Therasense Decision to Influence the Choice Between Ex Parte vs. Inter Partes Patent Reexamination?
On May 25, 2011, the Federal Circuit issued its the long awaited en banc decision in Therasense, Inc. v. Becton, Dickinson & Co. 2008-1511.
The majority opinion authored by Chief Judge Randall Rader established a
single new standard for determining materiality in inequitable conduct
cases. This new "but for" standard defines material information as any
non-cumulative information which, had it been disclosed prior to patent
issuance, would have prevented the patent from issuing.
Unlike the prior standard used in determining materiality of
undisclosed information, the new standard assesses materiality on a
preponderance of evidence burden of proof standard giving the patent
claims their broadest reasonable construction in light of and consistent
with the supporting patent specification. Presumably, because the
majority opinion rejected the applicability of the USPTO's materiality
standard under 37 CFR § 1.56(b)(1), the new "but for" standard will take
into account any rebuttable evidence that is proffered by the patent
owner such as antedating non-statutory bar prior art and objective
indicia of non-obviousness, irrespective of the fact that none of such
rebuttal evidence was ever submitted to the USPTO for consideration
prior to patent issuance.
A consequence of the new "but for" test for materiality is that, at
least for those filings that include art forming the basis of an
inequitable conduct defense to infringement, inter partes patent reexamination is now the more attractive option.
With the "important to a reasonable examiner" standard and the "prima facie unpatentable" standards eliminated in Therasense as materiality standards for proving inequitable conduct, ex parte reexamination
becomes less attractive for use in corroborating an inequitable conduct
defense. Previously the reasonable examiner standard was at least
arguably evidenced upon a mere decision to reexamine/reject claims in
either form of patent reexamination. However, Post-Therasense, the new
goal is for the reexamined patent claims to be canceled or amended based
on the undisclosed patents and printed publications, such would be
dispositive that the original claims should not have issued in their
Because the new "but for" standard allows the patent owner to submit
rebuttable evidence, the third party requester needs to be cognizant
that patents and printed publications that qualify as prior art under 35
U.S.C. §§ 102(a) or (e) may be vulnerable to antedating by the patent
owner. Moreover, if the bases for the rejections are solely under 35
U.S.C. § 103, the patent owner may be able to rebut the prima facie case of obviousness through proof of objective indicia of non-obviousness, such as proof of unexpected results.
Particularly, in inter partes reexamination where the third
party requester may participate at every stage of the proceedings,
including independent rights to appeal the BPAI and Federal Circuit, the
third party is provided with the most effective tool to prove
materiality. USPTO statistics (here) demonstrate that challengers are far more successful in forcing claim amendment/cancellation in an inter partes patent reexamination.
Akin to the new "but for" materiality standard of the district
courts, in patent reexamination, claims are also a broadest reasonable
construction. Likewise, prior art is also evaluated under a
preponderance of evidence standard in patent reexamination. See for example, MPEP §§ 2258(I)(G) and 2658(I).
Where the third party requester has a strong case of unpatentability
of original patent claims based undisclosed prior patents and printed
publications previously known by the patent owner, reexamination,
preferably inter partes reexamination may be a tool of choice, if filed promptly, to prove the "but for" test for materiality Post-Therasense.
For further insight into factors that may influence the selection of
one form of patent reexamination over another, see Scott's BNA videos on
the topic (here)
View more from Patents Post-Grant.
For more information about LexisNexis products and
solutions connect with us through our corporate