How do intervening rights affect patent enforcement after inter partes reexamination?
Intervening rights can significantly affect patent enforcement after inter partes reexamination. When these rights apply, they limit the patent owner’s ability to enforce the amended or new claims against certain parties. The MPEP 2693 indicates that the effects are the same as those for reissued patents under 35 U.S.C. 252: “The rights detailed in 35…
Read MoreHow is inventorship determined in an international design application designating the United States?
According to MPEP 2920.01, inventorship in an international design application designating the United States is determined based on the creator or creators listed in the publication of the international registration. Specifically, the MPEP states: “Pursuant to 37 CFR 1.41(f), the inventorship of an international design application designating the United States is the creator or creators…
Read MoreWhat is interference estoppel in patent law?
Interference estoppel in patent law refers to the principle that prevents a party from re-litigating an issue they lost in a previous interference proceeding. As stated in MPEP 2308.03: “If a party loses on an issue, it may not re-litigate the issue before the examiner or in a subsequent Board proceeding.” There are two main…
Read MoreWhat are the service requirements for inter partes reexamination proceedings?
In inter partes reexamination proceedings, service of papers is governed by 37 CFR 1.903. The key requirements are: Any document filed by either the patent owner or the third party requester must be served on every other party in the reexamination proceeding. Service must be done in the manner provided in 37 CFR 1.248. Documents…
Read MoreCan I still file a request for inter partes reexamination?
No, requests for inter partes reexamination are no longer accepted. According to MPEP 2631, “No requests for inter partes reexamination may be filed on or after September 16, 2012.” This change was part of the America Invents Act (AIA) which replaced inter partes reexamination with inter partes review. For information on the former practice of…
Read MoreWhen did inter partes reexamination requests cease to be accepted?
Inter partes reexamination requests ceased to be accepted on September 16, 2012. According to MPEP 2612, “No requests for inter partes reexamination may be filed on or after September 16, 2012.” This change was part of the America Invents Act (AIA) reforms to the patent system. To learn more: inter partes reexamination patent law AIA…
Read MoreWhen did the USPTO stop accepting inter partes reexamination requests?
The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) stopped accepting inter partes reexamination requests on September 16, 2012. This is clearly stated in MPEP 2631: “No requests for inter partes reexamination may be filed on or after September 16, 2012.“ This change was implemented as part of the America Invents Act (AIA), which introduced new…
Read MoreHow can inherent characteristics be shown in a 35 U.S.C. 102 rejection?
Inherent characteristics can be shown in a 35 U.S.C. 102 rejection by using additional references or evidence to demonstrate that a feature, while not explicitly disclosed in the primary reference, is necessarily present. MPEP 2131.01 provides guidance on this: “To serve as an anticipation when the reference is silent about the asserted inherent characteristic, such…
Read MoreWhat is the relationship between inherency and obviousness in patent law?
What is the relationship between inherency and obviousness in patent law? The relationship between inherency and obviousness in patent law is complex and often intertwined. While inherency deals with properties or functions that are necessarily present but not explicitly stated, obviousness relates to whether the claimed invention would have been obvious to a person of…
Read MoreCan informal amendments be accepted in inter partes reexamination proceedings?
No, informal amendments are not accepted in inter partes reexamination proceedings. The MPEP 2685 explicitly states: “An informal amendment by the patent owner will not be accepted, because that would be tantamount to an ex parte interview.” This policy ensures that all communications and amendments are formally submitted and properly recorded, maintaining the integrity and…
Read More