What is the significance of the one-year rule in interference proceedings?

The one-year rule in interference proceedings, as outlined in pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 135(b), imposes time limitations on when certain claims can be made in relation to issued patents or published applications. MPEP § 2304.02(c) explains:

“If an application claim interferes with a claim of a patent, and the claim was added to the application by an amendment filed more than one year after issuance of the patent, or the application was not filed until more than one year after issuance of the patent (but the patent is not a statutory bar), then under the provisions of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 135(b)(1), an interference will not be declared unless at least one of the claims which were in the application, or in a parent application, prior to expiration of the one-year period was for ‘substantially the same subject matter’ as at least one of the claims of the patent.”

A similar rule applies to published applications under 35 U.S.C. 135(b)(2). This rule is designed to prevent applicants from copying claims from issued patents or published applications after a significant delay, promoting timely resolution of potential interferences.

To learn more:

Topics: MPEP 2300 - Interference And Derivation Proceedings, MPEP 2304.02 - Applicant Suggestion, Patent Law, Patent Procedure
Tags: interference, One-Year Rule, patent claims, Time Limitations