In its opinion in Aylus Networks, Inc. v. Apple Inc., the Federal Circuit expanded the scope of prosecution disclaimer to statements made by a patent owner during Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceedings. The Court explained that extending the doctrine to cover patent owner statements, made either before or after institution of an IPR, ensures that claims are not argued in one way to maintain patentability and a different way to support infringement allegations. The Court also noted that its conclusion promotes the public notice function of intrinsic evidence and protects the public’s reliance on statements made during IPR proceedings.
The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) is implementing eCommerce Modernization (eMod), as discussed at a Patent Quality Chat webinar on May 9, 2017 (click here for the webinar slides). Highlighted features and the status of the eMod project are described below.
The eMod project will provide a new interface, Patent Center, that combines EFS-Web and PAIR into a single interface for filing and managing patent applications. Benefits of Patent Center include an improved interface and improved processes for submitting, reviewing, and managing patent applications and increased application processing and publication accuracy. The Patent Center aims to be more efficient and have more functionality and features than EFS-Web and PAIR, including:
Last week the Federal Circuit in Helsinn Healthcare v. Teva Pharmaceuticals clarified the scope of the on-sale bar rule under the America Invents Act (AIA). The on-sale bar in general means that a sale or an offer to sale of an invention more than one year prior to the effective filing date of a patent qualifies as prior art. The Federal Circuit held that 35 U.S.C. § 102 as revised in the AIA does not change the long-settled rule that a sale can invalidate an invention even if the sale does not disclose the details of the invention.
The Federal Circuit has now reversed the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s decision in Synopsys, Inc. v. ATopTech, Inc. finding claims 1 and 32 of U.S. Patent No. 6,567,967 (the “‘967 patent”) as being “not supported by substantial evidence.”
Synopsys sued ATopTech in 2013 for allegedly infringing the ‘967 patent. ATopTech subsequently filed two inter partes review (IPR) petitions (IPR2014-01150 and IPR2014-01159) challenging the validity of all claims of the ‘967 patent. The ‘967 patent aims to improve circuit performance by splitting large components into small subcomponents and optimizing the connections between subcomponents. Claim 1 requires “flattening each of said plurality of hierarchically arranged branches by eliminating superfluous levels of hierarchy above said atomic blocks.” Claim 32 requires “determining optimal placement of each of the hard blocks, if any, within the predefined area.” The Board found both claims either obviousness or anticipated in view of the Fields and/or Su references.
Yesterday, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral argument in the much-anticipated Amgen v. Sandoz case, representing the first time the Court has had to grapple with the Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act (“BPCIA”) since this key law went into effect in 2010. The BPCIA created a new, abbreviated pathway for highly similar biological products to enter the U.S. market by following in the footsteps of a reference biological product. The Court’s decision, which should issue in June, will be closely watched by participants in the pharmaceutical, biotech, and health care sectors.
To read our full alert on the oral argument, please click here.
Today, the Federal Circuit, vacated-in-part and remanded the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s obviousness determination regarding a Securus Technologies patent directed to systems and methods for reviewing conversation data for certain events and bookmarking portions of the recording when something of interest is said, finding that the Board failed to provide any explanation for its decision with respect to certain challenged claims.
What is Official Notice?
MPEP §2103(VI) states that when a rejection is imposed, the “Office action should clearly communicate the findings, conclusions and reasons which support them.” Examiners commonly satisfy this requirement by citing one or more prior art references allegedly teaching each of the limitations of a claim.
Occasionally, however, an Examiner may eschew documentary evidence on the record and instead opt to rely solely on his or her own opinion in support of a rejection. In such a situation, the Examiner might “take official notice” to establish the veracity of an assertion made by the Examiner that a particular claim limitation is well-known in the art.
Official notice allows an Examiner to support a rejection by making a declaration of facts not in the record, but instead based on “common knowledge” in the art, according to MPEP §2144.03. But only in very limited circumstances is taking official notice without documentary evidence to support an Examiner’s conclusion permissible.
A variety of options are available to applicants to speed up patent application examination at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. Four of the more common programs are explored in depth below, and other options for speeding up examination are available in a previous post provided by Mintz Levin.
Track One Prioritized Examination
Track One examination allows an applicant to pay for prioritized examination and to receive a final disposition usually in less than one year (compared to two to four years for regular examination) from the time Track One status is granted. A final disposition may be a Notice of Allowance, a Final Rejection, or a Notice of Abandonment. The program on average boasts a first Office Action in approximately 4 months and final disposition in less than 8 months. Continue Reading Fast Track Examination in the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
On April 7, 2017, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) announced it has launched an initiative to develop ways to improve Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) proceedings, particularly inter partes review proceedings. The effort includes analyzing five years’ worth of historical data covering PTAB proceedings and user experiences. The USPTO hopes to use this data analysis to ensure the proceedings are as “effective and fair as possible within the USPTO’s congressional mandate to provide administrative review of patentability of patent claims after they issue.”
On April 6, 2017, the Federal Circuit reversed-in-part and affirmed-in-part the district court’s judgment of infringement and summary judgment for non-infringement of The Medicines Company’s (“MedCo”) patents-in-suit. See The Medicines Company v. Mylan, Inc., 2015-1113 (Fed. Cir. 2017). The patents-in-suit were U.S. Patent Nos. 7,582,727 (“the ’727 Patent) and 7,598,343 (“the ’343 Patent”). MedCo initiated a suit against Mylan, Inc. (“Mylan”) in response to Mylan submitting an Abbreviated New Drug Application (“ANDA”). Through submitting an ANDA request, Mylan wished to obtain approval from the Food and Drug Administration (“FDA”) for a generic drug that would directly compete against MedCo’s ANGIOMAX® product. To counter Mylan’s ANDA request, and keep their product exclusive, MedCo filed suit alleging that Mylan’s ANDA drug infringed claims in both the ’727 and ’343 Patents.
The district court held on summary judgment that Mylan’s drug did not satisfy the “efficient mixing” limitation of the ’343 Patent; however, following a 6-day bench trial found that Mylan’s drug did infringe the ’727 Patent because the asserted claims did not include an “efficient mixing” limitation. Mylan argued on appeal that the district court erred by not including the “efficient mixing” limitation as part of the “batches” limitation in the ’727 Patent.