Indianapolis Bar Association:
Download
1 / 82

Overview - PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 396 Views
  • Updated On :

Indianapolis Bar Association: 2009-2010 Year in Review Patent Law and Practice Chuck Schmal Sponsored by the Intellectual Property Law Section. Overview. Patent Office Procedure Patent Term Adjustment Ownership Inequitable Conduct Ethics Rules Other Notable Cases

loader
I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.
capcha
Download Presentation

PowerPoint Slideshow about 'Overview' - victoria


An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript
Slide1 l.jpg

Indianapolis Bar Association:

2009-2010 Year in Review

Patent Law and PracticeChuck Schmal

Sponsored by the

Intellectual Property Law Section


Overview l.jpg
Overview

  • Patent Office Procedure

  • Patent Term Adjustment

  • Ownership

  • Inequitable Conduct

  • Ethics Rules

  • Other Notable Cases

  • Note: The following topics are just a small sample of recent cases and procedures. 



Most important change of the year l.jpg

Appeals Rules

Continuation & Claims Rules

Most Important Change of the Year

Bilski


Most important change of the year5 l.jpg

Appeals Rules

Continuation & Claims Rules

Most Important Change of the Year

Bilski

August 13, 2009- David Kappos- New Director of the USPTO


Patent office highlights l.jpg
Patent Office Highlights

  • Change in Attitude

  • Compact Prosecution

  • Appeals

  • Proposed Rules


Change in attitude l.jpg
Change in Attitude

  • Launches a Blog and Increases Town Hall Meetings

  • Claim and Con Rules Rescinded- October 8, 2009

  • Ombudsman Program- April 6, 2010

  • PKI Certificates- now can have multiple employees of your firm e-file or access private PAIR on your behalf (even at the same time)

    • FAQs published.


Change in attitude8 l.jpg
Change in Attitude

On the subject of quality, there has been speculation in the IP community that examiners are being encouraged to reject applications because a lower allowance rate equals higher quality. Let's be clear: patent quality does not equal rejection. In some cases this requires us to reject all the claims when no patentable subject matter has been presented. It is our duty to be candid with the applicant and protect the interests of the public. In other cases this means granting broad claims when they present allowable subject matter. In all cases it means engaging with the applicant to get to the real issues efficiently—what we all know as compact prosecution.-- August 2009 email to Examiners


Rescinds continuation and claims rules l.jpg
Rescinds Continuation and Claims Rules

The USPTO should incentivize innovation, develop rules that are responsive to its applicants’ needs and help bring their products and services to market... ...These regulations have been highly unpopular from the outset and were not well received by the applicant community. In taking the actions we are announcing today, we hope to engage the applicant community more effectively on improvements that will help make the USPTO more efficient, responsive, and transparent to the public. --October 08, 2009 Press Release: USPTO Rescinds Controversial Patent Regulations Package Proposed by Previous Administration


Ombudsman pilot program l.jpg
Ombudsman Pilot Program

  • Ombudsman- used when unable to resolve application-processing issue through USPTO's existing channels

    • Example, Examiner and SPE do not address new argument or amendment and not returning phone calls.

    • Recommended to contact the SPE first.

    • Has to concern a specific application.


Ombudsman pilot program11 l.jpg
Ombudsman Pilot Program

  • Fill out electronic form at: http://www.uspto.gov/patents/ombudsman.jsp

  • When you first speak with Ombudsman, will be asked whether or not you want it to be confidential

    • Confidential- Ombudsman will simply log the complaint (log used to look for trends)


Compact prosecution l.jpg
Compact Prosecution

  • Expanded and Revised 1st Action Interview Pilot Program

  • Accelerated Examination

  • Revised Examiner Count System


1 st action interview l.jpg
1st Action Interview

  • Had two versions- Original and Enhanced

  • Sadly, ended April 1, 2010, but likely implement a similar program in the future.

  • Expanded to all art units but had differing filing date requirements


1 st action interview14 l.jpg
1st Action Interview

  • E-File the request for the 1st Action Interview Program

  • Restriction- must elect

  • Examiner Conducts Prior Art Search and Sends a list of prior art citation to the applicant

  • Afterwards, Applicant has to within 1 month or 30 days:

    • File a request not to have a 1st Action Interview

    • Schedule Interview and file proposed amendments


1 st action interview15 l.jpg
1st Action Interview


1 st action interview16 l.jpg
1st Action Interview


Accelerated examination l.jpg
Accelerated Examination

  • Green Technology- still available until December 10, 2010

  • Small Entity- still available until June 30, 2010


Accelerated examination green technology l.jpg
Accelerated Examination- Green Technology

  • Green Technology Pilot Program

  • Introduced just before United Nations Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen, Denmark

  • 1st 3,000 Green Technology Applications with petition receive accelerated examination


Accelerated examination green technology19 l.jpg
Accelerated Examination- Green Technology

  • Petition Must be filed before Dec. 10, 2010 (12 Month Pilot Program)

  • What is “Green” technology- application directed to:

    • environmental quality,

    • energy conservation,

    • development of renewable energy resources or greenhouse gas emission reduction

  • What you get- accelerated examination

    • Advanced out of turn without all of the requirements of accelerated examination (e.g., ESD, etc.)


Accelerated examination small entity l.jpg
Accelerated Examination- Small Entity

  • Program Apparently Extended to June 30, 2010

  • Requirements

    • Small Entity with 2 or more applications

    • Applications filed before October 1, 2009

    • Expressly abandon one of the applications

    • File a petition for accelerated examination

      • ($130 fee waived)

  • What you got- accelerated examination

    • Advanced out of turn without all of the requirements of accelerated examination (e.g., ESD, etc.)


Revised examiner count system l.jpg
Revised Examiner Count System

Old System

New System

February 18, 2010


Proposed procedural change comment requested l.jpg
Proposed Procedural Change- Comment Requested

  • Deferred Examination (light)

    • PTO floating “extension” to provisional period through missing parts procedural change

    • After provisional, non-provisional filing receives notice with 12-month non-extendable deadline

    • Notice demands search/exam fees, surcharge

    • Ideally, provides applicant with 24 months to decide whether invention is commercially viable


Proposed rules l.jpg
Proposed Rules

  • Non-provisional filing must

    • Include “basic” filing fee ($330; $165 small-entity)

    • Have executed oath/declaration (eventually)

    • Be without or rescind nonpublication request

    • Be in condition for publication (37 CFR 1.211(c))

  • No “tolling” of 12-month period under Paris Convention


Proposed rules24 l.jpg
Proposed Rules

  • Asserted Advantages

    • More publications, i.e. provisionals that would not be filed otherwise, non-provisionals w/o nonpublication requests

    • Unneeded applications out of system, relieving applicants’ financial, PTO’s workload burdens

    • Focus applicant resources on commercialization rather than non-provisional filing


Proposed rules25 l.jpg
Proposed Rules

  • Potential Downsides

    • No “tolling” of 12-month period under Paris Convention

    • Can get a longer period by filing a PCT application

    • Search & Examination Fees are small in comparison to attorney costs


Appeals l.jpg
Appeals

  • Controversial Appeals Rules- reopened for comment

  • Streamlined Noncompliant Appeal Brief Review Process

  • Claims- how to handle appealed and non-appealed rejections/claims


Appeals27 l.jpg
Appeals

  • Controversial Proposed Appeals Rules- reopened comments

  • Streamlined Appeal Brief Review Process

  • Chief Judge of BPAI (or his designee) has now sole responsibility for determining whether appeal briefs comply with regulations, and will complete the

  • Hopefully, it will reduce the number of non-compliant appeal briefs

  • Use checklist at: http://www.uspto.gov/ip/boards/bpai/procedures/guidance_noncompliant_briefs.jsp


Appeals28 l.jpg
Appeals

  • Claims Reviewed During Appeal

    • Proposed rule to treat non-appealed rejected claims considered canceled.

    • Ex Parte Frye: BPAI’s Standard of Review of Examiners’ Rejections

      • “the Board reviews the particular finding(s) contested by an appellant anew in light of all the evidence and argument on that issue.”

      • “[i]f an appellant fails to present arguments on a particular issue – or, more broadly, on a particular rejection – the Board will not, as a general matter, unilaterally review those uncontested aspects of the rejection,” and such unasserted arguments may be deemed to have been waived.



Quick patent term adjustment refresher l.jpg
Quick Patent Term Adjustment Refresher

  • 35 U.S.C. §154(b)(1) Periods

    • (A) Guarantee of prompt USPTO responses- 14 months for USPTO to send an Office Action or Notice of Allowance (plus various 4 month periods)- Examination Delays

    • (B) Guarantee of no more than 3-year application pendency- USPTO fails to issue patent 3 years after actual filing date

  • No Double Counting When Periods Overlap

    • § 154(b)(2)(A) "[t]o the extent that periods of delay attributable to grounds specified in paragraph (1) overlap, the period of any adjustment granted under this subsection shall not exceed the actual number of days the issuance of the patent was delayed."


  • Wyeth v kappos fed cir 2009 l.jpg
    Wyeth v. Kappos (Fed. Cir. 2009)

    • Issue: When does the overlap occur?

      • USPTO

        • 37 CFR § 1.703(f)- B guarantee period starts at the time of the filing of the application, not 3 years after the filing date.

        • You only get the greater of the A or B periods

    USPTO – 3 Years PTA

    OverlapHere

    Overlap

    Here

    B Delay

    A Delay

    A Delay

    14 mo. date

    Issue date

    Issue fee paid

    4 mos. from issue fee payment, patent should issue

    Filing date

    Office Action issued

    3 year date


    Wyeth v kappos fed cir 200932 l.jpg
    Wyeth v. Kappos (Fed. Cir. 2009)

    • Issue: When does the overlap occur?

      • Wyeth

        • A & B Overlap only occurs after 3 years from the filing date. (A+B Formula)

    USPTO – 3 Years PTA

    1 Year

    Overlap

    Here

    B Delay

    A Delay

    A Delay

    14 mo. date

    6 years issue date

    Issue fee paid

    4 mos. from issue fee payment, patent should issue

    Filing date

    26 mo. Office Action issued

    3 year date


    Wyeth v kappos fed cir 200933 l.jpg
    Wyeth v. Kappos (Fed. Cir. 2009)

    • Federal Circuit Agrees with Wyeth

    • "no 'overlap' happens unless the violations occur at the same time," … "[b]efore the three-year mark, no 'overlap' can transpire between the A delay and the B delay because the B delay has yet to begin or take any effect." However, "[u]nder the PTO’s strained interpretation, B delay can occur anytime after the application is filed," which the Court determined "cannot be reconciled with the language of the statute" (emphasis by panel).


    Wyeth v kappos fed cir 200934 l.jpg
    Wyeth v. Kappos (Fed. Cir. 2009)

    • Federal Circuit

      • A & B overlap only occurs after 3 years from the filing date. (A+B Formula)

    USPTO – 3 Years PTA

    1 Year

    Overlap

    Here

    B Delay

    A Delay

    A Delay

    14 mo. date

    6 years issue date

    Issue fee paid

    4 mos. from issue fee payment, patent should issue

    Filing date

    26 mo. Office Action issued

    3 year date


    Wyeth v kappos fed cir 200935 l.jpg
    Wyeth v. Kappos (Fed. Cir. 2009)

    • USPTO Response

      • USPTO will be processing recalculation requests under an interim procedure that is available to a patentee whose patent issues prior to March 2, 2010, and who requests it no later than 180 days after the issue date.

      • This procedure is available only for alleged errors in calculation that are specifically identified in Wyeth.

      • Information on requesting a recalculation of patent term is on the USPTO Web site at http://www.uspto.gov/patents/announce/pta_wyeth.pdf.


    Wyeth v kappos fed cir 200936 l.jpg
    Wyeth v. Kappos (Fed. Cir. 2009)

    • USPTO Wyeth PTA Form PTO/SB/131


    Japan tobacco petition l.jpg
    Japan Tobacco Petition

    • USPTO Miscalculating Period B for PCT 371 National Stage Applications

      • Originally, USPTO considered the B Period filing date= when an international applications fulfilled the requirements of 35 U.S.C. § 371 (e.g., filed signed Oath/Dec.).

      • BUT, 37 C.F.R. § 1.702(b) states that "the term of an original patent shall be adjusted if the issuance of the patent was delayed due to the failure of the Office to issue a patent within three years after the date on which the application was filed under 35 U.S.C. 111(a) or the national stagecommenced under 35 U.S.C. 371(b) or (f) in an international application.”

        • Section 371(b) states that subject to § 371(f), "the national stage shall commence with the expiration of the applicable time limit under article 22 (1) or (2), or under article 39 (1)(a) of the [PCT].“ = 30 Month Chapter II Deadline

    • So the B-Period filing date for 371 national stages should be the 30-Month Chapter II deadline (if filed under 371(b)-- more later)


    Japan tobacco petition38 l.jpg
    Japan Tobacco Petition

    • USPTO

      • USPTO relents- B-delay should be calculated based on the date on which the national stage commenced, not the date on which the requirements of § 371(c) were fulfilled.

    3-Year B-Period

    File Signed Declaration- satisfy 371(c)

    Chap II Deadline (30 Months)


    Japan tobacco petition39 l.jpg
    Japan Tobacco Petition

    • PCT Patent Term Landmines

      • B-Period Delay Landmine- Early 371 Nationalization

      • If Nationalize under 371 before 30-month chapter II deadline and satisfy 371(c) requirements (e.g., pay fees, signed Declaration, etc.), you still need to expressly request early processing under 371(f) to get the nationalization date for B-Delay filing date.

        • If not, B-Delay filing date will be based on the Chapter II (30-month) deadline & not the earlier nationalization date.

    • Contrast regular utility or bypass CON- B-Period filing date is the actual filing date of the application.


    Japan tobacco petition40 l.jpg
    Japan Tobacco Petition

    • B-Delay Period Landmine

      • Nationalize PCT Application before the Chapter II Deadline

        • Satisfy 371(c)- file signed declaration, etc.

        • Expressly request early processing (check the box on form)

    3-Year B-Period

    B-Delay filing date starts before Chapter II Deadline

    Nationalize

    Chap II Deadline (30 Months)


    Japan tobacco petition41 l.jpg
    Japan Tobacco Petition

    • B-Delay Period Landmine

      • Nationalize PCT Application before the Chapter II Deadline BUT

        • Fail to satisfy 371(c) OR

        • Fail to expressly request early examination

    3-Year B-Period

    B-Delay filing date starts on Chapter II Deadline

    Nationalize

    File Signed Declaration- satisfy 371(c)

    Chap II Deadline (30 Months)


    Japan tobacco petition42 l.jpg
    Japan Tobacco Petition

    • B-Delay Period Landmine- COMPARE

      • Instead file via the bypass CON route BUT

        • Fail to file signed declaration OR

        • Fail to expressly request early examination

    B-Delay filing date starts before Chapter II Deadline

    3-Year B-Period

    Bypass CONFiling Date

    File Signed Declaration

    Chap II Deadline (30 Months)


    Japan tobacco petition43 l.jpg
    Japan Tobacco Petition

    • PCT Patent Term A-Delay Landmines

      • A-Delay Date is still based on fulfillment of national requirements under 371(c).

        • For example, if you do not file a signed declaration when the PCT application is nationalized, you lose A-term until you file the signed declaration.

        • Contrast to a regular utility or bypass CON- where you do not lose A-term so long as you file the signed declaration within 3-months of Notice to File Missing Parts


    Japan tobacco petition44 l.jpg
    Japan Tobacco Petition

    • A-Delay Period Landmine

      • Nationalize PCT application under 371

        • Fail to file signed declaration with nationalization

    A-Period

    A-Delay- lose term- until file signed Declaration

    Lose Term

    Nationalize

    File Signed Declaration

    Chap II Deadline (30 Months)


    Japan tobacco petition45 l.jpg
    Japan Tobacco Petition

    • A-Delay Period Landmine- COMPARE

    • Instead file via the bypass CON route

    • Fail to file signed declaration when application filed

    • File signed declaration 1-month after missing parts deadline

    A-Period

    2 Month Deadline For Missing Parts

    DO NOT LOSE ANY A-TERM!

    Bypass CONFiling Date

    Chap II Deadline (30 Months)

    File Signed Declaration w/ 1-Month EOT + surcharge


    Pct 371 nationalization or bypass con l.jpg
    PCT- 371 Nationalization or Bypass CON?

    • What is the best way to nationalize a PCT ?

    • Answer: Bypass CON!!!

    371 Nationalization

    Patent Term

    PDX

    Simplicity

    US Restriction...

    Bypass CON



    Stanford v roche fed cir 2009 l.jpg
    Stanford v. Roche (Fed. Cir. 2009)

    • Patented Technology

      • Method of quantifying HIV virus levels in human blood samples and correlating to the effectiveness of antiretroviral drugs.

    •  History

      • One of the named inventors (Holodniy) of the patents at issue signed a Copyright and Patent Agreement ("CPA") upon joining laboratory at Stanford.

      • Holodniy visited Cetus to learn the technology.

        • Holodniy signed a Visitor's Confidentiality Agreement ("VCA").

      • Research for the technology at Stanford was funded by the National Institutes of Health ("NIH").

      • Stanford filed the applications for the patents at issue – the '730, '705 and '041 patents.


    Stanford v roche fed cir 200949 l.jpg
    Stanford v. Roche (Fed. Cir. 2009)


    Stanford v roche fed cir 200950 l.jpg
    Stanford v. Roche (Fed. Cir. 2009)

    • Procedural History

      • Stanford sues Roche for patent infringement.

      • Roche: Stanford lacks standing - Roche owns, has a license for, and/or a shop right on the asserted patents.

    • District Court

      • Roche's ownership was barred by California's statute of limitation and the Bayh-Dole Act.

      • Roche's license claims fail because Stanford never consented to Roche's acquisition of Cetus.

      • Roche lacked shop right to the patents.


    Stanford v roche fed cir 200951 l.jpg
    Stanford v. Roche (Fed. Cir. 2009)

    • Federal Circuit

      • Although Roche claiming ownership was barred by California's statute of limitation, under California law, "a defense may be raised at any time, even if the matter alleged would be barred by a statute of limitations if asserted as the basis for affirmative relief" (citation omitted). 

        • Similar reasoning applies to laches and equitable estoppel.

      • Thus, Roche can assert its ownership as a bar to Stanford's standing.


    Stanford v roche fed cir 200952 l.jpg
    Stanford v. Roche (Fed. Cir. 2009)

    • Federal Circuit

      • Which law to apply? 

        • Normally questions of ownership are state law issues.

        • Exception: questions of whether a patent assignment clause creates an automatic assignment or merely an obligation to assign - Federal Circuit Law applies. 


    Stanford v roche fed cir 200953 l.jpg
    Stanford v. Roche (Fed. Cir. 2009)


    Stanford v roche fed cir 200954 l.jpg
    Stanford v. Roche (Fed. Cir. 2009)


    Stanford v roche fed cir 200955 l.jpg
    Stanford v. Roche (Fed. Cir. 2009)

    • Federal Circuit

      • Was Holodniy's CPA with Stanford an automatic assignment?

        • Language: "I agree to assign and confirm in writing to Stanford..." is a mere promise to assign.

        • Stanford's invention rights policy supports this conclusion: "Unlike industry and many other universities, Stanford's invention rights policy allows all rights to remain with the inventor if possible."

        • Stanford did not immediately gain title to the inventions.


    Stanford v roche fed cir 200956 l.jpg
    Stanford v. Roche (Fed. Cir. 2009)


    Stanford v roche fed cir 200957 l.jpg
    Stanford v. Roche (Fed. Cir. 2009)


    Stanford v roche fed cir 200958 l.jpg
    Stanford v. Roche (Fed. Cir. 2009)

    • Federal Circuit 

      • Was Holodniy's VCA with Cetus an automatic assignment?

        • Language: "I will assign and do hereby assign to CETUS..." is a present assignment of Holodniy's future inventions.

        • Cetus immediately gained equitable title to Holodniy's inventions.

        • Cetus's equitable title converted to legal title when the parent application was filed on May 14, 1992.

        • This negated Holodniy's subsequently executed assignment to Stanford (May 4, 1995) because Holodniy no longer retained any rights.


    Stanford v roche fed cir 200959 l.jpg
    Stanford v. Roche (Fed. Cir. 2009)


    Stanford v roche fed cir 200960 l.jpg
    Stanford v. Roche (Fed. Cir. 2009)


    Stanford v roche fed cir 200961 l.jpg
    Stanford v. Roche (Fed. Cir. 2009)

    • Federal Circuit

      • Was Stanford a Bona Fide Purchaser (BFP) under 35 USC § 261?

        • "An assignment, grant or conveyance shall be void as against any subsequent purchaser or mortgagee for a valuable consideration, without notice, unless it is recorded in the Patent and Trademark Office within three months from its date or prior to the date of such subsequent purchase or mortgage." 35 USC § 261

      • Stanford was charged with notice of its employees' assignments (the VCA).

      • Stanford was not a BFP.


    Stanford v roche fed cir 200962 l.jpg
    Stanford v. Roche (Fed. Cir. 2009)


    Stanford v roche fed cir 200963 l.jpg
    Stanford v. Roche (Fed. Cir. 2009)


    Stanford v roche fed cir 200964 l.jpg
    Stanford v. Roche (Fed. Cir. 2009)

    • Bayh-Dole Act- 35 USC § 200+

      • US Government to take title under certain conditions.

      • The "contractor" universities or inventors can retain ownership if US Government does not.

    • Stanford (and District Court): Bayh-Dole allowed Stanford a "right of second refusal" after Government refrained to exercise its rights.

      • Holodniy could only keep title if Stanford did not elect to retain title.

    • Federal Circuit 

      • Bayh-Dole does not void prior contractual transfers of rights.

      • Thus, Bayh-Dole did not automatically void the patent rights Cetus received from Holodniy. 


    Stanford v roche fed cir 200965 l.jpg
    Stanford v. Roche (Fed. Cir. 2009)

    • Federal Circuit

      • Roche declaratory judgment of ownership barred by California's statutes of limitation.

      • Stanford lacks standing because it cannot establish ownership of Holodniy's interest.


    Stanford v roche fed cir 200966 l.jpg
    Stanford v. Roche (Fed. Cir. 2009)

    • Take Home Points:

      • Review the language in your assignments to make sure that it contains a present assignment of patent rights. 

        • "I do hereby assign"

      • When collaborating, make sure that employees do not sign anything unless it is reviewed.



    Therasense v becton dickinson cafc 2010 l.jpg

    '636 Patent

    EPO Counterpart

    Statements Never Cited to USPTO

    Resp. in RevocationProceeding

    Membrane is optional

    for Whole Blood

    Therasense v. Becton Dickinson (CAFC 2010)

    USPTO

    Unrelated

    '382 Patent

    USPTO

    '551 Patent

    Membraneless

    Biosensor

    EPO

    Anticipate/ Obvious

    Affidavit/Resp.

    '382 Patent

    Requires Membranefor Whole Blood

    '551 Patent

    Allowed


    Therasense v becton dickinson cafc 201069 l.jpg
    Therasense v. Becton Dickinson (CAFC 2010)

    • Federal Circuit- Failure to Cite EPO Statements was material- Inequitable Conduct

      • “Applicant’s earlier statements about prior art, especially one’s own prior art, are material to the PTO when those statements directly contradict the applicant’s position regarding that prior art in the PTO. 37 CFR 1.56(b)(2) In any event, the representations to the PTO were not merely lawyer argument; they were factual assertions…of those skilled in the art provided in affidavit form.”


    Therasense v becton dickinson cafc 201070 l.jpg
    Therasense v. Becton Dickinson (CAFC 2010)

    • Dissent (Judge Linn) – “The question for purposes of materiality here is not whether Abbott’s arguments to the PTO were meritorious (i.e., that the word “preferably” in the ‘382/’636 patent would actually have been interpreted…to mean “required”); rather, the question is whether anything in Abbott’s EPO submissions “refutes, or is inconsistent with,” its arguments to the PTO. Even if this information were material, however, the individuals who owed a duty of disclosure to the PTO produced a good faith explanation as to why they withheld the EPO submissions…Such an explanation will defeat a charge of inequitable conduct if it is “plausible”.” “The question, thus, is not whether it is plausible that the information is immaterial – a question asked under the objective materiality prong- but rather, whether it is plausible that the individuals subjectively believed that the reference was immaterial at the time they withheld it – a question presented under the subjective intent prong.”


    Therasense v becton dickinson cafc 201071 l.jpg
    Therasense v. Becton Dickinson (CAFC 2010)

    • New- Being reviewed en banc (April 26, 2010 order)

    • Six questions to be briefed:

    • 1. Should the materiality-intent-balancing framework for inequitable conduct be modified or replaced?

    • 2. If so, how? In particular, should the standard be tied directly to fraud or unclean hands? [citations omitted] If so, what is the appropriate standard for fraud or unclean hands?

    • 3. What is the proper standard for materiality? What role should the United States Patent and Trademark Office’s rules play in defining materiality? Should a finding of materiality require that but for the alleged misconduct, one or more claims would not have issued?


    Therasense v becton dickinson cafc 201072 l.jpg
    Therasense v. Becton Dickinson (CAFC 2010)

    • Six specific questions to be briefed:

    • 4. Under what circumstances is it proper to infer intent from materiality? See Kingsdown Med. Consultants, Ltd. v. Hollister Inc., 863 F.2d 867 (Fed. Cir. 1988) (en banc).

    • 5. Should the balancing inquiry (balancing materiality and intent) be abandoned?

    • 6. Whether the standards for materiality and intent in other federal agency contexts or at common law shed light on the appropriate standards to be applied in the patent context.



    Ethics74 l.jpg
    Ethics

    • Indiana is Revising its Rules Regarding Attorney Advertising

      • Not yet implemented

    • Some Key Areas

      • Clarifies the Specialty Language in Rule 7.4- e.g., “Patent Attorney” or “Proctor in Admiralty”

      • Use of Trade Names with field of law, geographic location, and language proficiency will be allowed


    Ethics old rule l.jpg
    Ethics- Old Rule

    • 7.4 Communication of Specialty Practice

    • When communication otherwise meets the requirements of Rules, 7.2, 7.3, and 7.5, a lawyer may:

    • (a) communicate the fact that the lawyer does or does not practice in particular fields of law, but may not express or imply any particular expertise except as otherwise provided in Rule 7.4(b)

    • (b) communicate that the lawyer is certified as a specialist in a field of practice when the certification and communication are authorized under Admission and Discipline Rule 30 [regarding Continuing Legal Education in Indiana].

    • (c) Notwithstanding subsection (b), a lawyer admitted to engage in patent practice before the United States Patent and Trademark Office may use the designation “Patent Attorney” or a substantially similar designation, and a lawyer engaged in Admiralty practice may use the designation “Admiralty,” “Proctor in Admiralty” or a substantially similar designation.


    Ethics new rule l.jpg
    Ethics- New Rule

    • 7.4 Communication of Specialty Practice

    • (a) A lawyer may communicate that the lawyer does or does not practice in particular fields of law.

    • (b) A lawyer admitted to engage in practice before the United States Patent and Trademark Office may use the designation “Patent Attorney” or a substantially similar, non-misleading, designation.

    • (c) A lawyer engaged in Admiralty practice may use the designation “Admiralty,” “Proctor in Admiralty” or a substantially similar, non-misleading, designation.

    • (d) A lawyer shall not state or imply that the lawyer is certified as a specialist in a particular field of law, unless:

    • (1) The lawyer has been certified as a specialist by an Independent Certifying Organization accredited by the Indiana Commission for Continuing Legal Education pursuant to Admission and Discipline Rule 30 [regarding Continuing Legal Education in Indiana]; and,

    • (2) The certifying organization is identified in the communication.

    • (e) [ Indiana Commission for CLE vested with authority to accredit Independent Certifying Organizations mentioned in (d)(1) ]


    Ethics old rule77 l.jpg
    Ethics- Old Rule

    • 7.5 Professional Notices, Letterheads, Offices, and Law Lists

    • (a) A lawyer or law firm shall not use or participate in the use of professional cards, professional announcement cards, office signs, letterheads, telephone directory listing, law lists, legal directory listings, or a similar professional notice or device if it includes a statement or claim that is false, fraudulent, misleading, deceptive, selflaudatory or unfair within the meaning of or that violates the regulations contained in Rule 7.2.

    • (b) A lawyer shall not practice under a name that is misleading as to the identity, responsibility, or status of those practicing thereunder, or is otherwise false, fraudulent, misleading, deceptive, self-laudatory or unfair within the meaning of Rule 7.2, or is contrary to law. In that it is inherently misleading, a lawyer in private practiceshall not practice under a trade name. However, the name of a professional corporation or professional association may contain “P.C.” or “P.A” or similar symbols indicating the nature of the organization, and if otherwise lawful a firm may use as, or continue to include in, its name, the name or names of one or more deceased or retired members of the firm or of a predecessor firm in a continuing line of succession.


    Ethics new rule78 l.jpg
    Ethics- New Rule

    • 7.5 Firm Names and Letterheads

    • (a) A lawyer shall not use a firm name, letterhead or other professional designation that violates Rule 7.2. A trade namemay be used by a lawyer in private practice if it does not imply a connection with a government agency or with a public or charitable legal services organization and if it is not otherwise in violation of Rule 7.2 Trade names are subject to the following requirements:

    • ...

    • (3) Words that identify the field of law in which the firm concentrates its work, words that describe the geographic location of its offices, and words that indicate a language fluency may be used, so long as the firm name includes the name of a lawyer, or the name of a deceased or retired member of the firm, or of a predecessor firm in a continuing line of succession, as set forth in subparagraph (2) above.


    Ethics new rule79 l.jpg
    Ethics- New Rule

    • Comment:

    • [1] A firm may be designated by the names of all or some of its members, or of deceased members where there has been a continuing succession in the firm’s identity. A trade name may also include words identifying the field of law in which the firm concentrates it work, the geographic location of its offices and words that indicate a language fluency. Examples would be “De la Mirada Employment Law Firm of Greenwood” written in Spanish, or “Anderson’s Auto Accident Law, P.C.,” assuming that De la Mirada and Anderson are or have been members of these respective firms. A lawyer or law firm may also be designated by a distinctive website address or comparable professional designation. Although the United States Supreme Court has held that legislation may prohibit the use of trade names in professional practice, use of such [trade] names in law practice is acceptable so long as it is not misleading. If a private firm uses a trade name that includes a geographical location such as “Springfield Legal Clinic,” an express disclaimer that it is not a public legal aid agency may be required to avoid a misleading implication, furthermore the name of the firm must also include the name of at least one of its members or deceased members. ...


    Ethics new rule80 l.jpg
    Ethics- New Rule

    • Potential New Law Firm Name Under Proposed Rules:

      Doll and Schmal Patent and Trademark Law Firm of Indianapolis, LLP


    Other notable cases l.jpg
    Other Notable Cases

    • Ariad Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co. (Fed. Cir. 2010, en banc)

      • Written Description and Enablement are Separate Requirements

    • European Patent Office Rules

    • Bilski- TBD


    Slide82 l.jpg

    Want to know more?

    Chuck Schmal

    Patent Attorney

    Woodard, Emhardt, Moriarty, McNett & Henry LLP

    Chase Tower

    111 Monument Circle, Suite 3700

    Indianapolis, IN 46204

    317.634.3456

    [email protected]

    www.uspatent.com


    ad