2017 March Patent Prosecution Lunch

6
Prosecution Luncheon Patent March 2017

Transcript of 2017 March Patent Prosecution Lunch

Page 1: 2017 March Patent Prosecution Lunch

Prosecution Luncheon

Patent

March 2017

Page 2: 2017 March Patent Prosecution Lunch

Docket Items• Request for Examination Deadline in the United

Kingdom (UK)– Previously- 33 months from the earliest priority date.

– Now- 6 months from publication date (like EPO) When priority based on a PCT application, the earlier

PCT publication counts for this 6 month deadline, so you need to request examination upon filing the UK application.

Page 3: 2017 March Patent Prosecution Lunch

Inter Partes Review (IPR) Appeal Standing• Federal Circuit held that a petitioner (Phigenix

in this case) lacked standing to appeal an adverse final written decision in an IPR.– The petitioner/appellant was "not engaged in any

activity that would give rise to a possible infringement suit."

– Phigenix, Inc. v. ImmunoGen, Inc. 2016-1544 (Fed. Cir. 2017)

• Is an IPR worth the risk now?

Page 4: 2017 March Patent Prosecution Lunch

Obviousness- Motivation to Combine• In re van Os

– Examiner PTAB- combination of references would have been “intuitive” (or common sense).

– “the flexibility afforded by KSR did not extinguish the factfinder’s obligation to provide reasoned analysis. Instead, KSR specifically instructs that when determining whether there would have been a motivation to combine, the ‘analysis should be made explicit.'” (page 4, 2015-1975, Fed. Cir. 2017)

http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/opinions-orders/15-1975.Opinion.12-28-2016.1.PDF

Page 5: 2017 March Patent Prosecution Lunch

Obviousness- Motivation to Combine• In re van Os

Absent some articulated rationale, a finding that a combination of prior art would have been “common sense” or “intuitive” is no different than merely stating the combination “would have been obvious.” Such a conclusory assertion with no explanation is inadequate to support a finding that there would have been a motivation to combine. This type of finding, without more, tracks the ex post reasoning KSR warned of and fails to identify any actual reason why a skilled artisan would have combined the elements in the manner claimed. See 550 U.S. at 418, 421. (Page 5)

Page 6: 2017 March Patent Prosecution Lunch

Prosecution Luncheon

Patent

March 2017