Reissue

Subscribe to Reissue via RSS

Expanded BPAI Panel Explains Acquiescence to Restriction Requirement is Not a Correctable ErrorAs 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.Although patent reissue allows for the correction of mistakes in claim scope, the proceeding is not a “do-over” of the original prosecution. For example, claim scope previously surrendered may not be “recaptured” via a broadening patent reissue. This same reasoning is also utilized in another under appreciated aspect of reissue application practice, namely the pursuit of non-elected claims. When claims are restricted during original prosecution of the underlying patent application, and those claims are not pursued in a divisional application, such claims cannot be obtained by patent reissue. (very limited exceptions for linking claims in a genus/species sense). This prohibition is known as the “Orita Doctrine,” was applied yesterday in ex parte Goto et al. In Goto, the applicant failed to pursue certain non-elected inventions during prosecution of the original patent application. In a patent reissue application filed thereafter, the applicant pursued substantially similar claims. As explained by the BPAI:The “Orita doctrine” precludes applicants from obtaining by reissue claims which, because of a requirement for restriction in which they had acquiesced, they could not claim in their patent. In re Orita, 550 F.2d 1277, 1280 (CCPA 1977). When applicants acquiesce in the examiner’s requirement for restriction, such action manifestly is not “error” causing patentee to claim “less than he had a right to claim in the patent” in the language of 35 U.S.C. § 251. Id, 550 F.2d at 1280.  The so-called Orita doctrine precludes reissue applicants from obtaining substantially identical claims to those of non-elected groups identified in an examiner’s restriction requirement when such claims could not have been prosecuted in the application from which they were restricted. In re Doyle, 293 F.3d 1355, 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2002)In Goto, the original, restricted claims were directed to an inket recording head. In the reissue, the claims were written to emphasize a board member of the recording head. As show in at pages 10-11 of the BPAI decision, the claims were substantially similar in scope, albeit directed to different products. (the reissue claims also recited means-plus-function features to provide further points of distinction, to no avail).With this decision, practitioners are reminded that patent reissue is a tool to correct mistakes of an issued patent, not a tool to resurrect restricted claims of the original prosecution.

As 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.

Although patent reissue allows for the correction of mistakes in claim scope, the proceeding is not a “do-over” of the original prosecution. For example, claim scope previously surrendered may not be “recaptured” via a broadening patent reissue. This same reasoning is also utilized in another under appreciated aspect of reissue application practice, namely the pursuit of non-elected claims. When claims are restricted during original prosecution of the underlying patent application, and those claims are not pursued in a divisional application, such claims cannot be obtained by patent reissue. (very limited exceptions for linking claims in a genus/species sense). This prohibition is known as the “Orita Doctrine,” was applied yesterday in ex parte Goto et al.…

Continue Reading Orita Doctrine Blocks Patent Reissue

mistakesLast Friday, In re Mostafazadeh was argued before the CAFC (argument here). The case explored the boundaries of the patent reissue recapture rule. At dispute in the appeal was whether or not the third step of the rule, as outlined in MPEP 1412.02, is tied to the “critical limitation” (i.e., originally surrendered subject matter) or not. {10:30 min. mark}

The three step analysis of In re Clement is as follows:

(1) first, we determine whether, and in what respect, the reissue claims are broader in scope than the original patent claims; 

(2) next, we determine whether the broader aspects of the reissue claims relate to subject matter surrendered in the original prosecution; and

(3) finally, we determine 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)

In considering the case, the CAFC found both the MPEP discussion of step (3) and BPAI decision on this point to be confusing. {14.50 min mark}
Continue Reading Recapture Doctrine Before The CAFC

Expanded BPAI Panel Divided on Proper Reissue PracticeThe proper interpretation of the patent reissue statutes was explored rather frequently at the Board of Patent Appeals & Interferences (BPAI) in 2010. Several important BPAI decision relating to patent reissue, In re Tanaka, In re Staats, and In re Mostafazadeh are now on appeal to the CAFC. As we begin 2011, the trend appears to be continuing.Last week, the Board considered the following two questions in Ex parte Shunpei Yamazaki (here), namely:1.  Does 35 U.S.C. § 251 authorize the Office to reissue a patent that has expired based on an expiration date set at the time of issuance of the original patent?2. Does 35 U.S.C. § 251 authorize the Office to expand in reissue the term of a patent beyond the term of the original patent set at the time of issuance?By way of background, Semiconductor Energy Laboratory, sought to reissue their U.S. Patent 6,180,991. This patent issued on January 30, 2001 based upon an application filed April 21, 1995. During the original prosecution, a terminal disclaimer was filed (November of 1996) to overcome a double patenting rejection. Thereafter, the claims subject to the earlier double patenting rejections were amended. As a result, the Applicant petitioned to withdraw the earlier filed disclaimer (April 1999).The petition remained pending at the USPTO for some time, roughly a year. At that point, a Notice of Allowance was issued and the issue fee paid by the Applicant. In the 21st month, (May 2001) the petition was dismissed as mooted by the issuance of the ‘991 Patent. In the petition decision, the Office explained that a terminal disclaimer cannot be removed once a patent issues, and also explained that patent reissue could not remedy the problem. As it stood, the Patent holder had mistakenly disclaimed some 14 years of patent term (based on a pre-GATT priority claim).Perhaps encouraged by a non-precedential Board decision, Ex parte Durckheimer (1996), and despite the caution of the Office that reissue practice could not remove the disclaimer, an application seeking reissue of the ‘991 Patent was filed on January 16, 2002.As is all too common with patent reissues applications, the case languished for some 9 years before reaching the Board for decision.In their decision, the majority answered both questions above in the negative, reasoning:We take this opportunity to resolve a conflict within the Office as to the meaning of “the term of the original patent” in 35 U.S.C. § 251 and whether the Office is authorized by this statute to remove a terminal disclaimer during reissue resulting in an expansion of the term of the original patent set at issuance.We interpret “the term of the original patent” in § 251 to refer to the “term” of the patent as the term set upon issuance of the original patent.  . . . . See Merck & Co., 482 F.3d at 1319; see also Bayer AG, 298 F.3d at 1381. Thus, we disagree with the Board’s earlier holding in Durckheimer that a terminal disclaimer does not alter “the term of the original patent.” . . . .As such, we feel that the prior panel’s interpretation of § 251 in Durckheimer was in error, and the present decision overrules Durckheimer. We adopt the position of the Office as stated in MPEP § 1490 that “[s]ince the granting of a reissue patent without the effect of a recorded terminal disclaimer would result in extending the term of the original patent, reissue under these circumstances would be contrary to the statute.”Consequently, at the time of issuance of Appellant’s patent on January 30, 2001, the statute recognized that the term of the ‘991 patent would expire on December 22, 2003, the expiration date specified in the Terminal Disclaimer. Section 251 does not permit the Office to now reissue the ‘991 patent beyond that term as set upon issuance. (internal footnotes omitted)However, the concurrence saw the issues raised by the Appellant a bit differently. The concurring APJ’s found that it is possible to reissue a patent for purposes of removing a terminal disclaimer, but that reissue must occur before expiration.The majority points to the language in § 251 which states that a patent may be reissued “for the unexpired part of the term of the original patent” (emphasis added). According to the majority, the term of a patent is set at the time of issuance and withdrawing a recorded terminal disclaimer in an issued patent would extend the term of that patent contrary to § 251.The “term” of a patent is set by statute at the time of issuance. 35 U.S.C. § 154(a)(2) (2010). However, as explained in Ex parte Durckheimer, No. 94-2004, slip op. at 19 (BPAI 1996), a terminal disclaimer does not alter the “term” of the original patent. Rather, a terminal disclaimer disclaims a “terminal part of the term . . . of the patent granted or to be granted” thereby resetting the expiration date of that patent. 35 U.S.C. § 253 (2010).The majority appears to equate “term” with “expiration date.” However, I respectfully disagree that these terms are synonymous in this case where a terminal disclaimer has been recorded in an issued patent. See, e.g., Merck & Co., Inc. v. Hi-Tech Pharmacal Co., Inc., 482 F.3d 1317, 1322-23 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (discussing the expiration date resulting from the terminal disclaimer and the expiration date of the patent in the absence of the terminal disclaimer). . . .As [to expiration] . . . . The Appellant’s patent expired on December 22, 2003, by virtue of the terminal disclaimer that remains in effect. Therefore, the Office does not have the authority to reissue the Appellant’s patent for “the unexpired part of the term of the original patent.” (internal footnotes omitted)As pointed out in the concurring opinion, a terminal disclaimer is just that, a disclaimer of term otherwise accorded an issuing patent.Of course, once a patent is expired there can be no “re-issuing” the patent for an unexpired term. Yet, here the error identified in the application for reissue is one of term, seasonably presented before expiration. It seems grossly unfair to punish the Appellant in view of the significant delays in patent reissue prosecution, not to mention the egregious petition delay in the original prosecution.Perhaps this patent reissue dispute, much like the 2010 cases that came before it, is also destined for CAFC revi

The proper interpretation of the patent reissue statutes was explored rather frequently at the Board of Patent Appeals & Interferences (BPAI) in 2010. Several important BPAI decision relating to patent reissue, In re Tanaka, In re Staats, and In re Mostafazadeh are now on appeal to the CAFC. As we begin 2011, the trend appears to be continuing.

Last week, the Board considered the following two questions in Ex parte Shunpei Yamazaki (here), namely:

1.  Does 35 U.S.C. § 251 authorize the Office to reissue a patent that has expired based on an expiration date set at the time of issuance of the original patent?

2. Does 35 U.S.C. § 251 authorize the Office to expand in reissue the term of a patent beyond the term of the original patent set at the time of issuance?
Continue Reading Removing Terminal Disclaimers by Patent Reissue

NTP Patent Reexaminations & Key Patent Reissue Cases

With not much going on between holidays, a look forward to 2011 shows some interesting post grant issues teed up at the CAFC.

Oral arguments have been scheduled for In re Tanaka (January 10), In re NTP (February 10), and In re Mostafazadeh (February 11). (CAFC schedule here)

As a reminder In re Tanaka, (on appeal from the BPAI decision of last December) will explore whether or not a reissue application is proper where the only defect identified in the issued patent is the failure to present additional dependent claims.  At the BPAI, the Board reasoned that the mere addition of new dependent claims did not identify any defect in the issued patent.

Of perhaps greater interest in the patent reissue area is In re Mostafazadeh. This case will explore the boundaries of the recapture rule as it relates to broadening reissues. Specifically, the CAFC will have an opportunity to provide feedback to the USPTO on the continued viability of Ex parte Eggert 67 USPQ2d 1716 (BPAI 2003) in view of North Am. Container, Inc. v. Plastipak Pkg., Inc., 415 F.3d 1335, 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2005). The USPTO has taken the position that Eggert is no longer binding on the Office. As a result, the Office has considered recapture to foreclose presentation of an intermediate claim scope in patent reissue where a broader claim limitation was surrendered in original prosecution.

Finally, the NTP patent reexaminations of NTP v. RIM fame finally get their day in court.
Continue Reading CAFC Slates Patent Reexamination/Reissue Disputes for Early 2011 Resolution

 Year in Review & 2011 Outlook

As I mentioned last week, nothing says “holiday spirit” like a podcast on patent reexamination/reissue.

Recently, I recorded a podcast for LexisNexis discussing the patent reexamination and patent reissue stories of 2010, and looked forward to prominent cases and expected changes in 2011.  Readers of the blog may recognize…

Upward of 70% of Patent Reissue Filings Include a Defective Oath

oaths

(click to enlarge)

As most practitioners are well aware, defective oaths in patent reissue are the rule, not the exception. As the chart above demonstrates for patent reissues filed in 2005, such oath problems lead to longer patent reissue pendencies.

With narrowing patent reissue filings constituting the bulk of patent reissue applications at the USPTO, it is not surprising that the impact of defective oaths are more pronounced in this sub-category. For narrowing reissue applications filed in 2005, applications without any oath problems were completed 1.14 years faster (1.74 vs 2.88 years) than those with oath problems.

Surely, both the USPTO and stakeholders share the blame equally for these recurring problems. As demonstrated just yesterday, these issues are rarely resolved prior to appeal.
Continue Reading Defective Oaths Plague Patent Reissue Filings

Equitable Intervening Rights a Function of USPTO Delay?

Whether a narrowing patent reissue application or broadening patent reissue application, USPTO pendency delay is significant. As discussed yesterday, narrowing reissue applications appear to  fare no better than regular U.S. applications, and broadening reissue applications have been known to take as long as 10 years to complete.

Of course, amendments made during patent reissue will result in absolute intervening rights defense for potential infringers. As damages for such amended/new claims will not begin to accrue until issued, Patentees have nothing to gain by dallying during patent reissue prosecution. In fact, as demonstrated by a recent district court ruling, significant pendency delay may in fact create a further limit on available damages for amended/new claims under the doctrine of equitable intervening rights.
Continue Reading Practical Impact of Patent Reissue Pendency

Narrowing Reissue Applications Seem to Fare No Better than Regular ApplicationsLast week I explained the disappointing state of broadening reissue application pendency over the first 5 years. As shown in the charts above (click to enlarge images), I analyzed the 129 narrowing patent reissues filed since 2005. Not surprisingly,  narrowing reissues applications fare much better

…

Recapture and Formality Issues Bog Down Important Cases As shown in the charts above (click to enlarge images), we analyzed the 745 broadening patent reissues filed since 2005. A surprising 200 applications of the 745 were ultimately abandoned. While many of these applications may have been seeking to secure a claim scope that was precluded

…

Comparing Claims in Reissue Oath Haunts Patent HolderOn Wednesday, the Federal Circuit reversed a decision of the ITC that excluded the imports of Lucky Litter, LLC. The case (here) related to cat litter boxes having an automated cleaning feature. In reversing the ITC, the CAFC found that the “predetermined event” recited in claim 33 of the patent at issue (RE 36,847), was not limited to a cat exiting the litter box.Prior to seeking patent reissue, claim 1 of the patent recited a “cat exit sensor for sensing a cat exit” and a “delay means.” The Patentee filed a broadening patent reissue to remove these features. The reissue application oath explained that “[i]n particular, claim 1 of U.S. Patent 5,477,812 contains recitations regarding a cat exit sensor and delay means which are too limiting of the invention and unnecessary in view of the prior art. Claims 23 through 48 of the reissue application have limitations similar to those of claim 1, but define the invention with greater breadth.”The CAFC performed a traditional Phillips analysis of the ITC claim construction and held that “predetermined event,” by plain meaning, could not be limited to “cat exit.”  Still, the statement in the oath was cited by the court as a guidepost of the broader meaning of the claims added in reissue. Hindsight always being 20/20, what could the Patentee have done to potentially avoid this result?Claim construction issues aside, recent BPAI cases illustrate the importance of oaths in patent reissue. All too often, the preparation of the oath is deemed ministerial, and ignored in favor of prior art/claim drafting concerns. Oath preparation and wording should be a focal point of any patent reissue effort.When identifying an error in an original patent via added/amended claims in patent reissue, comparison to the originally issued claims is very attractive. This practice is not necessarily wrong, but can have unintended consequences as demonstrated by Lucky. By making such direct comparisons, the scope of the newly added claims becomes unnecessarily intertwined with the issued claims. For example, the oath in Lucky Litter would have been better off stating “new claims 23 through 48 are directed to the automated comb operation of a self cleaning cat litter box, albeit independent of any specific sensor or means-plus-function structure of the issued claims.” (I know, easy for me to say 10 years after the fact)It may be that the Patentee in Lucky still would have lost, oath or not. Nevertheless, the case demonstrates that oath filings are far from form practice, and can come back to haunt Patentees.  Finally, the patent is subject to an ongoing ex parte reexamination (90/010,389) and, as you may have guessed, new claims were added expressly reciting “cat exit.”  (see new claim 5

On Wednesday, the Federal Circuit reversed a decision of the ITC that excluded the imports of Lucky Litter, LLC. The case (here) related to cat litter boxes having an automated cleaning feature. In reversing the ITC, the CAFC found that the “predetermined event” recited in claim 33 of the patent at issue (RE 36,847), was not limited to a cat exiting the litter box.

Prior to seeking patent reissue, claim 1 of the patent recited a “cat exit sensor for sensing a cat exit” and a “delay means.” The Patentee filed a broadening patent reissue to remove these features. The reissue application oath explained that “[i]n particular, claim 1 of U.S. Patent 5,477,812 contains recitations regarding a cat exit sensor and delay means which are too limiting of the invention and unnecessary in view of the prior art. Claims 23 through 48 of the reissue application have limitations similar to those of claim 1, but define the invention with greater breadth.”

The CAFC performed a traditional Phillips analysis of the ITC claim construction and held that “predetermined event,” by plain meaning, could not be limited to “cat exit.”  Still, the statement in the oath was cited by the court as a guidepost of the broader meaning of the claims added in reissue. Hindsight always being 20/20, what could the Patentee have done to potentially avoid this result?
Continue Reading Patent Reissue Oaths Can Impact Claim Interpretation