What is the significance of submitting prior art under 37 CFR 1.501(a)?

Submitting prior art under 37 CFR 1.501(a) serves several important purposes: Challenging patent validity: It provides a mechanism for bringing potentially invalidating prior art to the attention of the USPTO and the public. Informing the public: These submissions become part of the patent’s file history, which is publicly accessible. Supporting future challenges: The submitted prior…

Read More

What is the significance of September 16, 2012, for inter partes reexamination requests?

September 16, 2012, marks a critical date for inter partes reexamination requests. According to the MPEP, “No requests for inter partes reexamination may be filed on or after September 16, 2012.” This means that the inter partes reexamination process was discontinued after this date, and patent challengers must use other procedures to contest the validity…

Read More

How does the discontinuation of inter partes reexamination affect patent challenges?

The discontinuation of inter partes reexamination, as noted in MPEP 2620, significantly changed the landscape of patent challenges. The MPEP states: “No requests for inter partes reexamination may be filed on or after September 16, 2012.” This change means that parties seeking to challenge a patent’s validity must now use other procedures, such as inter…

Read More

What alternatives are available for challenging patents after the discontinuation of inter partes reexamination?

While MPEP 2617 states that “No requests for inter partes reexamination may be filed on or after September 16, 2012,” there are alternative procedures for challenging patents. These include inter partes review (IPR), post-grant review (PGR), and ex parte reexamination. Each of these procedures has its own requirements and timelines, and they were introduced as…

Read More

How can the presumption of operability be challenged in a patent?

The presumption of operability in a patent can be challenged through affidavits or declarations that provide evidence of inoperability. However, MPEP 716.07 sets a high standard for such challenges: ‘Affidavits or declarations attacking the operability of a patent cited as a reference must rebut the presumption of operability by a preponderance of the evidence.’ This…

Read More