreting 35 USC § 301(d) as not permitting the consideration of “claim scope statements” when the decision whether to order ex parte reexamination is being made. In particular, the USPTO interprets this language
in a proceeding that is ordered or instituted pursuant to section 304, 314, or 324
as providing that a claim scope statement “may be relied upon in the ex parte reexamination proceeding only after reexamination has been ordered.” The comments in the Federal Register Notice explain that the USPTO will use “the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims” when deciding whether to order an ex parte reexamination.
Finally, the proposed rule imposes a different “notice” requirement than the current rule, even though the statute does not appear to impose any notice requirement. The Federal Register Notice includes a lengthy discussion of what is required to establish that “a bona fide attempt of service was made,” including a statement of facts and supporting evidence such as “certified/registered mail receipts, cover letters, [and] telegrams [!].” The Federal Register Notice also suggests that a patent owner adopt a “best practice” of monitoring the image file wrappers of their patents on the USPTO website in order to “be aware of all information added to its patent files.”
Paperwork Reduction Act Estimates
The Federal Register Notice includes the following estimates under the Paperwork Reduction Act:
Estimated Number of Respondents: 1,000 per year
Estimated Time Per Response: 10 hours
Estimated Total Annual Respondent Burden Hours: 10,000
Estimated Total Annual Respondent Cost Burden: 3,400,000
Stakeholders should consider whether they agree with these estimates.