How does the USPTO handle newly discovered prior art in inter partes reexamination when there’s concurrent litigation?

The USPTO’s handling of newly discovered prior art in inter partes reexamination with concurrent litigation is as follows: Estoppel under 35 U.S.C. 317(b) does not apply to newly discovered prior art unavailable during the litigation. The patent owner must show that the art was known to the requester at a time when it could have…

Read More

How does the USPTO handle translation errors in foreign priority documents for international design applications?

The USPTO handles translation errors in foreign priority documents for international design applications as follows: If an error in the translation of a foreign priority document is discovered after publication of the international registration, the USPTO will generally not take action to correct the error. However, the applicant may submit a corrected translation for consideration…

Read More

How are multiple post-patent proceedings handled by the USPTO?

When multiple post-patent proceedings are filed simultaneously, the USPTO handles them on a case-by-case basis. According to MPEP 2821: “If multiple post-patent proceedings are simultaneously filed, any determination of which proceedings to initiate, and the order in which to initiate them, will be made on a case-by-case basis.“ This approach allows the Office to consider…

Read More

How are merged reexamination proceedings handled by the USPTO?

When reexamination proceedings are merged, the USPTO follows specific guidelines to ensure efficient handling: A single combined examiner’s action is prepared for all merged proceedings. Each action contains the control numbers of all involved proceedings on every page. A single action cover mailing sheet is used for all parties involved. The patent owner is required…

Read More

How does the USPTO handle applications not under secrecy orders that interfere with applications under secrecy orders?

The USPTO has a specific procedure for handling applications not under secrecy orders that interfere with applications under secrecy orders. According to MPEP 2306: “If an application not under a secrecy order has allowable claims that interfere with allowable claims of an application that is under a secrecy order, then the application that is not…

Read More