What are the requirements for suggesting an interference?
According to MPEP 2304.02(b), when suggesting an interference, an applicant must meet several requirements as outlined in 37 CFR 41.202. These include: Identifying all claims believed to interfere Proposing one or more counts Showing how the claims correspond to the count(s) Providing a claim chart comparing at least one claim of each party for each…
Read MoreWhat should I do if I witness an ex parte communication in a patent interference?
If you witness or become aware of an ex parte communication in a patent interference, you should promptly report it to the Board. The MPEP 2307.01 states: “Once an interference is declared, any attempt by a party to communicate with the Board through the examiner or to have the examiner act in an involved patent…
Read MoreWhat is the purpose of the “No Second Interference” rule in patent law?
The “No Second Interference” rule in patent law serves several important purposes: Preventing redundant proceedings Ensuring efficiency in the patent examination process Providing finality to interference decisions Conserving USPTO resources As stated in MPEP 2308.03(c): “No second interference should occur between the same parties on patentably indistinct subject matter.” This rule helps maintain the integrity…
Read MoreWhat is the purpose of a claim chart in patent interference proceedings?
A claim chart in patent interference proceedings serves as a crucial tool for comparing and analyzing the claims of the parties involved. According to MPEP 2304.02(b), when suggesting an interference, the applicant must: “For each count, provide a claim chart comparing at least one claim of each party corresponding to the count and show why…
Read MoreWhat happens if the Board determines there is no interference-in-fact?
If the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) determines that there is no interference-in-fact between the parties for the subject matter of the count, this decision is final and cannot be reopened in further examination. The MPEP 2308.03(c) clearly states: “If the Board held that there is no interference-in-fact between the parties for the subject…
Read MoreWhat is procedural estoppel in patent interference proceedings?
Procedural estoppel in patent interference proceedings prevents a losing party from seeking relief that could have been—but was not—sought during the interference. MPEP 2308.03 states: “A losing party is procedurally barred from seeking from the examiner relief that could have been–but was not–sought in the interference.” This means that if an applicant had the opportunity…
Read MoreHow does a priority showing differ from a 37 CFR 1.131 affidavit?
A priority showing under 37 CFR 41.202(d) differs from a 37 CFR 1.131 affidavit in several key aspects: A 37 CFR 1.131 affidavit is typically used to overcome rejections under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(a) or 102(e). A priority showing is required when the reference has claims directed to the same patentable invention as the application…
Read MoreHow are PCT application files handled in patent interferences?
The MPEP 2304.01(b) provides guidance on handling Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT) application files in interference proceedings: “Generally, a separate application file for a Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT) application is not required for according benefit because the PCT application is included in a national stage application file that is itself either the application involved in the…
Read MoreWhat options does a patentee have regarding interference proceedings?
While a patentee cannot directly suggest an interference, they have two main options regarding interference proceedings: File a reissue application: By filing a reissue application, a patentee can become an applicant, which would then allow them to suggest an interference. Alert the examiner: As stated in MPEP 2304.03, “A patentee may, however, to the limited…
Read MoreWhat is the process for a patentee to alert an examiner about potentially interfering claims?
According to MPEP 2304.03, a patentee can alert an examiner about potentially interfering claims in an application, but this process is limited: “A patentee may, however, to the limited extent permitted under 37 CFR 1.291, alert an examiner to the existence of interfering claims in an application.” The process involves: Submitting a protest under 37…
Read More