throbber
New Bill Proposing Corrections to the America Invents Act | IP Updates |...
`
`http://www.finnegan.com/NewBillProposingCorrectionstothePatentAct/
`
`Overview
`Contacts
`
`New Bill Proposing Corrections to
`the America Invents Act
`
`December 14, 2012
`
`Share
`
`
`
`
`
`Practice
`Patent Office Practice
`America Invents Act
`
`On November 30, 2012, Representative Lamar
`Smith (R-Texas) introduced a bill “[t]o correct
`and improve certain provisions of the
`Leahy-Smith America Invents Act [‘AIA’] and title
`35, United States Code.” H.R. 6621. The bill not
`only corrects several minor errors, but also
`proposes a few important changes to the AIA
`and other provisions of the Patent Act. This
`update discusses several of those important
`changes, including provisions that would impact
`the timing of the new inter partes proceedings,
`curb the term of pending pre-GATT patent
`applications, and modify aspects of patent term
`adjustment (“PTA”).
`
`Eliminating the Inter Partes Proceeding
`“Dead Zone”
`The AIA provides two new inter partes
`proceedings: post-grant review (“PGR”) and
`inter partes review (“IPR”). To prevent
`copending PGR and IPR proceedings, the AIA
`includes a provision that precludes IPR requests
`before the expiration of the nine-month
`post-grant period in which PGR requests are
`permitted. That provision, however, created a
`nine-month “dead zone” in which a challenger of
`a pre-AIA patent cannot file either a PGR
`request or an IPR request. (A pre-AIA patent is
`not subject to the “first-inventor-to-file”
`provisions that take effect on March 16, 2013.)
`In fact, in its current form, the AIA prevents PGR
`proceedings on pre-AIA patents, yet still
`requires an IPR requester to wait nine months
`
`1 of 4
`
`8/21/2014 2:59 PM
`
`

`

`New Bill Proposing Corrections to the America Invents Act | IP Updates |...
`
`http://www.finnegan.com/NewBillProposingCorrectionstothePatentAct/
`
`after grant of the pre-AIA patent. Section 1(d) of
`H.R. 6621 would eliminate the “dead zone” by
`providing that the AIA provision setting the
`waiting period for IPR filing (35 U.S.C. § 311(c))
`does not apply to pre-AIA patents.
`
`The AIA also currently includes a provision that
`bars PGRs for claims in a reissue patent that
`are identical to or narrower than a claim in the
`original patent if the PGR request is filed greater
`than nine months after issuance of the original
`patent. 35 U.S.C. § 325(f). Section 1(d) of H.R.
`6621 would make those claims subject to PGR
`proceedings by eliminating that provision.
`
`Reducing the Term of Pending Pre-GATT
`Applications
`H.R. 6621 would severely curb the term of
`pre-GATT applications still pending with the U.S.
`Patent and Trademark Office (“PTO”) one year
`after enactment of H.R. 6621. In 1994, the
`United States enacted the Uruguay Round
`Agreements Act, implementing the GATT
`twenty-year patent term for any patent filed on
`or after June 8, 1995. Pre-GATT patents and
`patent applications currently are entitled to a
`term that is the greater of twenty years from the
`earliest filing date (the GATT rule) or seventeen
`years from issuance (the old U.S. rule). Under
`section 1(m) of H.R. 6621, applications that
`remain pending on the one-year anniversary of
`the enactment of H.R. 6621 would have a term
`of twenty years from the earliest filing date.
`
`Changing Certain Patent Term
`Adjustment (“PTA”) Provisions
`Currently, 35 U.S.C. § 154(b)(1)(B) provides
`extension of patent term in certain instances
`when a patent application is pending more than
`three years after “the actual filing date of the
`application in the United States.” Section 1(h)(1)
`of H.R. 6621 would change that starting date to
`the actual U.S. filing date for applications filed
`under 35 U.S.C. § 111(a), or to the
`commencement of the U.S. national stage under
`section 371 for international applications.
`
`Section 1(h)(2) of H.R. 6621 would also change
`the timing of the PTO’s transmission of the
`notice of determination of PTA. Specifically, the
`PTO would transmit the notice no later than
`issuance of the patent rather than with the
`Notice of Allowance.
`
`2 of 4
`
`8/21/2014 2:59 PM
`
`

`

`New Bill Proposing Corrections to the America Invents Act | IP Updates |...
`
`http://www.finnegan.com/NewBillProposingCorrectionstothePatentAct/
`
`Finally, under section 1(h)(3) of H.R. 6621, an
`appeal to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
`District of Virginia would be the exclusive
`remedy for challenging an unsatisfactory
`Director’s decision on a request for
`reconsideration of PTA. H.R. 6621 would also
`move the period for such an appeal to within
`180 days of the Director’s decision rather than
`the current 180 days after the grant of the
`patent.
`
`Addressing the Effective Date of the AIA
`Provisions Concerning Advice of
`Counsel
`Under a provision of the AIA, a party’s failure to
`obtain the advice of counsel regarding alleged
`patent infringement cannot be used in court to
`prove willful infringement or intent to induce
`infringement. 35 U.S.C. § 298. Section 1(a) of
`H.R. 6612 would apply that provision to any civil
`action commenced on or after the date of
`enactment of the AIA, and would not limit its
`application to patents issued on or after the
`enactment date.
`
`Changing Certain Provisions Directed to
`Derivation Proceedings and Interferences
`Section 1(k) of H.R. 6621 changes the time for
`filing a petition to institute a derivation
`proceeding and adds a definition of the term
`“earlier application.” In addition,
`section 1(k) of H.R. 6621 would clarify the
`PTO’s jurisdiction and appeal process for
`interferences declared after September 15,
`2012. Specifically, such interferences would be
`subject to the pre-AIA provisions of the Patent
`Act governing the Board of Patent Appeals and
`Interferences and appeals to the Court of
`Appeals for the Federal Circuit, namely, 35
`U.S.C. §§ 6 and 141, and 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)
`(4)(A).
`
`Changing Certain Provisions Concerning
`the Applicant
`Section 1(f) of H.R. 6621 provides that an
`applicant must comply with the oath or
`declaration provision of the Patent Act before
`paying the issue fee rather than conditioning the
`issuance of a Notice of Allowance on prior
`compliance, as the current law states. Section
`1(i) of H.R. 6621 also proposes repealing
`section 373 of the Patent Act, which provides
`
`3 of 4
`
`8/21/2014 2:59 PM
`
`

`

`New Bill Proposing Corrections to the America Invents Act | IP Updates |...
`
`http://www.finnegan.com/NewBillProposingCorrectionstothePatentAct/
`
`that the PTO cannot accept an international
`application designating the United States if it
`was filed by someone who was not qualified to
`file a U.S. patent application under section 111,
`i.e., someone other than an inventor.
`
`Copyright © Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow,
`Garrett & Dunner, LLP. This article is for
`informational purposes, is not intended to
`constitute legal advice, and may be considered
`advertising under applicable state laws. This
`article is only the opinion of the authors and is
`not attributable to Finnegan, Henderson,
`Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP, or the firm's
`clients.
`
`4 of 4
`
`8/21/2014 2:59 PM
`
`

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

Still Working On It

This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.

Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.

throbber

A few More Minutes ... Still Working

It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.

Thank you for your continued patience.

This document could not be displayed.

We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll get a whole lot more, including:

  • Up-to-date information for this case.
  • Email alerts whenever there is an update.
  • Full text search for other cases.
  • Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

Become a Member

One Moment Please

The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.

Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Your document is on its way!

If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.

Sealed Document

We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.

If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket