By John E. Schneider
On September 9, 2011, the Senate approved the Leahy-Smith America
Invents Act ("the Act"), sending the bill to President Obama for
signature. The Act represents the most significant change in U.S. Patent
Law since the current statute was enacted in 1952. This Alert addresses
two of the significant changes in U.S. Patent Law: (1) the adoption of a
first-to-file system for awarding patents and (2) the creation of new
procedures for challenging or amending a patent after it has been
The Act also includes several provisions addressing hot-button
issues in litigation, including amending the joinder standard for
joining defendants in a patent infringement action and eliminating qui tam false marking actions entirely. Fulbright has prepared a detailed analysis of all key provisions of the Act. Click here to download Fulbright's White Paper.
A. First-to-File System
1. From First to Invent to First to File
Bringing the United States into alignment with the rest of the world,
the Act abandons the current first-to-invent system in favor of a
first-to-file system. The first-to-file system and the accompanying
redefined categories of prior art will go into effect in February 2013.
When these provisions go into effect, the U.S. will no longer award a
patent to the first person to create an invention, but instead will
award the patent to the first person to file an application for the
invention. One exception to the rule is if the first filed application
or patent was "derived" from the inventor of the later filed
2. Redefined Categories of Prior Art
The scope of prior art is changed by the Act to reflect the change to a
first-to-file system. First, the Act eliminates the current one-year
grace period that allows an inventor "swear behind" sales/offers for
sale or public use of the invention less than one year before the filing
date. Now, only disclosures made by the inventor or on his behalf will
get the benefit of the one year grace period. Second, a patent or
published application will be deemed prior art as of the filing date of
the first application filed anywhere in the world to which the patent or
application properly claims priority. Currently, a U.S. patent or
application that claims foreign priority is only prior art as of its
U.S. filing date or its PCT filing date in some circumstances. Third,
the prior sale/offer for sale bar is no longer limited to sales in the
United States, but instead includes sales/offers for sale anywhere in
the world. Finally, the Act excludes certain commonly owned patents from
being considered prior art.
These changes in U.S. patent law reinforce the need to file
applications in an expeditious manner to establish an early priority
date. While the first to file system does not go into effect until
February 2013, patentees should start putting a system in place to
ensure timely filing of applications.
B. Post Issuance Procedures
The Act creates new procedures for challenging or amending a patent after issuance. In addition to traditional reissue and Ex Parte Reexamination proceedings, the Act provides for three new post-issuance procedures: Post Grant Review, Inter Partes Review, and Supplemental Examination. The new review procedures will be available starting in September 2012.
1. Post Grant Review
Similar to a European Opposition Proceeding, Post Grant Reviews give a
third party the opportunity to challenge the validity of a patent on any
statutory grounds by filing a petition for Post Grant Review with the
U.S. Patent and Trademark Office ("USPTO") within nine months of the
patent's issuance. If the USPTO determines that the petition
demonstrates that it is more likely than not that one or more claims are
unpatentable or if the petition presents a novel or unsettled question
of patent law, a Post Grant Review may be instituted. The review is then
heard by a three-judge panel of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board
("PTAB") (formerly the Patent Board of Appeals and Interferences).
The Post Grant Review provides for full participation by both parties
and requires that the USPTO reach a final decision on the petition
within 12 to 18 months. The burden of proof is on the party seeking the
Review, and the standard for proving unpatentability is a preponderance
of the evidence. The Act requires that the requestor raise all issues of
patentability known to the requestor in the proceeding or the requestor
may be estopped from raising them in the future.
While Post Grant Reviews offer a quick and relatively inexpensive means
for challenging a patent, the estoppel provision of the Act forces a
challenger to elect between filing a Post Grant Review or taking his
chance in District Court. In addition, because the window for requesting
Post Grant Review is short and a party requesting Post Grant Review
must raise all issues of patentability, parties contemplating using this
procedure may wish to start monitoring patent applications of interest
during their pendency in the Patent Office.
2. Inter Partes Review
Inter Partes Review replaces the current Inter Partes Reexamination procedure. Like Inter Partes Reexamination, Inter Partes
Review is limited to patents and printed publications as prior art
under Sections 102 and 103. The major differences between the two
procedures is that the standard for granting review and the arbiter
conducting the review. First, the standard for initiating review changes
from the current standard of whether the cited art presents a
substantial new question of patentability to whether the petition shows
that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner will prevail
with respect to at least the claim of the challenged patent. Second,
like Post Grant Reviews, Inter Parties Reviews will be heard by the new PTAB, not a patent examiner. By contrast, current Inter Partes
Reexamination is conducted the same way as normal examination where a
patent examiner is charged with determining the merits of the claims.
A petition for Inter Partes Review cannot be filed until nine
months after a patent has issued or until the completion of any Post
Grant Review. Otherwise, an Inter Partes Review can be filed at any time during the life of the patent.
As with Post Grant Review, a party requesting Inter Partes
Review must raise all issues of patentability that can be raised in the
proceeding and may be estopped from raising the issues in a later
proceeding if the review goes to final judgment. The Act also requires
that the Inter Partes Review proceeding be completed within 12 to 18 months.
3. Supplemental Examination
The Act also creates a new procedure called Supplemental Examination.
Supplemental Examination gives a patent owner the opportunity to reopen
examination of an issued patent to address issues that raise a
substantially new question of patentability and address those issues at
the USPTO. The proceeding is similar to current owner-requested
reexamination, except that the review is not limited to consideration of
patents or printed publication; any issue of patentability may be
addressed during the procedure. The Act also makes it possible to cure
inequitable conduct by, for example, bringing to the USPTO art that had
been previously withheld. A patentee may only take advantage of this
curing provision by filing for Supplemental Examination prior to making
any efforts to enforce the patent.
The enactment of the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act brings significant
changes to the way we secure and challenge a patent. All parties
touched by the patent system should consider, with their counsel, any
changes in procedure that should be implemented to account for the
provisions of the Act.
Click Here to download Fulbright's White Paper on the key provisions of the bill.
This article was prepared by John E. Schneider (firstname.lastname@example.org or 713 651 5462) from Fulbright's Intellectual Property and Technology Practice Group.
Fulbright & Jaworski L.L.P. has offices in:
Austin, Beijing, Dallas, Denver, Dubai, Hong Kong, Houston, London,
Los Angeles, Minneapolis, Munich, New York, Pittsburgh-Southpointe, Riyadh, San Antonio, St. Louis and Washington, D.C..
Copyright 2011 - Fulbright & Jaworski L.L.P., all rights reserved.
*An analysis will soon
be available in Chisum on Patents and
Patent Office Rules and Practice
Lexis.com subscribers can search Chisum on Patents and Patent
Office Rules and Practice
purchase Chisum on Patents and
Patent Office Rules and Practice at the LexisNexis
Lexis.com subscribers can explore/search Patent Law resources on Lexis.com or access any of these Mathew Bender Patent Law publications:
Non-subscribers can purchase Patent Law
treatises/resources and Mathew Bender publications from the LexisNexis Bookstore
For more information about LexisNexis products and
solutions connect with us through our corporate