What is the significance of WIPO published applications under AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2)?
Under the America Invents Act (AIA), WIPO published applications that designate the United States are treated as U.S. patent application publications for prior art purposes. This is significant because: They are considered prior art regardless of their international filing date It doesn’t matter if they are published in English or not They are prior art…
Read MoreHow does the language of publication affect WIPO applications as prior art under AIA?
Under the AIA, the language of publication does not affect the status of WIPO published applications as prior art. This is a significant change from the pre-AIA law. The MPEP states: Thus, under the AIA, WIPO publications of PCT applications that designate the United States are treated as U.S. patent application publications for prior art…
Read MoreHow are WIPO published applications treated under AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2)?
Under the AIA, WIPO published applications that designate the United States are treated as U.S. patent application publications for prior art purposes. This treatment applies regardless of: The international filing date Whether they are published in English Whether the PCT international application enters the national stage in the United States The MPEP states: The WIPO…
Read MoreHow can I use the WIPO Digital Access Service (DAS) for priority documents in international design applications?
The WIPO Digital Access Service (DAS) can be used to facilitate the exchange of priority documents in international design applications. According to MPEP 2920.05(d): “Pursuant to Administrative Instruction 408, a priority claim made in accordance with Hague Agreement Rule 7(5)(c) may be accompanied by a WIPO Digital Access Service (DAS) access code, if available. The…
Read MoreWhat are the requirements for a WIPO published application to be considered prior art under AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2)?
For a WIPO published application to be considered prior art under AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2), it must meet specific requirements. According to MPEP 2154.01(a): “AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) sets forth three descriptions of U.S. patent documents that are available as prior art as of the date they were effectively filed with respect to the subject…
Read MoreHow does the effective filing date of a WIPO published application affect its use as prior art?
The effective filing date of a WIPO published application is crucial in determining its use as prior art. MPEP 2154.01(a) states: “The WIPO publication of a PCT international application that designates the United States is an application for patent deemed published under 35 U.S.C. 122(b) for purposes of AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) under 35 U.S.C.…
Read MoreWhat is the “Window Period” for patent maintenance fee payments?
The “Window Period” for patent maintenance fee payments refers to the specific timeframe during which these fees can be paid without incurring late fees or risking patent expiration. According to MPEP 2575: “The ‘window period’ is the period of time at the end of the full term of a patent during which the maintenance fee…
Read MoreHow does the Federal Circuit’s decision in Williamson v. Citrix affect 112(f) interpretation?
The Federal Circuit’s decision in Williamson v. Citrix Online, LLC significantly impacted the interpretation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f). According to MPEP 2181: “The Federal Circuit has stated that the presumption that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) does not apply to a claim limitation that does not use the term “means” is overcome when the claim term fails…
Read MoreWhy doesn’t the USPTO investigate duty of disclosure issues during patent examination?
The USPTO does not investigate duty of disclosure issues during patent examination for several reasons: Lack of appropriate tools: The USPTO lacks the necessary tools to effectively deal with these complex issues. Sensitive nature: Duty of disclosure and inequitable conduct are sensitive matters with potential significant impact on a patent. Judicial doctrine: Inequitable conduct is…
Read MoreWhy did the USPTO set a time limit for requesting ex parte reexamination?
The USPTO set a time limit for requesting ex parte reexamination to align with the period of enforceability of a patent. As explained in MPEP 2211, “the Office considered that Congress could not have intended expending Office resources on deciding patent validity questions in patents which cannot be enforced.” This rationale was supported in the…
Read More