Source: http://www.bracewelllaw.com/news-publications/updates/perils-reissue-recapture-doctrine-has-teeth
Timestamp: 2016-10-22 17:51:38
Document Index: 801160716

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 251', '§ 251', '§ 251', 'art.11', '§112', '§120']

Perils of Reissue - Recapture Doctrine Has Teeth! | Bracewell
News & Publications Home » News Publications » Updates » Perils of Reissue - Recapture Doctrine Has Teeth! <?php// End Hannah's pretty new code ?>
<h1 class="pub-title">Perils of Reissue - Recapture Doctrine Has Teeth!</h1>
<p>June 6, 2011</p><p><a name="3"></a>Patent owners beware! Over the past year, the Federal Circuit has issued two major rulings<sup><a href="#1">1</a></sup> which stand as a warning to patent owners that when requesting reissue of an arguably defective patent, if you attempt to broaden aspects of the claims relating to subject matter surrendered during prosecution of the defective patent,<sup><a href="#1">2</a></sup> courts (and now likely the U.S. Patent Office as well) will extensively examine the "entire" prosecution history of the defective patent and its family to determine if you are attempting to recapture the surrendered subject matter.<sup><a href="#1">3</a></sup> This means that the review will not only include the prosecution history of the "defective" patent undergoing reissue, but also the prosecution history of any and all "ancestor patent applications."<sup><a href="#1">4</a></sup> The warning is out. Improper recapture of surrendered subject matter will not be tolerated.</p>
<p>The unfortunate result of the Federal Circuit's zealous desire to prevent improper recapture, however, is that: pursuit of claims of a broader or mixed scope through the reissue process can be tantamount to walking through a mine field that grows with the number of patent applications added to the patent’s family. If patent owners and portfolio managers desire to enlarge the scope of the claims of an issued patent,<sup>5 the reissue application must be applied for within two years from the grant date of the issued patent. Due to these broaden reissue difficulties, it may be prudent to make a determination of whether broader claims are desired much earlier in an application process and prior to patent grant/issuance to avoid the broaden reissue route.
In 2003, MBO filed suit against Becton, Dickinson & Co. ("Becton") asserting infringement of various claims of the RE '885 patent, which included three original claims copied without amendment from the '699 patent and four claims added during the reissue process. During the course of the litigation, Becton challenged the four reissue claims as being invalid under the recapture rule—arguing that the reissue claims recaptured subject matter surrendered during patent prosecution. The District Court agreed, holding that the four added claims were invalid. The District Court, however, also held that all claims including the original claims were invalid.19 MBO in an appeal to the Federal Circuit requested clarification.20 In discussing whether the patentee surrendered any subject matter, which necessarily requires a review of prosecution history, the Federal Circuit clarified that the determination of the existence of surrender of a claim’s scope, includes surrendered subject matter made not only while prosecuting the original application directly resulting in the original patent (i.e., the '699 patent), but also subject matter surrendered in any precedent divisional, continuation, or continuation-in-part application (here both the '722 and '013 applications).21 The original claims, however, remain unaffected by the recapture rule.22 Moral of This Story
For strategic guidance on whether broader claims may be available or how to move forward with potentially broader or mixed claim scope, please contact your attorney at Bracewell & Giuliani LLP or one of the attorneys on this update.
1 In re Mostafazadeh, __F.3d__, 98 USPQ2d 1639 (Fed. Cir. 2011); and MBO Laboratories Inc. v. Becton, Dickinson & Co., 602 F.3d 1306, 94 USPQ2d 1598 (Fed. Cir. 2010).2 Under 35 U.S.C. § 251, patent owners may seek reissue of a defective patent through filing of a reissue application to correct an error in the patent. The error must be made without any deceptive intention and must be to an extent that, as a result of the error, the patent is deemed wholly or partly inoperative or invalid.3 MBO Laboratories Inc., 94 USPQ2d at 1606.4 Id.5 35 U.S.C. § 251 explicitly limits the submission of claims having an enlarged scope to the two years from the grant of the original patent, reissue applications that do not enlarge the scope of the claims may be submitted until patent expiration. In re Morgan, 990 F.2d 1230, 26 USPQ2d 1392, 1393 (Fed. Cir. 1992).6 In In re Tanaka, __F.3d__, 98 USPQ.2d 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2011), the majority of a three-judge panel ruled that, as a hedge against possible claim invalidity, patent holders may file reissue applications having only narrower dependent claims without having to amend any of the original patented claims.7 See, e.g., In re Wadlinger, Kerr, and Rosinski, 181 USPQ 826 (C.C.P.A. 1974); Rohm & Haas Co. v. Roberts Chemicals, Inc., 245 F.2d 693, 113 USPQ 423 (4th Cir. 1957); Moist Cold Refrigerator Co., Inc. v. Lou Johnson Co., Inc., et al., 217 F.2d 39, 103 USPQ 410 (9th Cir. 1954).8 Examples include amendments to disclose "functions, properties, theories or advantages inherent in what was originally disclosed" (In re Hay, 189 USPQ 790 (C.C.P.A. 1976)) and to correct errors in translation from a foreign language (In re Oda, Fujii, Moriga, and Higaki, 170 USPQ 268 (C.C.P.A. 1971).9 Haliczer v. United States, 356 F.2d 541, 545, 148 USPQ 565, 569 (Ct. Cl. 1966) (“[D]eliberate withdrawal or amendment of claims in order to obtain the original patent cannot be said to involve the inadvertence or mistake contemplated by 35 U.S.C. § 251, and is not an error of the kind which will justify the granting of a reissue patent which includes the matter withdrawn.”).10 Surrender can occur, for example, when the patentee during prosecution narrows the claims in order to distinguish the patentee's claimed invention from prior art.11 In re Mostafazadeh, __F.3d__, 98 USPQ2d 1639 (Fed. Cir. 2011).12 MBO Laboratories Inc. v. Becton, Dickinson & Co., 602 F.3d 1306, 94 USPQ2d 1598 (Fed. Cir. 2010).13 In re Mostafazadeh, 98 USPQ2d at 1641.14 Id. (discussing the prosecution history of the '423 patent).15 Id. at 1644.16 Id. (stating "narrowing limitations…unrelated to the surrendered subject matter…[are] insufficient…").17 See file histories of the '013, '772, and '803 applications for additional prosecution-related information.18 MBO Laboratories Inc., 94 USPQ2d at 1601.19 Id. at 1602.20 Id.21 Id. at 1606. As justification for such a broad definition of what constitutes a surrender, the court pointed out that if such were not the case, "a patentee could deliberately surrender subject matter during prosecution of an earlier patent, obtain a continuation patent without mentioning the surrendered subject matter, and then seek a reissue patent based on the continuation so as to recapture the subject matter…facilitat[ing] 'immense frauds against the public.'” In other words, the court’s rationale was that the reissue process should not be available to help a patentee clean the prosecution history slate.22 Id.23 In order to achieve a valid patent having claims with the desired claim scope by either amending the claims of an ancestor or sister patent application or filing a continuation or divisional application claiming priority to the respective ancestor or sister patent application, the respective patent application must contain a written description that supports the claims having the desired scope. 35 U.S.C. §112, first paragraph; 35 U.S.C. §120; and Vas-Cath, Inc. v. Mahurkar, 935 F.2d 1555, 1560, 19 USPQ2d 1111, 1114 (Fed. Cir. 1991). Back to top