Archive for April, 2011

If Government Shuts Down, PTO to Remain Open Through April 18

April 8, 2011

The PTO has issued a press release regarding the possible government shut down at midnight tonight:

In the event of a government shutdown on April 9, 2011, the United States Patent and Trademark Office will remain open and continue to operate as usual for a period of six business days – through Monday, April 18, 2011 — because the USPTO has enough available reserves, not linked to the current fiscal year, to remain in operation until then. Should a shutdown occur and continue longer than the six-day period, we anticipate that limited staff will be able to continue to work to accept new electronic applications and maintain IT infrastructure, among other functions.  More information will be posted on this website as it becomes available. Thank you.

The PTO will remain open next week and until Monday, April 18 as usual.  If a shut down extends beyond that date, the PTO would have limited staff on hand to accept electronic filings.  All due dates will remain in effect.

Although the PTO is a user-funded Federal agency, it still operates by sending its user fees to the Treasury and then obtaining operating funds back from the Treasury.  Thus, once it exhausts its funds on hand, only “essential employees” are permitted to continue to work.  Needless to say, few PTO employess qualify as “essential employees.”

Patent Issues for Foreign Products

April 7, 2011

A patent permits its owner to exclude others from making, using, selling, offering for sale, or importing the patented invention without his permission.  A patent is, however, unique to the country where it is granted.  Thus, if a patent owner does business in more than one country, it would be necessary to obtain a patent in each country to protect the invention.

Some countries have restrictions on what can be patented.  For example, some countries do not permit patenting software, business methods, drugs, or methods of treatment for humans.

PCT Applications

One way to obtain patent protection in multiple countries is to file an application under the Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT).  A PCT application is an international application that is filed through the World Intellectual Property Office (WIPO), where an applicant can designate a large number of countries in which he desires to file his patent application.  Currently, 139 countries are members of the PCT.

A PCT application does not give the applicant an “international patent”, as all patents are national in nature (although certain organizations like the European Patent Office (EPO) issue a “European Patent” that must be registered in each member country where the applicant desires the patent to be in effect).  Instead, the PCT provides a mechanism that gives the applicant 30 or 31 months from the earliest filing date (the first filed patent application) to determine whether to file the patent application in various individual countries.  A PCT application can either be the first filed application for an invention or it must be filed within 12 months of the first filed application.

The PCT also provides an International Search Report and an examination, if desired, so that the applicant can get an early search performed to see if the invention is patentable.  The delay also permits the applicant to determine whether the invention is commercially valuable and whether it is worth spending the money to obtain a patent in each country.  While applicants may designate all 142 countries at the time of the PCT filing, they can decide later in which individual countries they would like to pursue patent protection.

A PCT application can also save money on translation costs early in the process.  While most individual countries require patent applications to be filed in the native language of that country, PCT applications permit applicants to delay the cost of translating the application into the various languages.

Once the 30 or 31 month period from the first filing date elapses, a PCT applicant must “enter the national stage” in each country where a patent is desired.  Otherwise, the application is abandoned and patent protection cannot be obtained.  It is at this stage where translations must be obtained and filing costs for the various countries must be paid.

Each country usually requires that the applicant work through an attorney or patent agent who is registered to practice before that country’s patent office.  Thus, to obtain a patent in Brazil, the applicant must work with a Brazilian patent attorney or agent.  These attorneys and agents charge fees for their services, further adding to the costs of obtaining patent protection in various countries.

If the PCT procedure is not utilized, applicants must file in each individual country within a year of the filing date of the first filed application.  The translation, filing, and agent costs are due at that time.  A primary advantage of the PCT is the 18 to 19 month delay for these costs.

While 142 countries are currently members of the PCT, there are several significant countries that are not members; these include Argentina, Chile, Paraguay, Uruguay, Venezuela, Taiwan, and the Middle East.  To obtain patents in these countries, a patent application must be filed in each within 12 months of the first filed application.

Patent Prosecution Highway

The United States PTO has entered into an agreement with 15 other patent offices called the Patent Prosecution Highway.  Under this program, once a patent claim is found to be allowable by the patent office where the application was first filed, the applicant may request that other patent offices fast track examination of the application.  This is a type of work-sharing program intended to cut reduce redundancy in examination.

Issues Unique to US Patent Law

It is also important to remember that, at least as of today, the US is a first-to-invent country, while the rest of the world awards patents to the first-to-file.  In the US, interference proceedings determine priority when more than one applicant has filed an application claiming the same invention. 

The US also permits applicants to “swear behind” or prove an earlier invention date any prior art that is dated within one year of the application filing date.  Evidence of conception in a NAFTA or WTO country can be used as evidence of earlier invention.

Finally, the US has a one year grace period that permits applicants to file a patent application within one year of a public disclosure, publication, or commercialization activity such as a sale.  Most of the rest of the world requires absolute novelty.  These activities would constitute a bar to obtaining a patent.  Australia, Canada, and Japan have some form of grace period.

Enforcement of Patent Rights

To enforce patent rights, a patent owner generally must bring a civil lawsuit in each country where infringement has occurred.  The patent owner may be able to obtain damages or an injunction in each country.  The validity of the patent may be challenged in the suit.  Many countries also permit administrative challenges to a patent through a procedure such as an opposition or reexamination.

In the US, patent owner may also file an administrative suit in the International Trade Commission (ITC) to obtain an exclusion order against importation of infringing products.  Damages are not available in such proceedings, but it not be necessary to obtain personal jurisdiction over the respondent making such cases easier to initiate against foreign entities.

Exhaustion

In the US, once a patented product has been lawfully sold, the patent rights are “exhausted.”  This means that subsequent purchasers can obtain the product free of patent rights.  The theory behind exhaustion is that a patent owner should be able to recover or obtain royalties only once for a given product.

A product covered by a US patent that is lawfully sold outside the US (by virtue of not being patented in the country of sale or by permission of the patent owner in the country of sale) and then imported into the US may still be liable for infringement.  A foreign sale would not exhaust US patent rights.  Other countries may take a different approach to this issue.

Jimmie Reyna Confirmed to Federal Circuit

April 5, 2011

Yesterday, the U.S. Senate confirmed Jimmie Reyna to a seat on the Federal Circuit by a vote of 86-0.  Reyna was nominated on September 29, 2010, a mere 187 days before his confirmation.

Last year, Judge Kathleen O’Malley was nominated to the court on March 10 and confirmed December 22, or 287 days later.

Meanwhile, Edward DuMont was nominated April 14, 2010 to the other vacant seat.  As of next week, his nomination will have been pending for a year.  He has yet to receive a confirmation hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee.

As of today, the Federal Circuit has 11 active judges for its 12 seats.  Rumor has it that several additional judges who are eligible will be moving to senior status in the near future.

Final Rule on Track I Examination

April 4, 2011

The Final Rule for Prioritized Examination was published in the Federal Register today.  The PTO is not wasting any time implementing its Three Track Examination procedure, as the Track I rules comment period closed March 7.

The new rules take effect for applications filed on or after May 4, 2011.  Pending applications may be re-filed as continuing application after that date to take advantage of the new system.  As with the proposed rules, the final rule limits Track I to applications that include no more than 4 independent and 30 total claims.

The final rule states that the PTO has an office-wide aggregate goal of 12 months from granting of special status to final disposition.  As a reminder, a final disposition is (1) a notice of allowance, (2) a final rejection, (3) a notice of appeal, (4) filing of an RCE, (5) declaration of an interference, or (6) abandonment of the application.  Filing a petition for extension of time also ends the special status of the application.

Applicants with applications under special status are expected to “cooperate” with the PTO by having a clear understanding of the state of the art, filing a clear specification with relatively few claims, filing replies that are completely responsive to office actions, and being willing to conduct examiner interviews.

The fee for requesting prioritized examination is $4,000 in addition to the normal filing fees.  Thus, the total fee for a new application requesting prioritized examination is $5,520 for a large entity and $4,892 for a smal entity.  The PTO is limiting the number of Track I applications to 10,000 for FY2011.

HT:  Hal Wegner.

More on Patent Reform

April 1, 2011

As expected, reaction to the House version of the Patent Reform bill has been mixed. 

Hal Wegner and now Patently-O have pointed out that both S. 23 that has passed the Senate and H.R. 1249 now pending in the House include a significant error with respect to the grace period.  Section 102(b) of the statute provides an exception to what is considered prior art for “disclosures” of the invention by the inventor (or someone who obtained or derived the invention from the inventor) within one year prior to filing the patent application.  There is no such grace period, however, for public uses or commercialization activities such as sales or offers for sale.  Thus, an offer for sale one day prior to filing a patent application would be a bar to obtaining a patent.

As Hal points out, the Senate clearly intended that the grace period cover all of these activities by the inventor within a year of application filing.  This is demonstrated by some of the legislative history during the debate prior to passage, but is most readily demonstrated by remarks from Sens. Patrick Leahy (D-VT) and Orrin Hatch (R-UT) after the bill had passed the Senate.  Unfortunately, enactment of the bill with this provision would leave the law in a state of uncertainty for the near future until it works its way through the courts to the Federal Circuit.

Hopefully, someone will correct this in the House version of the bill that is still pending so that it can be further corrected in conference where the differing provisions between the Senate and House versions of the bill would be reconciled prior to final passage.

Patently-O also includes a survey to get a feel for the Patent Bar’s take on the various provisions of the patent reform bills.


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.