This page contains a Flash digital edition of a book.
PATENT REFORM PTO fees and funding

Both of the current bills would establish a revolving fund to receive USPTO fees, for exclusive use by the USPTO without fiscal year limitation. Tose provisions would end diversion of USPTO fees and would be a great victory for the patent community.

Neither bill would grant substantive rule- making authority to the USPTO, which should relieve fears that it might again propose rules sharply limiting the ability to file continuation applications. Both bills, however, would grant fee-setting authority, with a public and Congressional review procedure. Because the USPTO needs money now, both bills would impose an interim 10 percent increase over current fees, to be effective when President Obama signs the new law. While the current funding proposals have received broad support, the USPTO may later propose increased fees for large applications and many claims, based on costs of examination. Industry concerns can be addressed in the review procedure.

First-inventor-to-file and the grace period

Both bills propose that priority of invention be

accorded to the disclosing the first patent application invention described in the

patent claims. Tis system is described as ’first- inventor-to-file,’ including the word ‘inventor’ because the new law would deny a patent to a person who has derived the claimed invention from the true inventor. On March 3, the Senate overwhelmingly rejected a proposal to remove first-inventor-to-file provisions from S. 23, by a vote of 87 to 13.

Both bills also include a personal prior art exception or grace period. Te applicants’ own prior disclosures within one year before their first effective filing date would be excluded from prior art that could be cited to refuse a patent claim or invalidate it. Tis provision is intended to permit academics and other researchers to publish articles and make presentations about their inventions before filing a patent application. Te USPTO and many industry representatives hope that US adoption of the first-inventor-to- file system can help it eventually secure a similar personal grace period for patents filed in other countries, through international harmonisation negotiations.

Opposition to a first-to-file system by academic and small entity groups has received extraordinary attention and sympathy. Some have complained that it is too hard or too expensive to file a patent application before

publication or marketing, and that the present system gives them the opportunity to prove an earlier invention date. One might expect that these scientists and engineers would provide data to support their position; however, they have failed to do that. Indeed, in our experience, persons who fail

to file a timely patent

application in our present system almost always lack the documentary evidence sufficient to prove that they have been first to conceive of and complete the claimed invention. Te process of writing a patent application, including patent claims, provides

a well-focused description

of all aspects of an invention, which oſten is lacking from an inventor’s notes and scientific publications. For that reason, reliance on any grace period—current or as proposed—should be avoided. In addition, we note that a large percentage of US pharma and biotech patent applications also are filed in countries outside the US with first-to-file priority and absolute novelty requirements, but no comparable grace period. In practice, therefore, most such applicants have been following a first-to-file policy for many years.

Te pending bills would alleviate some of the first-to-file opponents’ concerns, for example, by providing a personal prior art exception (grace period) and—in H.R. 1249—providing 75 percent fee reductions for micro-entities including public universities, when no private funding is involved.

Prior user rights

Most foreign first-to-file patent systems include prior user rights, which permit continued use of an invention claimed in a patent by an entity that used that invention before the patent’s filing date, but did not obtain its own patent. Currently, US patent law has only a limited prior user right for certain business methods. H.R. 1249, but not S. 23, would create prior user rights in all technologies, but those rights would not apply to patents of certain government-funded researchers and institutions.

Post-grant review

Te current proposals would continue ex parte re-examination by examiners in the Central Re-examination Unit (CRU), but would end inter partes reexamination. Te CRU also would handle

the new ‘Supplemental Examination,’

which in some cases would permit patent owners to ask the USPTO to consider prior art and information not previously considered, thereby potentially strengthening the patent and purging claims of taint due to failure to disclose.

Te renamed Patent Trial and Appeal Board Life Sciences Intellectual Property Review 2011 47

John B. Pegram is a senior principal in the New York office of Fish & Richardson, P.C., primarily handling opinion and litigation matters. He is a co-author of the firm’s 2011 Patent Law Reform Updates at www.

would handle the new ‘post-grant review’ and ‘inter partes review’ proceedings on an expedited basis, normally within one year. Post-grant review could be initiated by a third party shortly aſter a patent is issued or reissued, probably within 9 or 12 months. Any grounds for refusing a patent could be considered in this procedure. Inter partes review could be initiated by a third party aſter the later of the period for requesting or the date of completion of post-grant review; however, that procedure would be limited to consideration of patents and publications.

It appears likely that biotech and pharma companies will be carefully watching pending US patent applications for opportunities to file a post-grant review request, as they now do in opposition jurisdictions.

John Pegram is a senior principal at Fish & Richardson, P.C. He can be contacted at:

Mark Ellinger is a senior principal at Fish & Richardson, P.C. He can be contacted at:

Mark S. Ellinger, PhD is senior principal in the Minneapolis office of Fish & Richardson, P.C., practising law primarily in the biotechnology, pharmaceutical and medical science fields.

Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44  |  Page 45  |  Page 46  |  Page 47  |  Page 48  |  Page 49  |  Page 50  |  Page 51  |  Page 52  |  Page 53  |  Page 54  |  Page 55  |  Page 56  |  Page 57  |  Page 58  |  Page 59  |  Page 60  |  Page 61  |  Page 62  |  Page 63  |  Page 64  |  Page 65  |  Page 66  |  Page 67  |  Page 68  |  Page 69  |  Page 70  |  Page 71  |  Page 72  |  Page 73  |  Page 74  |  Page 75  |  Page 76  |  Page 77  |  Page 78  |  Page 79  |  Page 80  |  Page 81  |  Page 82  |  Page 83  |  Page 84