Scott McKeown

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

Part II of a Guest Post by Brad Pederson

This is the second post addressing transition provisions outlined in the Manager’s Amendment to S. 515.  The first post addressed the transition provisions for interferences.  This post comments on the transition provisions for inter partes review.

Inter Partes Reexamination to Post Grant/Inter Partes Review – the transition provisions for switching over from the current inter partes reexamination proceedings handled by the Central Reexamination Unit (CRU) to post grant/inter partes reviews handled by the new Patent Trials and Appeals Board (PTAB) contemplates a graduated ramp up with limits on the number of reviews that can be declared under regulations to be promulgated by the Director.  Sections 5(c)(2)(C) and 5(f)(2) of the Manager’s Amendment to S. 515 permit the Director to impose “a limit on the number of [reviews] that may be instituted during each of the first 4 years” following the cutover over date to FTFG.  While such a graduated transition would certainly be beneficial for the Office and the PTAB to learn how to handle these new review proceedings, the glaring question left open by these transition provisions is what happens to those requests for review that are above the cutoff …
Continue Reading USPTO Patent Reform Implementation, Hurry Up & Wait?

The Importance of Interview Summaries in ex parte Patent Reexamination

Last Friday, Star Scientific (hereinafter “Star”) released an update on their ongoing ex parte patent reexaminations of U.S. Patents 6,425,401 & 6,202,649. The reexaminations are directed to Star’s patented tobacco curing technologies that are the subject of an ongoing litigation with R.J Reynolds.[1] As Star is a publicly traded company, and the litigation is fairly high profile, the update was widely reported to outlets such as the Wall Street Journal and CNBC.

The Star press release explained:

We received notice today from the US Patent & Trademark Office that it was terminating the reexamination of Claims 4, 12 and 20 of the “649” patent and claim 41 of the “401” patent that had been requested by RJ Reynolds in early 2009. The reason cited for the termination of the process was that the patent owner’s response to the Nonfinal Office Action that was filed on 11/10/09 allegedly did not include “a [separate written] summary of the interview, as is required by 37 CFR 1.560(b).” We want to make clear that the claims were not cancelled because reexamination of the claims found them invalid, but rather because the PTO asserted the patent owner did not comply with the procedural requirement for providing a written interview summary. The reexamination proceeding “is subject to reopening by the [Patent & Trademark] Office, or upon petition,” and Star’s patent counsel will file petitions today to reopen the proceedings.

We disagree with the termination in the strongest possible terms, and we are taking all necessary actions to reopen the reexamination process. Star’s patent counsel, Banner & Witcoff, believe that all appropriate steps were taken during the reexamination proceedings. The PTO failed to acknowledge a timely written summary of the interview that had been filed within one month from the date of the interview. The firm is confident that the petitions to reinstate the proceedings will be granted so that the claims can be evaluated on their merits.

Upon review of the Star reexamination file histories, I will at least agree that the terminations have nothing to do with validity.

On the other hand, in my opinion, appropriate steps were clearly not taken during the reexamination proceedings. Likewise, the petitions filed last week will almost certainly be denied.
Continue Reading Learning From the Mistakes of Star Scientific

zetiaSubsequent to the Ex Parte Tanaka BPAI decision (Appeal No. 2009-000234) on December 9, 2009, Judge Jose L. Linares of the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey granted partial summary judgment invalidating four claims in the Zetia Reissue Patent U.S. Reissue Patent No. RE37,721 that were added in the reissue application of U.S. Patent No. 5,767,115.  The reissued claims were directed to the active ezetimibe species, which was already encompassed by the original ‘115 patent claims to a genus of hydroxyl-substituted azetidinone compounds.  As we previously pointed out, reissue patent applications do not fix all errors. Here as in Tanaka, “bullet claiming” via patent reissue is once again disputed as an error that may be corrected by reissue.

The civil action, Schering Corp. et al. v. Glenmark Pharmaceuticals Inc. USA et al., (Case No. 2:07-cv-01334), was filed in 2007, after Mumbai based Glenmark filed an abbreviated new drug application
Continue Reading Zetia Patent Litigation Settles: Reissue Bullet Claims Questioned

clippy_buttonsAs has been widely reported this week, U.S. Patent No: 5,787,499 has been confirmed by the USPTO in ex parte reexamination 90/010,347. The patent has been widely reported as impacting the popular Microsoft Word software, and the subject of the dispute between i4i Limited Partnership and Infrastructures for Information Inc v. Microsoft Corp, (E.D. Tx no. 07-CV-113). The favorable termination of the reexamination is not very surprising to those following the case as it is clear Microsoft’s use of reexamination in this case was to win a limited battle, not the war.

In our earlier post on the i4i patent reexamination, we noted that the request for reexamination was filed in November 2008. The request was granted in early 2009. Despite the fact that the Texas suit was initiated in early 2007, a request for reexamination was not filed until some 20 months later. In Texas, stays are not as commonly granted for patent reexaminations, certainly not to the extent of some of the more extreme districts. As such, it appears as though Microsoft determined the odds of obtaining a stay pending reexamination slim, and chose to follow the traditional litigation path; that is, right up until trial.

Based upon the briefing, it appears as though
Continue Reading Microsoft’s Late Use of Patent Reexamination in the i4i Dispute

It would be so nice if something made sense for a change — Alice (in Wonderland)

Earlier this week, the BPAI affirmed the rejection of certain means-plus-function claims of patent 5,283,862 in Ex Parte Lund (BPAI 2010-005851).  Claim 1 recites the following elements:

A portable computer unit comprising:
(a) a portable computer housing;
(b) computer means positioned. . .
(c) flat panel display means interfaced to . . .
(e) closure panel means having. . .
. . .said computer housing means and said closure panel means
incorporating electrical connecting means adapted to . . . (emphasis added)

Curiously, the Patent Owner took the position that ONLY the electrical connecting means invoked 35 U.S.C. § 112 6th paragraph (i.e., means-plus-function-element). In other words, even though most other claim elements used the same style of “means” language, these features were somehow different.[1] Understandably, the examiner was perplexed as to the rationale for the distinction. As a result, it appeared that the Examiner instead applied a broadest reasonable interpretation to all of the elements that recited “means” language.

Although, in the end, the BPAI affirmed the examiner’s rejection, the decision was based on a means-pus-function interpretation.  In the decision, the BPAI noted at page 3:

The examiner has a point that it is hard to discern any principled difference between the way “means” is used in the claim such that one skilled in the art would understand that only one such use invokes paragraph 6. The ordinary remedy for such confusion is to reject the claim under 35 U.S.C. 112(2) for indefiniteness. The Office does not reject original patent claims in reexamination under § 112, however.

Next, in affirming the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1, the BPAI analyzed the claims under 35 USC § 112 anyway.
Continue Reading The Patent Reexamination Paradox of 35 USC 112

stemOn April 28, 2010, The USPTO’s Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences (BPAI) rejected claims 1-3 of Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation’s (WARF) “Primate Embryonic Stem Cells” Patent (U.S. Patent No. 7,029,913, the ’913 patent).  The WARF patent is licensed to Geron Corporation and is subject to Inter partes Reexamination as Control No. 95/000,154.  The BPAI reversed the Examiner’s decision to allow the claims. The claims cover pluripotent human embryonic stem cells (ES) cultured in vitro. The request for inter partes reexamination of the ’913 patent was filed on July 17, 2006 by the Public Patent Foundation (PubPat) on behalf of The Foundation for Taxpayer & Consumer Rights (FTCR), now known as Consumer Watchdog. The BPAI decision does not affect two other WARF embryonic stem cell patents (U.S. Patent Nos. 5,843,780 and 6,200,806) that were challenged by FTCR in reexamination proceedings resulting in confirmation of the patentability of their claims in reexamination certificates. However, the rejection of the ’913 patent claims may have a reverberating effect on the stem cell industry. Following an order granting inter partes reexamination of the ’913 patent on September 29, 2006, the Examiner rejected claims 1-3 based on anticipation and obviousness rejections. However, in the Action Closing Prosecution
Continue Reading BPAI Rejects WARF Stem Cell Patent Claims in Inter Partes Reexamination Appeal