Tagged: Patent Prosecution
On Monday, the Supreme Court denied the petition for writ of certiorari filed by Apotex seeking review of the Federal Circuit’s May 7, 2012, ruling that affirmed the District Court of New Jersey’s judgment that Otsuka’s patents covering its blockbuster drug Abilify© are valid and not obvious. In that ruling, the Federal Circuit found no error in the District Court’s application of the so-called lead compound test; an analytical framework in chemical art cases that seeks — in an obviousness inquiry under 35 U.S.C. § 103 — to determine whether a POSA (“person of ordinary skill in the art”) would select the proffered prior art as a “lead compound.” Specifically, in a lead compound analysis, the Court will consider: the hypothetical person of skill in the art’s identification of a lead compound, structural differences between the proposed lead compound and the claimed invention, motivation or teachings in the prior art to make the necessary changes to arrive at the claimed invention, and whether the person of skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success in making such structural changes.
In an effort to “enhance the quality of software patents,” the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“PTO”) has announced a partnership with the software community. The Software Partnership will provide roundtable discussions between stakeholders and the PTO to share ideas and insights on software-related patents. The PTO will sponsor two roundtable events, one in Silicon Valley on February 12, and the other in New York City on February 27. In addition, the PTO plans to make each roundtable event available via Web cast, and will post Web cast information on its Internet Web site before the events.
As we previously reported, the US Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) and the European Patent Office (EPO) jointly launched the Cooperative Patent Classification System (CPC) with the aim of producing a common classification system for technical documents and the promise of transparent and harmonized global classification for patent documents.
As most Americans focused on the Congressional efforts to avoid the “fiscal cliff,” IP practitioners noted that Congress passed Senate-amended versions of a bill to amend the Smith-Leahy America Invents Act (AIA) (H.R. 6621) and a bill to increase penalties under the Economic Espionage Act (EEA)(H.R. 6029) on to the White House on January 1, 2013, for signature by President Obama. It is expected that President Obama will sign both bills into law shortly.
Like 2012, 2013 promises to be a busy and significant year for intellectual property law. The Supreme Court is slated to decide a number of IP cases, including: Already, LLC d/b/a Yums v. Nike, Inc. (addressing the significance of a limited covenant-not-to-sue on declaratory judgment jurisdiction); Bowman v. Monsanto (determining whether the Federal Circuit erred by not finding patent exhaustion in second generation seeds and created an exception to patent exhaustion for self-replicating technologies); Gunn v. Minton (pertaining to whether federal courts have exclusive “arising under” jurisdiction when legal malpractice claims stem from a patent case); Kirtsaeng v. John Wiley & Sons, Inc. (regarding international copyright exhaustion, i.e., how Section 602(a)(1) and Section 109(a) of the Copyright Act apply to a copy that was legally acquired abroad and then imported into the United States); Federal Trade Comm’n v. Watson Pharm., Inc. (involving whether Hatch-Waxman reverse payment settlement agreements are legal); and most recently, Ass’n for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, et al. (regarding the patentability of human genes and whether the petitioners have standing to challenge those patents).
Last week, in Gilead Sciences, Inc. v. Natco Pharma Ltd., the District of New Jersey ruled on summary judgment that Gilead Sciences did not unlawfully extend its patent protection on oseltamivir (Tamiflu), a neuraminidase inhibitor used to treat the flu, covered by U.S. Patent No. 5,763,483 (“the ‘483 patent”). Natco Pharma sought to invalidate the ‘483 patent for obviousness-type double patenting in its attempt to market a generic version of Tamiflu prior to the patent’s expiration. Natco had alleged, inter alia, that the claims of the ‘483 patent were invalid due to obviousness-type double-patenting over Gilead’s later issued U.S. Patent No. 5,952,375 (“the ‘375 patent”).
As practitioners learned, The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) has confirmed that Director David Kappos plans to retire from his post in January 2013 after nearly three and a half years of service to the USPTO. Kappos’ Tenure – Director Kappos was sworn in as Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and Director of the USPTO on August 13, 2009. His tenure has been evidenced by major change both within the USPTO and through the enactment of the Leahy Smith America Invents Act (herein “AIA” or “Act”) impacting global patent practice.
Upon the passage of the America Invents Act (“AIA”) and in an effort to help individuals and corporations who are unable to afford legal advice relating to intellectual property, the USPTO has recently announced two additional pro bono assistance programs in California and the District of Columbia. With the addition of these two programs, the USPTO has created four intellectual property pro bono programs across the United States and is forecasting an additional ten by the end of 2013.
Earlier this month, the Federal Circuit in Belkin Int’l, Inc. v. Kappos, 2012-1090, published an important decision potentially limiting the scope of both ex-parte and inter-partes reexaminations. Traditionally during reexamination, practitioners submit information disclosure statements (IDS) to the Patent Office disclosing patents and printed publications with the understanding that the examiner would consider those references in relation to the claims subject to reexam. Very often, if the references were properly submitted, the examiner would record that the references were considered, but would not apply the references against the claims. The benefit to the patent owner is that this could create a heavy burden for subsequent defendants to show that the claims were invalid in view of this prior art. Belkin v. Kappos may change this practice and understanding.
On July 26, 2012, the U.S. Patent & Trademark Office (USPTO) published a notice of proposed rulemaking and a notice of proposed examination guidelines to implement the first-inventor-to-file (FITF) provisions of the AIA effective March 16, 2013. The notices set an initial comment deadline date of October 5, 2012. In response to requests for additional time to submit comments, the USPTO recently extended the comment deadline date to November 5, 2012.
