IP Law Bulletin

The Federal Circuit recently issued a decision in Antares Pharma, Inc. v. Medac Pharma, Inc. (Fed. Cir. 2014) that examined the issue of whether claims have been properly broadened in a reissue application. A patent holder can seek broadened reissue claims within a two year period from the grant of the original patent, as set forth in 35 U.S.C. § 251. However, there are restrictions on how a patentee can broaden claims during the reissue proceeding. Those restrictions include 1) the recapture rule and 2) the original patent requirement. The Court in Antares found reissue claims to be invalid for failing the original patent requirement. Under the original patent requirement, the invention claimed in the reissue application must be directed to the same invention disclosed in the original patent. The Court found that the original patent requirement mandates that newly claimed subject matter be disclosed in an explicit and unequivocal manner in the specification. In other words, the newly added claims cannot be merely suggested or indicated in the specification. In contrast, the Court noted that continuation and divisional applications are avenues for applicants to shift the scope of the claims from one invention to another without the original patent requirement of § 251.

In Octane Fitness LLC v. ICON Health & Fitness, Inc., 134 S. Ct. 1749 (2014), decided in April 2014, the Supreme Court lowered the bar for obtaining attorneys’ fees in patent infringement cases. In particular, the Supreme Court replaced the previously restrictive interpretation of an “exceptional case” that qualifies for the award of attorneys’ fees under § 285 of the Patent Act (chapter 35 of the United States Code (U.S.C.)) with a lower, more discretionary standard. We previously provided an analysis of Octane Fitness, and the related Highmark Inc. v. Allcare Health Mgmt. Sys., Inc. decision in an April 30, 2014 advisory. Since then, there has been a rash of litigants attempting to cash in on their success in intellectual property litigation of all types—including trademark and trade dress litigation brought under the Lanham Act (15 U.S.C.). Section 1117(a) of the Lanham Act includes a provision for awarding attorneys’ fees that is identical to § 285 of the Patent Act; however, because Octane Fitness only expressly addresses exceptional cases under § 285 of the Patent Act, courts are struggling with whether to replace the prevailing standard in their Circuit with the new, lower standard in cases brought under the Lanham Act. So far, courts are divided as to whether Octane Fitness applies to the Lanham Act, although a greater weight of authority exists in favor of applying the Octane Fitness standard to § 1117(a) of the Lanham Act.

The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) released final rules on January 9, 2015 implementing changes to the way in which Patent Term Adjustment (PTA) is calculated in view of the recent Novartis v. Lee case.

On December 16, 2014, the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) published long-awaited guidelines intended to help examiners determine the patent eligibility of a wide range of inventions from isolated genetic materials to computer-implemented methods. The new guidelines revise those published by the office earlier this year (discussed here), which drew heated criticism from some in the patent community as too vague with respect to examination of certain inventions and too onerous with respect to others.

In the wake of the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International, a section of the patent statute once the focus of only occasional litigation is emerging as a “go to” weapon for invalidating patents directed to computer-implemented inventions. Of the 25 federal court decisions in which 35 U.S.C. § 101 (Section 101) has been invoked since Alice was handed down, 19 have resulted in declarations of invalidity. This article highlights some trends in the case law. It also examines more closely one recent Federal Circuit decision in which patent claims did not survive a preliminary challenge under Section 101, as well as the six decisions in which the claims did survive.

The equitable defense of laches may not be at the forefront of most patent practitioners’ minds, but the recent Federal Circuit decision in SCA Hygiene Products v. First Quality Baby Products illustrates that the defense can have teeth. Patent owners looking to mitigate the risk of an accused infringer successfully employing the defense should consider preventative action in the period before filing a lawsuit. Practitioners may also want to continue monitoring the law in this area, as an en banc rehearing has been requested to consider the possible impact of a recent Supreme Court ruling with regard to laches in the context of copyright infringement.

The examiner count system is the stick by which a patent examiner’s production is measured. Although the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office(USPTO) does set expected time limits for each task, examiners’ production goals are met by receiving “counts,” which are accrued by completion of various tasks associated with the examination process. Under the current count system, more counts are granted for tasks performed early in prosecution to provide an incentive for examiners to “dispose” of cases quickly—either through abandonment or the granting of a Notice of Allowance. Thus, the count system serves as a reminder that patent examiners and patent applicants are not opponents, but rather members of the same team who are intended to work together to move patent applications through the system.

Currently, the average time a patent applicant waits to receive a first Office Action from the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) is 18.9 months. The total pendency for a patent application before a final disposition is achieved (e.g., Notice of Allowance issued, Request for Continued Examination filed, or application is abandoned) is 27.5 months. This number jumps to 37.9 months when applications in which RCEs are filed are included. These long delays can be frustrating for patent applicants. Start-up companies looking to secure patent protection to attract investors can find this long delay at the USPTO detrimental to the company’s ability to survive. Further, applicants looking to use information from U.S. patent prosecution to make decisions about which countries to enter following the filing of a Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT) patent application may be left making expensive foreign filing decisions without much information about the likelihood of securing a patent.

On November 1, 2014, the European Patent Office (EPO) will implement a revision to Rule 164 EPC that allows Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT) applicants to have more than one invention searched when a unity of invention objection is present, regardless of whether the EPO was selected as the International Searching Authority (ISA) during the international phase. Under current practice, if the EPO is not the selected ISA, a supplemental European search report will address only the first invention mentioned in the claims, and any further inventions can only be pursued through divisional practice. Conversely, however, if the EPO is the selected ISA, applicants can request and pay for additional searches before selecting the invention to be pursued.

The Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (AIA) introduced a number of important changes to U.S. patent law. Many of the provisions in the AIA do not apply to patent applications that have an effective filing date prior to March 16, 2013 (pre-AIA applications). For a number of reasons that have been well documented, it can be desirable to preserve an application’s status as a pre-AIA application.