37 CFR § 1.555 — Information material to patentability inex partereexamination andinter — MPEP Index – BlueIron IP
37 CFR § 1.555 Information material to patentability inex partereexamination andinter
This page consolidates MPEP guidance interpreting 37 CFR § 1.555, including 98 rules from the Manual of Patent Examining Procedure. It is provided as guidance, with links to the ground truth sources. This is information only, it is not legal advice.
Summary
This section outlines the duty of disclosure requirements during ex parte reexamination proceedings, emphasizing materiality standards and submission procedures for prior art. It provides guidance on key obligations and compliance with USC/CFR authority.
What this section covers
- Defines the core topic as the materiality standard for duty to disclose information in patent applications and reexamination proceedings.
- Covers the primary requirement that practitioners must disclose material information to the Office during reexamination.
Key obligations
- Requires the submission to include proof of service on the patent owner if filed after an order for reexamination.
- Adheres to USC/CFR authority regarding materiality and duty of disclosure.
Practice notes
- Reviews the patent application and related documents to ensure all relevant prior art is disclosed.
- Avoids the common pitfall of failing to serve the submission on the patent owner if it is filed after an ex parte reexamination order.
Official MPEP § 1.555 — Information material to patentability inex partereexamination andinter
Source: USPTOLast Modified: 10/30/2024 08:50:22
1.555 Information material to patentability in ex parte reexamination and inter partes reexamination proceedings.
- (a) A patent by its very nature is affected with a public interest. The public interest is best served, and the most effective reexamination occurs when, at the time a reexamination proceeding is being conducted, the Office is aware of and evaluates the teachings of all information material to patentability in a reexamination proceeding. Each individual associated with the patent owner in a reexamination proceeding has a duty of candor and good faith in dealing with the Office, which includes a duty to disclose to the Office all information known to that individual to be material to patentability in a reexamination proceeding. The individuals who have a duty to disclose to the Office all information known to them to be material to patentability in a reexamination proceeding are the patent owner, each attorney or agent who represents the patent owner, and every other individual who is substantively involved on behalf of the patent owner in a reexamination proceeding. The duty to disclose the information exists with respect to each claim pending in the reexamination proceeding until the claim is cancelled. Information material to the patentability of a cancelled claim need not be submitted if the information is not material to patentability of any claim remaining under consideration in the reexamination proceeding. The duty to disclose all information known to be material to patentability in a reexamination proceeding is deemed to be satisfied if all information known to be material to patentability of any claim in the patent after issuance of the reexamination certificate was cited by the Office or submitted to the Office in an information disclosure statement. However, the duties of candor, good faith, and disclosure have not been complied with if any fraud on the Office was practiced or attempted or the duty of disclosure was violated through bad faith or intentional misconduct by, or on behalf of, the patent owner in the reexamination proceeding. Any information disclosure statement must be filed with the items listed in § 1.98(a) as applied to individuals associated with the patent owner in a reexamination proceeding, and should be filed within two months of the date of the order for reexamination, or as soon thereafter as possible.
- (b) Under this section, information is material to
patentability in a reexamination proceeding when it is not
cumulative to information of record or being made of record in the
reexamination proceeding, and
- (1) It is a patent or printed publication that establishes, by itself or in combination with other patents or printed publications, a prima facie case of unpatentability of a claim; or
- (2) It refutes, or is inconsistent with, a
position the patent owner takes in:
- (i) Opposing an argument of unpatentability relied on by the Office, or
- (ii) Asserting an argument of patentability.
A prima facie case of unpatentability of a claim pending in a reexamination proceeding is established when the information compels a conclusion that a claim is unpatentable under the preponderance of evidence, burden-of-proof standard, giving each term in the claim its broadest reasonable construction consistent with the specification, and before any consideration is given to evidence which may be submitted in an attempt to establish a contrary conclusion of patentability.
- (c) The responsibility for compliance with this section rests upon the individuals designated in paragraph (a) of this section and no evaluation will be made by the Office in the reexamination proceeding as to compliance with this section. If questions of compliance with this section are raised by the patent owner or the third party requester during a reexamination proceeding, they will be noted as unresolved questions in accordance with § 1.552(c) .
[46 FR 29187, May 29, 1981, effective July 1, 1981; 47 FR 21752, May 19, 1982, effective July 1, 1982; paras. (a) and (b), 49 FR 556, Jan. 4, 1984, effective Apr. 1, 1984; revised 57 FR 2021, Jan. 17, 1992, effective Mar. 16, 1992; heading and para. (c) revised, 65 FR 76756, Dec. 7, 2000, effective Feb. 5, 2001]
-
-
-
- Ids
- Inequitable Conduct
-
- Reexamination Conclusion
- Reexamination Examination
- Rejection Basis Reexam
-
- Reexamination Request
-
- Inter Partes Reexam Request