By Jason Rantanen
Liveblogging the America Invents Act: One Year Later conference at the Indiana University Mauer School of Law. Warning: Quality may vary.
Session 2: First to File/Supplemental Examination
I spoke during this panel, so wasn't able to take down any notes during Q&A
John Schaibley – Panel is going to discuss two changes under AIA: First to invent to First to File and Supplemental Examination. Summarized the two changes.
Jay Thomas (Georgetown) – thanks Bob for his hard work on the AIA; but he won't necessarily agree with everything Bob said.
When we teach 102, it's "the long march" – a lot of it is now gone. Still going to be some complexity due to the prior user defense. Also, what does "or otherwise available to the public." What's the role of secret uses and sales prior to the date of filing.
Remember two cases: Egbert v. Lipman(sp?): you can have a public of one; Metallizing Engineering: a trade secret use is patent defeating. New section 102(a) still has the term "public use" in it. Early legislative history indicated a continuity of meaning. But things changed. "or otherwise available to the public" was added. Some legislative history that says that this has to be true for all prior art. Note that "public" is still pretty broad. Just because it's technically publicly accessible doesn't mean that it's necessarily easy to find.
Also, keep in mind that these two cases were instances where the patent holder effectively tried to extend the date of filing. Is it sound industrial policy to allow secret uses to not defeat patentability?
International harmonization: tried to move in that direction, but didn't completely succeed. Example: safe harbor under new 102 is different as between US and Europe and Japan.
Short term issues: lots of filing before March 16, 2013. Abolition of the Hilmer doctrine; lose ability to swear behind prior art references. Storm surge is coming. There's going to be a sharp distinction between old and new cases. What to train the new examiners in? Old and new or just new? Constitutional challenges – probably dubious. Employment assignment agreements – these will be important to look at. And what about the technical corrections bill? Likely to involve some huge changes of its own – dissatisfied parties are going to push for these.
Dana Colarulli (USPTO) – Probably agrees with Bob on most of the things he said. But legislation only gets us a good portion of the way there. There's more to do. Specifically, implementing the provisions in the appropriate way through rules. The PTO is really trying to get the implementation right. Very much looking for comments and feedback on the proposed rules.
International harmonization – huge step forward in restarting international harmonization discussions. But doesn't go all the way there. More work to be done.
Impact of the law overall – this is the most significant change since 1836. A lot of these changes have been percolating for far longer than the five years up to the AIA. First to file really goes back to 1966 with a report from Lyndon Johnson, then a 1992 report that made the same suggestion. 2004 National Academies of Science recommended as well. First to file is both international harmonization and a best practice.
PTO's goals in drafting the rules. Make the guidance clear and transparent. Address examination issues raised by AIA up front.
On grace period – this is a critical issue. It's a unique feature of US law, but it's not the same grace period as we had before. There are going to be questions about how narrowly the grace period is going to be read. USPTO has interpreted the the grace period to be very narrow. There are many views about this issue.
Sales issue (ed. do they have to be public?) – legislative history conflicts. Is Metalizing Engineering overturned or not?
Visit the USPTO's AIA implementation page – lots of good material there.
Nathan Kelley (USPTO) – How supplemental examination is supposed to work. Purpose of supplemental examination is to immunize patentees against claims of inequitable conduct based on information that was not disclosed, inadequately disclosed, or incorrect information.
Supplemental examination lets just about all issues of patentability to be raised. Talked about the mechanics of supplemental examination. If, for example, the issue raised by the supplemental examination is a written description issue, that's what will go into reexam.
Could apply to patents that have expired because the statute of limitations on a patent (enforceability period) is six years.
Improper requests will not get into the PAIR system until they are granted.
Items of information are anything, as long as they're written. Videos/oral testimony must include a transcript. Can't give more than twelve items of information in any one request. But you can make more than one request.
Fees – about $5k for the request, plus upfront $16,000 for reexam that will be refunded if no ex parte reexam.
(I spoke about inequitable conduct post-Therasense and the effect on supplemental examination)
During Q&A, question came up about PTO fraud enforcement. PTO views supplemental examination as exactly that, not an inquiry into the intent of the parties.