MPEP § 2001.06(c) — Information From Related Litigation and/or Trial Proceedings (Annotated Rules)
§2001.06(c) Information From Related Litigation and/or Trial Proceedings
This page consolidates and annotates all enforceable requirements under MPEP § 2001.06(c), including statutory authority, regulatory rules, examiner guidance, and practice notes. It is provided as guidance, with links to the ground truth sources. This is information only, it is not legal advice.
Information From Related Litigation and/or Trial Proceedings
This section addresses Information From Related Litigation and/or Trial Proceedings. Primary authority: 37 CFR 1.56. Contains: 2 requirements, 6 guidance statements, and 4 other statements.
Key Rules
Disclosure of Litigation
For example, the defenses raised against validity of the patent, or charges of “fraud” or “inequitable conduct” in the litigation, would normally be “material to the examination” of the reissue application. It would, in most situations, be appropriate to bring such defenses to the attention of the Office by filing in the reissue application a copy of the court papers raising such defenses. At a minimum, the applicant should call the attention of the Office to the litigation, the existence and the nature of any allegations relating to validity and/or “fraud,” or “inequitable conduct” relating to the original patent, and the nature of litigation materials relating to these issues. Enough information should be submitted to clearly inform the Office of the nature of these issues so that the Office can intelligently evaluate the need for asking for further materials in the litigation. See MPEP § 1442.04.
For example, the defenses raised against validity of the patent, or charges of “fraud” or “inequitable conduct” in the litigation, would normally be “material to the examination” of the reissue application. It would, in most situations, be appropriate to bring such defenses to the attention of the Office by filing in the reissue application a copy of the court papers raising such defenses. At a minimum, the applicant should call the attention of the Office to the litigation, the existence and the nature of any allegations relating to validity and/or “fraud,” or “inequitable conduct” relating to the original patent, and the nature of litigation materials relating to these issues. Enough information should be submitted to clearly inform the Office of the nature of these issues so that the Office can intelligently evaluate the need for asking for further materials in the litigation. See MPEP § 1442.04.
For example, the defenses raised against validity of the patent, or charges of “fraud” or “inequitable conduct” in the litigation, would normally be “material to the examination” of the reissue application. It would, in most situations, be appropriate to bring such defenses to the attention of the Office by filing in the reissue application a copy of the court papers raising such defenses. At a minimum, the applicant should call the attention of the Office to the litigation, the existence and the nature of any allegations relating to validity and/or “fraud,” or “inequitable conduct” relating to the original patent, and the nature of litigation materials relating to these issues. Enough information should be submitted to clearly inform the Office of the nature of these issues so that the Office can intelligently evaluate the need for asking for further materials in the litigation. See MPEP § 1442.04.
If litigation papers of a live litigation relating to a pending reissue application are filed with the Office, the Solicitor’s Office should be notified of the filing of the litigation papers in the application file. If the litigation is not live, the litigation papers are processed by the Technology Center assigned the reissue application.
If litigation papers of a live litigation relating to a pending reissue application are filed with the Office, the Solicitor’s Office should be notified of the filing of the litigation papers in the application file. If the litigation is not live, the litigation papers are processed by the Technology Center assigned the reissue application.
Inequitable Conduct Defense
Where a patent for which reissue is being sought is, or has been, involved in litigation and/or trial proceeding which raised a question material to examination of the reissue application, such as the validity of the patent, or any allegation of “fraud,” “inequitable conduct,” or “violation of duty of disclosure,” the existence of such litigation and/or trial proceeding must be brought to the attention of the examiner by the applicant at the time of, or shortly after, filing the application. Such information can be disclosed either in the reissue oath or declaration, or in a separate paper, preferably accompanying the application, as filed. Litigation and/or trial proceedings that begin after filing of the reissue application should be promptly brought to the attention of the Office. The details and documents from the litigation and/or trial proceedings, insofar as they are “material to patentability” of the reissue application as defined in 37 CFR 1.56, should accompany the application as filed, or be submitted as promptly thereafter as possible. See Critikon, Inc. v. Becton Dickinson Vascular Access, Inc., 120 F.3d 1253, 1258-59, 43 USPQ2d 1666, 1670-71 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (patent held unenforceable due to inequitable conduct based on patentee's failure to disclose a relevant reference and for failing to disclose ongoing litigation).
Where a patent for which reissue is being sought is, or has been, involved in litigation and/or trial proceeding which raised a question material to examination of the reissue application, such as the validity of the patent, or any allegation of “fraud,” “inequitable conduct,” or “violation of duty of disclosure,” the existence of such litigation and/or trial proceeding must be brought to the attention of the examiner by the applicant at the time of, or shortly after, filing the application. Such information can be disclosed either in the reissue oath or declaration, or in a separate paper, preferably accompanying the application, as filed. Litigation and/or trial proceedings that begin after filing of the reissue application should be promptly brought to the attention of the Office. The details and documents from the litigation and/or trial proceedings, insofar as they are “material to patentability” of the reissue application as defined in 37 CFR 1.56, should accompany the application as filed, or be submitted as promptly thereafter as possible. See Critikon, Inc. v. Becton Dickinson Vascular Access, Inc., 120 F.3d 1253, 1258-59, 43 USPQ2d 1666, 1670-71 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (patent held unenforceable due to inequitable conduct based on patentee's failure to disclose a relevant reference and for failing to disclose ongoing litigation).
The America Invents Act (AIA) added trial proceedings to be conducted by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) including inter partes review proceedings, post-grant review, covered business method reviews, and derivation. In many instances, these trial proceedings yield information that may be considered material to pending related patent applications. Where the subject matter for which a patent is being sought is or has been involved in litigation and/or a trial proceeding, or the litigation and/or trial proceeding yields information material to currently pending applications, the existence of such litigation and any other material information arising therefrom must be brought to the attention of the examiner or other appropriate official at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. In particular, material information that is raised in trial proceedings that is relevant to related applications undergoing examination should be submitted on an Information Disclosure Statement for the examiner’s consideration. Examples of such material information include evidence of possible prior public use or sales, questions of inventorship, prior art, allegations of “fraud,” “inequitable conduct,” and “violation of duty of disclosure.” Another example of such material information is any assertion that is made during litigation and/or trial proceeding which is contradictory to assertions made to the examiner. Environ Prods., Inc. v. Total Containment, Inc., 43 USPQ2d 1288, 1291 (E.D. Pa. 1997). Such information might arise during litigation and/or trial proceeding in, for example, pleadings, admissions, discovery including interrogatories, depositions, and other documents and testimony.
Material Information Definition
Where a patent for which reissue is being sought is, or has been, involved in litigation and/or trial proceeding which raised a question material to examination of the reissue application, such as the validity of the patent, or any allegation of “fraud,” “inequitable conduct,” or “violation of duty of disclosure,” the existence of such litigation and/or trial proceeding must be brought to the attention of the examiner by the applicant at the time of, or shortly after, filing the application. Such information can be disclosed either in the reissue oath or declaration, or in a separate paper, preferably accompanying the application, as filed. Litigation and/or trial proceedings that begin after filing of the reissue application should be promptly brought to the attention of the Office. The details and documents from the litigation and/or trial proceedings, insofar as they are “material to patentability” of the reissue application as defined in 37 CFR 1.56, should accompany the application as filed, or be submitted as promptly thereafter as possible. See Critikon, Inc. v. Becton Dickinson Vascular Access, Inc., 120 F.3d 1253, 1258-59, 43 USPQ2d 1666, 1670-71 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (patent held unenforceable due to inequitable conduct based on patentee's failure to disclose a relevant reference and for failing to disclose ongoing litigation).
The America Invents Act (AIA) added trial proceedings to be conducted by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) including inter partes review proceedings, post-grant review, covered business method reviews, and derivation. In many instances, these trial proceedings yield information that may be considered material to pending related patent applications. Where the subject matter for which a patent is being sought is or has been involved in litigation and/or a trial proceeding, or the litigation and/or trial proceeding yields information material to currently pending applications, the existence of such litigation and any other material information arising therefrom must be brought to the attention of the examiner or other appropriate official at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. In particular, material information that is raised in trial proceedings that is relevant to related applications undergoing examination should be submitted on an Information Disclosure Statement for the examiner’s consideration. Examples of such material information include evidence of possible prior public use or sales, questions of inventorship, prior art, allegations of “fraud,” “inequitable conduct,” and “violation of duty of disclosure.” Another example of such material information is any assertion that is made during litigation and/or trial proceeding which is contradictory to assertions made to the examiner. Environ Prods., Inc. v. Total Containment, Inc., 43 USPQ2d 1288, 1291 (E.D. Pa. 1997). Such information might arise during litigation and/or trial proceeding in, for example, pleadings, admissions, discovery including interrogatories, depositions, and other documents and testimony.
The America Invents Act (AIA) added trial proceedings to be conducted by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) including inter partes review proceedings, post-grant review, covered business method reviews, and derivation. In many instances, these trial proceedings yield information that may be considered material to pending related patent applications. Where the subject matter for which a patent is being sought is or has been involved in litigation and/or a trial proceeding, or the litigation and/or trial proceeding yields information material to currently pending applications, the existence of such litigation and any other material information arising therefrom must be brought to the attention of the examiner or other appropriate official at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. In particular, material information that is raised in trial proceedings that is relevant to related applications undergoing examination should be submitted on an Information Disclosure Statement for the examiner’s consideration. Examples of such material information include evidence of possible prior public use or sales, questions of inventorship, prior art, allegations of “fraud,” “inequitable conduct,” and “violation of duty of disclosure.” Another example of such material information is any assertion that is made during litigation and/or trial proceeding which is contradictory to assertions made to the examiner. Environ Prods., Inc. v. Total Containment, Inc., 43 USPQ2d 1288, 1291 (E.D. Pa. 1997). Such information might arise during litigation and/or trial proceeding in, for example, pleadings, admissions, discovery including interrogatories, depositions, and other documents and testimony.
Access to Oath/Declaration
Where a patent for which reissue is being sought is, or has been, involved in litigation and/or trial proceeding which raised a question material to examination of the reissue application, such as the validity of the patent, or any allegation of “fraud,” “inequitable conduct,” or “violation of duty of disclosure,” the existence of such litigation and/or trial proceeding must be brought to the attention of the examiner by the applicant at the time of, or shortly after, filing the application. Such information can be disclosed either in the reissue oath or declaration, or in a separate paper, preferably accompanying the application, as filed. Litigation and/or trial proceedings that begin after filing of the reissue application should be promptly brought to the attention of the Office. The details and documents from the litigation and/or trial proceedings, insofar as they are “material to patentability” of the reissue application as defined in 37 CFR 1.56, should accompany the application as filed, or be submitted as promptly thereafter as possible. See Critikon, Inc. v. Becton Dickinson Vascular Access, Inc., 120 F.3d 1253, 1258-59, 43 USPQ2d 1666, 1670-71 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (patent held unenforceable due to inequitable conduct based on patentee's failure to disclose a relevant reference and for failing to disclose ongoing litigation).
Key Changes Under AIA
The America Invents Act (AIA) added trial proceedings to be conducted by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) including inter partes review proceedings, post-grant review, covered business method reviews, and derivation. In many instances, these trial proceedings yield information that may be considered material to pending related patent applications. Where the subject matter for which a patent is being sought is or has been involved in litigation and/or a trial proceeding, or the litigation and/or trial proceeding yields information material to currently pending applications, the existence of such litigation and any other material information arising therefrom must be brought to the attention of the examiner or other appropriate official at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. In particular, material information that is raised in trial proceedings that is relevant to related applications undergoing examination should be submitted on an Information Disclosure Statement for the examiner’s consideration. Examples of such material information include evidence of possible prior public use or sales, questions of inventorship, prior art, allegations of “fraud,” “inequitable conduct,” and “violation of duty of disclosure.” Another example of such material information is any assertion that is made during litigation and/or trial proceeding which is contradictory to assertions made to the examiner. Environ Prods., Inc. v. Total Containment, Inc., 43 USPQ2d 1288, 1291 (E.D. Pa. 1997). Such information might arise during litigation and/or trial proceeding in, for example, pleadings, admissions, discovery including interrogatories, depositions, and other documents and testimony.
Citations
| Primary topic | Citation |
|---|---|
| Access to Oath/Declaration Inequitable Conduct Defense Material Information Definition | 37 CFR § 1.56 |
| Disclosure of Litigation | MPEP § 1442.04 |
Source Text from USPTO’s MPEP
This is an exact copy of the MPEP from the USPTO. It is here for your reference to see the section in context.
Official MPEP § 2001.06(c) — Information From Related Litigation and/or Trial Proceedings
Source: USPTO2001.06(c) Information From Related Litigation and/or Trial Proceedings [R-08.2017]
The America Invents Act (AIA) added trial proceedings to be conducted by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) including inter partes review proceedings, post-grant review, covered business method reviews, and derivation. In many instances, these trial proceedings yield information that may be considered material to pending related patent applications. Where the subject matter for which a patent is being sought is or has been involved in litigation and/or a trial proceeding, or the litigation and/or trial proceeding yields information material to currently pending applications, the existence of such litigation and any other material information arising therefrom must be brought to the attention of the examiner or other appropriate official at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. In particular, material information that is raised in trial proceedings that is relevant to related applications undergoing examination should be submitted on an Information Disclosure Statement for the examiner’s consideration. Examples of such material information include evidence of possible prior public use or sales, questions of inventorship, prior art, allegations of “fraud,” “inequitable conduct,” and “violation of duty of disclosure.” Another example of such material information is any assertion that is made during litigation and/or trial proceeding which is contradictory to assertions made to the examiner. Environ Prods., Inc. v. Total Containment, Inc., 43 USPQ2d 1288, 1291 (E.D. Pa. 1997). Such information might arise during litigation and/or trial proceeding in, for example, pleadings, admissions, discovery including interrogatories, depositions, and other documents and testimony.
Where a patent for which reissue is being sought is, or has been, involved in litigation and/or trial proceeding which raised a question material to examination of the reissue application, such as the validity of the patent, or any allegation of “fraud,” “inequitable conduct,” or “violation of duty of disclosure,” the existence of such litigation and/or trial proceeding must be brought to the attention of the examiner by the applicant at the time of, or shortly after, filing the application. Such information can be disclosed either in the reissue oath or declaration, or in a separate paper, preferably accompanying the application, as filed. Litigation and/or trial proceedings that begin after filing of the reissue application should be promptly brought to the attention of the Office. The details and documents from the litigation and/or trial proceedings, insofar as they are “material to patentability” of the reissue application as defined in 37 CFR 1.56, should accompany the application as filed, or be submitted as promptly thereafter as possible. See Critikon, Inc. v. Becton Dickinson Vascular Access, Inc., 120 F.3d 1253, 1258-59, 43 USPQ2d 1666, 1670-71 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (patent held unenforceable due to inequitable conduct based on patentee’s failure to disclose a relevant reference and for failing to disclose ongoing litigation).
For example, the defenses raised against validity of the patent, or charges of “fraud” or “inequitable conduct” in the litigation, would normally be “material to the examination” of the reissue application. It would, in most situations, be appropriate to bring such defenses to the attention of the Office by filing in the reissue application a copy of the court papers raising such defenses. At a minimum, the applicant should call the attention of the Office to the litigation, the existence and the nature of any allegations relating to validity and/or “fraud,” or “inequitable conduct” relating to the original patent, and the nature of litigation materials relating to these issues. Enough information should be submitted to clearly inform the Office of the nature of these issues so that the Office can intelligently evaluate the need for asking for further materials in the litigation. See MPEP § 1442.04.
If litigation papers of a live litigation relating to a pending reissue application are filed with the Office, the Solicitor’s Office should be notified of the filing of the litigation papers in the application file. If the litigation is not live, the litigation papers are processed by the Technology Center assigned the reissue application.