Patent Law FAQ
This FAQ answers all your questions about patent law, patent procedure, and the patent examination process.
MPEP 2200 – Citation Of Prior Art And Ex Parte Reexamination Of Patents (2)
How does the scope of ex parte reexamination differ from inter partes review?
The scope of ex parte reexamination is more limited compared to inter partes review (IPR). Key differences include:
- Prior Art: Ex parte reexamination is limited to patents and printed publications, while IPR can consider a broader range of prior art.
- Grounds: Ex parte reexamination is based on 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103, while IPR can also include other grounds like 35 U.S.C. 101.
- Participation: In ex parte reexamination, third-party participation is limited after filing, while IPR allows ongoing third-party involvement.
According to MPEP 2258:
“The reexamination proceeding will be conducted in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 305 and 37 CFR 1.550.”
This emphasizes the more structured and limited nature of ex parte reexamination compared to the broader scope of IPR proceedings.
To learn more:
The estoppel provisions related to ex parte reexamination requests are based on inter partes review and post-grant review proceedings. According to MPEP 2210:
“The estoppel provisions of AIA 35 U.S.C. 315(e)(1) or 35 U.S.C. 325(e)(1) are based on inter partes review and post grant review, respectively, and they only prohibit the filing of a subsequent request for ex parte reexamination, once estoppel attaches; there is no estoppel as to the Office maintaining an existing ex parte reexamination proceeding.”
This means that parties who have participated in an inter partes review or post-grant review may be barred from subsequently filing an ex parte reexamination request on the same patent claims, based on prior art that was raised or reasonably could have been raised in the previous proceeding. However, these provisions do not affect ongoing ex parte reexamination proceedings.
To learn more:
MPEP 2210 – Request For Ex Parte Reexamination Under 35 U.S.C. 302 (1)
The estoppel provisions related to ex parte reexamination requests are based on inter partes review and post-grant review proceedings. According to MPEP 2210:
“The estoppel provisions of AIA 35 U.S.C. 315(e)(1) or 35 U.S.C. 325(e)(1) are based on inter partes review and post grant review, respectively, and they only prohibit the filing of a subsequent request for ex parte reexamination, once estoppel attaches; there is no estoppel as to the Office maintaining an existing ex parte reexamination proceeding.”
This means that parties who have participated in an inter partes review or post-grant review may be barred from subsequently filing an ex parte reexamination request on the same patent claims, based on prior art that was raised or reasonably could have been raised in the previous proceeding. However, these provisions do not affect ongoing ex parte reexamination proceedings.
To learn more:
MPEP 2258 – Scope Of Ex Parte Reexamination (1)
How does the scope of ex parte reexamination differ from inter partes review?
The scope of ex parte reexamination is more limited compared to inter partes review (IPR). Key differences include:
- Prior Art: Ex parte reexamination is limited to patents and printed publications, while IPR can consider a broader range of prior art.
- Grounds: Ex parte reexamination is based on 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103, while IPR can also include other grounds like 35 U.S.C. 101.
- Participation: In ex parte reexamination, third-party participation is limited after filing, while IPR allows ongoing third-party involvement.
According to MPEP 2258:
“The reexamination proceeding will be conducted in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 305 and 37 CFR 1.550.”
This emphasizes the more structured and limited nature of ex parte reexamination compared to the broader scope of IPR proceedings.
To learn more:
Patent Law (2)
How does the scope of ex parte reexamination differ from inter partes review?
The scope of ex parte reexamination is more limited compared to inter partes review (IPR). Key differences include:
- Prior Art: Ex parte reexamination is limited to patents and printed publications, while IPR can consider a broader range of prior art.
- Grounds: Ex parte reexamination is based on 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103, while IPR can also include other grounds like 35 U.S.C. 101.
- Participation: In ex parte reexamination, third-party participation is limited after filing, while IPR allows ongoing third-party involvement.
According to MPEP 2258:
“The reexamination proceeding will be conducted in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 305 and 37 CFR 1.550.”
This emphasizes the more structured and limited nature of ex parte reexamination compared to the broader scope of IPR proceedings.
To learn more:
The estoppel provisions related to ex parte reexamination requests are based on inter partes review and post-grant review proceedings. According to MPEP 2210:
“The estoppel provisions of AIA 35 U.S.C. 315(e)(1) or 35 U.S.C. 325(e)(1) are based on inter partes review and post grant review, respectively, and they only prohibit the filing of a subsequent request for ex parte reexamination, once estoppel attaches; there is no estoppel as to the Office maintaining an existing ex parte reexamination proceeding.”
This means that parties who have participated in an inter partes review or post-grant review may be barred from subsequently filing an ex parte reexamination request on the same patent claims, based on prior art that was raised or reasonably could have been raised in the previous proceeding. However, these provisions do not affect ongoing ex parte reexamination proceedings.
To learn more:
Patent Procedure (2)
How does the scope of ex parte reexamination differ from inter partes review?
The scope of ex parte reexamination is more limited compared to inter partes review (IPR). Key differences include:
- Prior Art: Ex parte reexamination is limited to patents and printed publications, while IPR can consider a broader range of prior art.
- Grounds: Ex parte reexamination is based on 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103, while IPR can also include other grounds like 35 U.S.C. 101.
- Participation: In ex parte reexamination, third-party participation is limited after filing, while IPR allows ongoing third-party involvement.
According to MPEP 2258:
“The reexamination proceeding will be conducted in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 305 and 37 CFR 1.550.”
This emphasizes the more structured and limited nature of ex parte reexamination compared to the broader scope of IPR proceedings.
To learn more:
The estoppel provisions related to ex parte reexamination requests are based on inter partes review and post-grant review proceedings. According to MPEP 2210:
“The estoppel provisions of AIA 35 U.S.C. 315(e)(1) or 35 U.S.C. 325(e)(1) are based on inter partes review and post grant review, respectively, and they only prohibit the filing of a subsequent request for ex parte reexamination, once estoppel attaches; there is no estoppel as to the Office maintaining an existing ex parte reexamination proceeding.”
This means that parties who have participated in an inter partes review or post-grant review may be barred from subsequently filing an ex parte reexamination request on the same patent claims, based on prior art that was raised or reasonably could have been raised in the previous proceeding. However, these provisions do not affect ongoing ex parte reexamination proceedings.
To learn more: