What are the disclosure requirements for reissue applications involved in litigation?
For reissue applications where the original patent has been involved in litigation, the MPEP 2001.06(c) outlines specific disclosure requirements: The existence of such litigation must be brought to the examiner’s attention at the time of filing or shortly after. This information can be disclosed in the reissue oath/declaration or in a separate paper, preferably accompanying…
Read MoreWhat types of information from litigation are considered material to patent examination?
According to MPEP 2001.06(c), several types of information from litigation are considered material to patent examination: Evidence of possible prior public use or sales Questions of inventorship Prior art references Allegations of fraud, inequitable conduct, or violation of duty of disclosure Assertions made during litigation that contradict statements made to the examiner Defenses raised against…
Read MoreWhat information from related litigation or trial proceedings must be disclosed to the USPTO?
According to MPEP 2001.06(c), any material information arising from litigation or trial proceedings related to the subject matter for which a patent is being sought must be disclosed to the USPTO. This includes: Evidence of possible prior public use or sales Questions of inventorship Prior art Allegations of fraud, inequitable conduct, or violation of duty…
Read MoreHow should ongoing litigation be disclosed during the patent examination process?
For ongoing litigation related to a pending patent application, the MPEP 2001.06(c) provides guidance on how to disclose this information: Promptly bring the litigation to the attention of the USPTO. Provide enough information to clearly inform the Office of the nature of the issues in the litigation. Submit relevant litigation materials that are “material to…
Read MoreWhat are the consequences of failing to disclose material information from litigation?
Failing to disclose material information from litigation can have serious consequences, as highlighted in MPEP 2001.06(c). The MPEP cites a significant case: “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…
Read MoreHow should information from AIA trial proceedings be disclosed to patent examiners?
Information from AIA trial proceedings, such as inter partes reviews, post-grant reviews, and covered business method reviews, should be disclosed to patent examiners through an Information Disclosure Statement (IDS). The MPEP 2001.06(c) states: “In particular, material information that is raised in trial proceedings that is relevant to related applications undergoing examination should be submitted on…
Read More