Opposition systems are closely related to the patent granting procedure, and offer third parties an opportunity to oppose the grant of a patent, by giving notice of opposition to the granting authorities. In some states, there is a pre-grant opposition procedure, in others it is a post-grant procedure. Reasons for opposition may be that the invention is not new, does not involve an inventive step, is not susceptible of industrial application, is excepted from patentability, that the patent does not disclose the invention in a manner sufficiently clear and complete for it to be carried out by a person skilled in the art, or that the subject-matter of the patent extends beyond the content of the application as filed, for instance.
Last week, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board of the U.S. Patent Office (PTAB) issued eight decisions in Inter Partes review and Covered Business Method proceedings, in each case invalidating at least some of the challenged claims of the patent at issue. That brings to 15 the total number of patents invalidated in an Inter Partes review…
Recent U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit and USPTO decisions underscore the potential value of challenging a granted U.S. patent in a USPTO proceeding, even if the patent already has been held infringed and/or not invalid in district court litigation. In Fresenius, USA Inc. v. Baxter International, Inc., the Federal Circuit interpreted the ex parte reexamination…
By order of 16 October 2012 in Sperotto v. Bolpagni , the Court of Turin stated, in line with a few other of its recent decisions, that patent infringement ordinary proceedings (even if including a cross-claim of revocation) must be stayed until the conclusion of EPO opposition proceedings pending on the allegedly infringed patent, in application…
The District Court held a patent entitled “Special Alcoholic Drink” invalid, due to lack of novelty and clarity as a non-enabling disclosure. Furthermore, the Court dismissed the invalidity action filed against the Patent Office, holding that it was neither the inventor nor the patent holder and also because it had only taken into account the…
This past week I had an interesting hearing at the EPO where an opposition was based, inter alia, on public prior use. The opposition division heard a number of witnesses on the question whether the features of a specific device had been publicly available. Prior to the hearing, the opponent had to admit that there…
As of September 16, 2012, third parties have been able to make “Preissuance Submissions” of printed publications in pending U.S. patent applications. To date, the USPTO has received just over 100 Preissuance Submissions. This article looks at important timing and disclosure requirements that parties considering making such submissions should keep in mind when deciding whether to…
On September 16, 2012, inter partes review proceedings became available against U.S. patents and post-grant review proceedings became available against certain U.S. business method patents. In two weeks, seventeen petitions for inter partes review have been filed and eight petitions for post-grant review have been filed. This article takes a brief look at these new proceedings.
The next wave of U.S. patent reform changes embodied in the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act takes effect on September 16, 2012. The following is a list of some key changes that may impact granted, pending and new U.S. patent portfolios.
The interesting six-jurisdiction patent case between two of the world’s leading enzyme manufacturers, the Danish companies Danisco A/S (now part of DuPont) and Novozymes A/S has already been subject to earlier blogs both here and several times on EPLAW and PatLit. To recap the story briefly, Novozymes started the proceedings by applying for a preliminary…
The Board decided that the introduction of the Rules of Procedure of the Boards of Appeal (RPBA) overruled prior case law on admission of new arguments not included in the grounds of appeal, as distinguished from new facts and evidence. The Board ruled that introduction of new arguments may violate Article 12(2) RPBA, which requires…
