Scott McKeown

Subscribe to Scott McKeown's Posts
Contact:Read more about Scott McKeown

cooperationAs pointed out in our earlier post on the issue, Joint Defense Agreements alone, do not result in  privity for inter partes patent reexamination purposes; at least according to the USPTO. 

Absent evidence of control and contribution with respect to an inter partes reexamination request, the USPTO has taken the position that cooperation for litigation purposes via JDA does not equate to privity for reexamination purposes pursuant to 37 C.F.R. §1.915(b)(7-8). Yet, in arriving at such a determination, the USPTO cautions that this conclusion is largely based on their administrative mandate, which does not provide for investigative resources and discovery power in this regard. As such, perhaps of greater concern to co-defendants is whether or not a court would find privity once a an inter partes reexamination concludes and estoppel attaches to the Requester.

Of course, due to the longevity of inter partes reexamination proceedings to date, the privity issue has yet to play out in a district court. Still, should a plaintiff recover a valid claim from an inter partes reexamination co-defendants will almost certainly
Continue Reading Joint Defense Agreements & Inter Partes Reexamination (II)

Cancelled -- Rule 41.200(b)ass=”size-full wp-image-2162 alignleft” title=”cancelled” src=”https://www.patentspostgrant.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/04/cancelled.gif” alt=”Cancelled — Rule 41.200(b)” width=”172″ height=”129″ /> The USPTO has announced that 37 C.F.R. 41.200(b) is no longer viable in light of the  Federal Circuit’s Agilent Technologies, Inc. v. Affymetrix[1] decision, and has thus cancelled the rule.  As discussed in earlier posts commenting on the Agilent and Koninklijke …

In re Suitco Surface, Inc. (Fed. Cir. 2010)

Yesterday, the CAFC issued a decision in ex parte reexamination 90/007,015 appeal (U.S. Patent 4,944,514). The decision (In re Suitco Surface Inc) is interesting in that the broadest reasonable interpretation of the USPTO was reversed as clearly unreasonable, yet that is the least interesting aspect of the case. In deciding the case, both the BPAI and CAFC applied the wrong standard altogether.

As background, the patent relates to a flooring surface for use on athletic courts, namely bowling alleys and shuffleboard. The key term in dispute being “material for finishing the top surface.” The Patent Holder insisted that the material for finishing the top surface must be defined as the uppermost surface. The USPTO countered that the broadest reasonable interpretation did not require an uppermost surface, but simply the finishing of a general floor surface (such as the lower layer of a laminate type floor). The USPTO reasoned that the term “comprising” is open ended and additional floor layers were possible.

In reversing the BPAI, the CAFC noted that:

“[t]he PTO’s construction here, though certainly broad, is unreasonably broad. The broadest-construction rubric coupled with the term “comprising” does not give the PTO an unfettered license to interpret claims to embrace anything remotely related to the claimed invention. Rather, claims should always be read in light of the specification and teachings in the underlying patent. See Schriber-Schroth Co. v. Cleveland Trust Co., 311 U.S. 211, 217 (1940) (“The claims of a patent are always to be read or interpreted in light of its specifications.”). In that vein, the express language of the claim and the specification require the finishing material to be the top and final layer . . .”

The CAFC determined that claim 1 was unreasonably interpreted based on the USPTO claim construction of “material for finishing a top surface.” However, the CAFC affirmed the rejection of claims 4 and 6 based on a broadest reasonable claim construction of the terminology “uniform flexible film.”

While the CAFC’s emphasis on specification context for reexamination is certainly noteworthy, lost in the appeal to both the BPAI and CAFC is that the broadest reasonable interpretation standard is not applicable to the Suitco Patent. This is because…
Continue Reading CAFC Applies The Wrong Claim Interpretation Standard in Patent Reexamination

mistakesAs provided by 35 U.S.C. § 251, Patent Reissue is a mechanism by which a patent owner may correct an error in an issued patent. A proper reissue application is directed to an error that was made without deceptive intent that renders an issued patent wholly, or partly, inoperative.

Patent owners seeking reissue within two years of patent issuance are permitted the additional opportunity to broaden the issued claims, subject to intervening rights. Reissue applications filed outside this two year window may not broaden issued claim scope.

Although patent reissue allows for the correction of mistakes in claim scope, the proceeding is not a “do-over” of the original prosecution.  Important limits are placed on patent reissue with respect to
Continue Reading Patent Reissue Doesn’t Fix Errors in Portfolio Management

6a00d83451ca1469e20120a7c6f685970b-800wiLast Friday, Chief Administrative Patent Judge of the USPTO’s Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences, Michael R. Fleming, presented an update on inter partes reexamination appeals (IPRA) at the ABA, IPL Section Conference.  At mid-year for 2010, pendency of BPAI decided appeals from date of Reexamination filing is 64.3 months. In 2010, 16 IPRA are…

objectWhere an order has been granted to stay a patent litigation pending the outcome of a reexamination of the patent-in-suit, there is little likelihood that patent owner will be able to successfully appeal the decision ordering the stay of litigation.  Such orders are generally not appealable, because they are not considered final decisions.  See Gould v. Control Laser Corp., 705 F.2d 1340 (Fed. Cir. 1983).  There is an exception where the stay “effectively could put one of the appellants out of court” or if some “patent issue would escape review by a federal court if the case is stayed.”  See Slip Track Sys., Inc. v. Metal-Lite, Inc., 159 F.3d 1337, 1340 (Fed. Cir. 1998).

// <![CDATA[
// <![CDATA[

top.docjs = this;

// This function goes to the next document in the View
function noNextViewDoc() {
alert(‘No Next Document’);
return;
}

// This function goes to the previous document in the View
function noPrevViewDoc() {
alert(‘No Previous Document’);
return;
}

// This function goes to the next document in the View
function no_next_doc_in_search_results() {
alert(‘This is the last document in your search results for this category.’);
return;
}

// This function goes to the previous document in the View
function no_prev_doc_in_search_results() {
alert(‘This is the first document in your search results for this category.’);
return;
}

// This function goes to the next document in the View
function no_next_doc_in_search_category() {
alert(‘This is the last document in your current search category.’);
return;
}

// This function goes to the previous document in the View
function no_prev_doc_in_search_category() {
alert(‘This is the first document in your current search category.’);
return;
}

//This function takes the user to the first hit of this document
function goto_first_hit() {
var anchor_length = document.anchors.length;
var found = false;

for (i=0; i < anchor_length; i++) {
if (document.anchors[i].name == “ctx1”) {
found = true;
}
}

if (found) {
document.location.hash = “ctx1”;
} else {
alert(“This document is the first hit. Use Next Doc to progress through your search results list..”);
}

return;
}

function next_hit(cur_hit) {
hit = cur_hit + 1;

if (top.docjs.total_hits && (cur_hit < top.docjs.total_hits)) {
document.location.hash = “ctx” + hit;
} else {
if (top.docjs.next_doc_in_search_results) {
top.document.location.href = top.docjs.next_doc_in_search_results;
}
}
}

function prev_hit(cur_hit) {
hit = cur_hit – 1;
document.location.hash = “ctx” + hit;
}

function new_next_hit() {
if (top.hldoc && top.hldoc.cur_hit) {
this_hit = top.hldoc.cur_hit;
} else {
this_hit = 0;
top.hldoc.cur_hit = 0;
}

next_hit = this_hit + 1;

if (top.docjs.total_hits) {
if (this_hit < top.docjs.total_hits) {
document.location.hash = “ctx” + next_hit;
if (this_hit != 0)
{
document.getElementById(“idctx” + this_hit).className = “display_hl_text”;
}
document.getElementById(“idctx” + next_hit).className = “display_hl_text_active”;
top.hldoc.cur_hit++;
} else {
if (top.docjs.next_doc_in_search_results) {
top.document.location.href = top.docjs.next_doc_in_search_results;
}
}
} else {
alert(“Please let the whole page load before using this feature.”);
top.document.location.reload(true);
}
}

function new_prev_hit() {
if (top.hldoc && top.hldoc.cur_hit) {
this_hit = top.hldoc.cur_hit;
} else {
this_hit = 0;
top.hldoc.cur_hit = 0;
}

prev_hit = this_hit – 1;

if (prev_hit >= 1) {
document.location.hash = “ctx” + prev_hit;
document.getElementById(“idctx” + this_hit).className = “display_hl_text”;
document.getElementById(“idctx” + prev_hit).className = “display_hl_text_active”;
top.hldoc.cur_hit–;
} else {
if (top.docjs.prev_doc_in_search_results) {
top.document.location.href = top.docjs.prev_doc_in_search_results;
}
}
}

function no_search_results() {
alert(‘Your search results are not in your user session.\nYou will need to re-execute your query to use this functionality’);
return;
}

// ]]>// <![CDATA[
// <![CDATA[
var search_template = “/iplw/5000/search_doc_hit_highlight.adp”;

// ]]>// <![CDATA[
// <![CDATA[
var product = “iplw”;

var personalization_allowed = false;

// ]]>// <![CDATA[
// <![CDATA[
function getFavoriteDocName( ) {
top.smallPopUp(‘/iplw/core_adp/get_favorite_doc_name.adp’, 360, 250);
}

function trimwhitespaces(str) {
while (str.charAt(0)==’ ‘)
str = str.substring(1,str.length);

while (str.charAt(str.length-1)==’ ‘)
str = str.substring(0,str.length-1);

return str;
}

function saveDoc() {
if( document.getDocName.name.value == “” ) {
alert(“You must enter a name in order to save a document to your Favorite Document List.”);
return false;
} else {
var aName = trimwhitespaces(document.getDocName.name.value);

if ( aName.length == 0 ) {
alert(“You must enter at least one alphanumeric char for the document name.”);
return false;
} else {
document.getDocName.name.value = aName;
document.getDocName.docid.value = “[bwd::get_cgi_var docid]”;

if (window.opener.data) {
document.getDocName.calling_url.value = window.opener.data.document.location.href;
} else if (window.opener) {
document.getDocName.calling_url.value = window.opener.document.location.href;
} else {
document.getDocName.calling_url = “[bwd::get_cgi_var calling_url]”
}

for (i = 0; i < document.getDocName.elements.length; i++) {
if (document.getDocName.elements[i].name == “hpage”) {
if (document.getDocName.elements[i].checked) {
document.getDocName.dhpage.value = “Y”;
} else {
document.getDocName.dhpage.value = “N”;
}
}
}

document.getDocName.action = “/iplw/core_adp/save_favorite_doc_name.adp”;

return true;
}
}
}

function get_selected_docName_value() {
if( document.docList ) {
if( document.docList.numDoc.value == 1 ) {
return(document.docList.selectedDoc.value);
} else {
for( i=0; i<document.docList.numDoc.value; i++ ) {
if( document.docList.selectedDoc[i].checked ) {
return (document.docList.selectedDoc[i].value);
}
}
}

return(“”);
} else {
return(“”);
}
}

function get_selected_doc_list(action) {
var count=0;
var i=0;

if (document.docList) {
for (i = 0; i < document.docList.elements.length; i++) {
var elementType = document.docList.elements[i].type;

if (document.docList.elements[i].name.substring(0,6) == action &&
elementType.toLowerCase() == “checkbox” &&
document.docList.elements[i].checked) {
count++;
}
}
}
return (count);
}

function delete_favorite_doc() {
var count=get_selected_doc_list(“delete”);

if (count == 0) {
alert(“Please select a document to delete.”);
} else {
document.docList.calling_url.value = this.document.location.href;
document.docList.action = “/iplw/core_adp/delete_favorite_doc.adp”;
document.docList.submit();
}
}

function update_favorite_doc_hpage() {
var count=get_selected_doc_list(“update”);

if (count > 10) {
alert(‘The maximum number of favorite documents for display on the home page is ten.’);
} else {
document.docList.calling_url.value = this.document.location.href;
document.docList.action = “/iplw/core_adp/update_favorite_doc_hpage.adp”;
document.docList.submit();
}
}

function rename_favorite_doc(docid) {
top.smallPopUp(‘/iplw/core_adp/get_new_favorite_doc_name.adp?docid=’ + docid+ ‘&calling_url=’+this.document.location.href, 350, 195);
}

function renameDoc() {
if( document.getDocName.name.value == “” ) {
alert(“You must enter a name in order to save a favorite document.”);
return false;
} else {
var aName = trimwhitespaces(document.getDocName.name.value);

if ( aName.length == 0 ) {
alert(“You must enter at least one alphanumeric char for the new document name.”);
return false;
} else {
document.getDocName.doc_name.value = aName;
document.getDocName.action = ‘/[bwd::get_product]/core_adp/rename_favorite_doc_name.adp’;
document.getDocName.action = ‘/iplw/core_adp/rename_favorite_doc_name.adp’;

return true;
}
}
}

function closeWindow() {
window.close();
}

function forbid(obj) {
alert(“This document is no longer valid. Please pick another document to be displayed on the home page.”);
obj.checked = false;

}
function forbid_exceed(obj) {
alert(‘You have reached the maximum number (10) of favorite documents for display on the home page.’);
obj.checked = false;
}

// ]]>// <![CDATA[
// <![CDATA[
function makeRequest(url, obj) {

// Number of documents selected
var batchprint_count = 0;
if (window.frames[‘bpPlaceHolder’].batchprint_count) {
// alert (window.frames[‘bpPlaceHolder’].batchprint_count);
batchprint_count = window.frames[‘bpPlaceHolder’].batchprint_count;
// Initial page load
} else if (document.batchprint.batchprint_count){
batchprint_count = document.batchprint.batchprint_count.value;
}

if (document.batchprint) {

if (obj.checked) {
// limit is 25 documents
if (batchprint_count >= 25) {
alert (“You have reached the maximum number of documents (25) for batch printing. Click on the print icon to print your selections.”);
window.location.reload(true);
} else {
url = url + ‘&action=add’
frames[‘bpPlaceHolder’].location.href = url;
}
} else {
url = url + ‘&action=delete’;
frames[‘bpPlaceHolder’].location.href = url;
}
}
}

// ]]>// <![CDATA[
// <![CDATA[
function openPrintView() {
URL = “/iplw/display/batch_print_dialog.adp?fedfid=3635215&vname=ippqcases2&wsn=520004000&searchid=10686607&doctypeid=1&type=court&mode=doc&split=0&scm=5000&pg=0”;
top.smallPopUp(URL,650,500,’batchprint’);
}

function openHierPrintView(hprint) {
URL = “/iplw/display/batch_print_dialog.adp?fedfid=3635215&vname=ippqcases2&wsn=520004000&searchid=10686607&doctypeid=1&type=court&mode=doc&split=0&scm=5000&pg=0” + “&hprint=” + hprint;
top.smallPopUp(URL,650,500,’batchprint’);
}

// ]]>

Federal courts have often found jurisdiction to review stays in favor of state court suits when the state court judgment would have a fully preclusive effect on the federal action or moot the federal action entirely.  See , e.g. , Cone , 460 U.S. at 10; Terra Nova Ins. Co. v. 900 Bar, Inc. , 887 F.2d 1213, 1218-21 (3d Cir. 1989).  Stays in favor of administrative proceedings are similarly reviewed on an “effectively out of court” standard. See Gould , 705 F.2d at 1341; Hines v. D’Artois , 531 F.2d 726, 730-32 (5th Cir. 1976).

It is difficult to identify many circumstances in which an “effectively out of court” situation would be presented for substantive issues based on concurrent reexamination. 
Continue Reading Appelate Review of Stays Pending Patent Reexamination?

the-end-is-nearass=”alignleft size-full wp-image-1999″ title=”the-end-is-near” src=”https://www.patentspostgrant.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/04/the-end-is-near.jpg” alt=”the-end-is-near” width=”264″ height=”400″ />… or is it?  Rumors of the demise of interferences via patent reform have been greatly exaggerated for years.  Whether S.515 will have a different fate than other recent patent reform bills is uncertain at best.  In any event, we continue our review of S.515 provisions related to post grant matters.  On March 4th and 5th, we outlined the provisions in S.515 which would change reexamination and implement a new Post-Grant Review revocation mechanism, respectively.  Today, we discuss what little of substantive interference practice[1] will remain if S.515 is enacted — namely, derivation proceedings.[2]  Currently, derivation cases are a species or type of interference decided by the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences (“BPAI”).  In an interference proceeding at the BPAI, derivation is proven by establishing prior conception of the interfering subject matter and communication of the conception to the opposing party.  Examiners rarely, if ever, suggest an interference sua sponte.   Consequently, in the vast majority of cases, an applicant wishing to initiate a derivation proceeding is required to suggest an interference pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 41.202.  The suggestion of an interference is initially considered by an examiner, who is instructed by the MPEP not to even consider the suggestion of interference until after he or she has decided that the targeting applicant’s claims are in condition for allowance, but for the existence of the targeted application or patent.  Therein, lies the rub.  As stated in MPEP
Continue Reading S.515 Provisions for a Post Interference World

smoking-gunass=”size-full wp-image-2005 alignleft” title=”smoking-gun” src=”https://www.patentspostgrant.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/04/smoking-gun.jpg” alt=”smoking-gun” width=”135″ height=”143″ /> The legislative history of 35 U.S.C. § 312 suggests that a purpose of the substantial new question of patentability (“SNQ”) prerequisite is to prevent patent owner harassment via seriatim requests for reexamination.[1] Consistent with that purpose, MPEP § 2240.II provides:  

In certain situations, after a grant of a second or subsequent request for ex parte reexamination, where (A) the patent owner files a petition under 37 CFR 1.182 as part of the statement or as the statement, and (B) it appears clear that the second or subsequent request was filed for purposes of harassment of the patent owner, if the petition is granted, prosecution on the second or subsequent reexamination would be suspended.  {Emphasis added.}

However, absent an overt and documented threat to tie up a patent in reexamination, can a patent owner establish a “clear” intent by the third party requester to harass a patent owner?
Continue Reading Preventing Harassment in Patent Reexamination: MPEP § 2240’s Smoking Gun Requirement

mulligan1ass=”alignleft size-full wp-image-2028″ title=”mulligan1″ src=”https://www.patentspostgrant.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/04/mulligan1.png” alt=”mulligan1″ width=”225″ height=”225″ />All hackers err… golfers know there are both appropriate and inappropriate times to take a mulligan.  When is it OK to take a mulligan via reissue?  The 3-step test to determine whether the recapture rule prohibits a mulligan in reissue has been well-established since In re Clement[1] was decided in 1997.  As set out by the MPEP in § 1412.02, the 3-step test requires an examiner to make the following determinations:

(1) whether, and in what respect, the reissue claims are broader in scope than the original patent claims; (2) whether the broader aspects of the reissue claims relate to subject matter surrendered in the original prosecution; and (3) whether the reissue claims were materially narrowed in other respects, so that the claims may not have been enlarged, and hence avoid the recapture rule.  {Emphasis added.}

You may recall the 2003 Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences (“Board”) precedential decision
Continue Reading Treatment of the Recapture Doctrine at the BPAI post North American Container