| Reexamination |
Referenced Items (144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150, 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159) |
(145) DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
United States Patent and Trademark Office
37 CFR Part 1
[Docket No. PTO-P-2011-0037]
RIN 0651-AC61
Revision of Standard for
Granting an Inter Partes Reexamination Request
AGENCY: United States Patent and Trademark Office, Commerce.
ACTION: Final rule.
SUMMARY: The United States Patent and Trademark Office (Office) is
revising the rules of practice governing inter partes reexamination to
implement a transition provision of the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act
that changes the standard for granting a request for inter partes
reexamination. The Office is also revising the rules governing inter
partes reexamination to reflect the termination of inter partes
reexamination effective September 16, 2012, which is provided for in
the Act. The Leahy-Smith America Invents Act replaces inter partes
reexamination by a new inter partes review process effective one year
after the date of enactment of the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act
(i.e., September 16, 2012), and provides that any request for inter
partes reexamination filed on or after September 16, 2011, will not be
granted unless the information presented in the request establishes
that there is a reasonable likelihood that the requester will prevail
with respect to at least one of the claims challenged in the request.
This replaces the prior standard for granting a request for inter
partes reexamination that required a substantial new question of
patentability (SNQ) affecting any claim of the patent raised by the
request. The Leahy-Smith America Invents Act does not revise the SNQ
standard for granting an ex parte reexamination request.
DATES: Effective Date: September 23, 2011. Applicability Date: The
changes in this final rule apply to any request for inter partes
reexamination filed on or after September 16, 2011, and before
September 16, 2012.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: By telephone to Kenneth M. Schor, at
(571) 272-7710, or Joseph F. Weiss, Jr., at (571) 272-7759; or by mail
addressed to United States Patent and Trademark Office, Mail Stop
Comments - Patents, Commissioner for Patents, P.O. Box 1450, Alexandria,
VA 22313-1450, marked to the attention of Kenneth M. Schor and Joseph
F. Weiss, Jr.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section 6(a) of the Leahy-Smith America
Invents Act replaces the inter partes reexamination process that was
established by the American Inventors Protection Act of 1999 (AIPA)
(Pub. L. 106-113, 113 Stat. 1501, 1501A-552 through 1501A-591 (1999))
with a new inter partes review process. The replacement of inter partes
reexamination with inter partes review is effective on September 16,
2012.
Section 6(c)(3)(A) of the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act provides
a transition provision under which a request for inter partes
reexamination will not be granted unless the information presented in
the request shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the
requester will prevail with respect to at least one of the claims
challenged in the request.
The Office is revising the rules of practice to (1) conform the
standard for granting an inter partes reexamination to the one
specified in section 6(c)(3)(A) of the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act,
and (2) provide for termination of inter partes reexamination on
 Top of Notices (145) December 27, 2016 |
US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE |
1433 CNOG 453 |
September 16, 2012, as set forth in section 6(c)(3) of the Leahy-Smith
America Invents Act.
The Leahy-Smith America Invents Act also creates a new inter partes
review process to replace inter partes reexamination. The Office will
implement the new inter partes review proceedings in a separate rule
making.
I. Background
Prior to the enactment of the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act, 35
U.S.C. 312(a) provided, as to the standard for granting an inter partes
reexamination request, that "the Director shall determine whether a
substantial new question of patentability affecting any claim of the
patent concerned is raised by the request, with or without
consideration of other patents or printed publications * * *." The
Office has referred to this standard as "SNQ." The SNQ standard for
granting an inter partes reexamination request was enacted in the AIPA.
Section 6(c)(3)(A) of the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act amended
35 U.S.C. 312 and 313 to delete any reference to the SNQ standard, and
provide, in place of each deletion, language requiring the information
presented in a request for inter partes reexamination (filed pursuant
to 35 U.S.C. 311) to show that there is a reasonable likelihood that
the requester will prevail with respect to at least one of the claims
challenged in the request.
With respect to the reasonable likelihood standard, House Rep. 112-
98 (Part 1), 112th Cong., 1st Sess., provides, in connection with inter
partes review, the following:
"The threshold for initiating an inter partes review is
elevated from `significant new question of patentability'--a
standard that currently allows 95% of all requests to be granted--to
a standard requiring petitioners to present information showing that
their challenge has a reasonable likelihood of success." H.R. Rep.
No. 112-98 (Part 1), at 47.
The Office is revising the rules of practice for inter partes
reexamination in title 37 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) by
amending §§ 1.915, 1.923, 1.927, and 1.931 to delete any
reference to the SNQ standard for granting reexamination, and insert in
its place reference to the newly enacted "reasonable likelihood"
standard.
The SNQ standard for granting ex parte reexamination has not been
revised by the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act, and accordingly, the
rules of practice for ex parte reexamination are not being revised.
When the standards for Office jurisdiction over the proceeding are
effective: Section 6(c)(3)(B) of the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act
provides that this transition provision applies to any request for
inter partes reexamination filed on or after the date of enactment of
the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (i.e., September 16, 2011), but
before the effective date of the inter partes review provisions of the
Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (i.e., September 16, 2012). Section
6(c)(3)(C) of the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act provides that the inter
partes reexamination provisions of 35 U.S.C. chapter 31, as amended by
section 6(c)(3) of the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act, shall apply to
requests for inter partes reexamination filed before September 16, 2012.
Accordingly, for inter partes reexamination, the following applies:
1. Inter partes reexamination requests filed prior to September 16,
2011: With respect to any inter partes reexamination proceeding for
which a request has been filed prior to September 16, 2011, the SNQ
standard is applicable in determining whether the request for inter
partes reexamination will be granted. If reexamination is ordered based
| Top of Notices (145) December 27, 2016 |
US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE |
1433 CNOG 454 |
on the SNQ standard, then the SNQ standard will apply throughout the
reexamination proceeding, even after September 16, 2011, or September
16, 2012.
2. Inter partes reexamination requests filed on or after September
16, 2011, but before September 16, 2012: With respect to any inter
partes reexamination proceeding for which a request is filed on or
after September 16, 2011, the "reasonable likelihood" standard is
applicable in determining whether the request for inter partes
reexamination will be granted. If reexamination is ordered based on the
"reasonable likelihood" standard, then the "reasonable likelihood"
standard will apply throughout the reexamination proceeding, even after
September 16, 2012. In addition, the inter partes reexamination
provisions of 35 U.S.C. chapter 31, as amended by section 6(c)(3) of
the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act, and §§ 1.902-1.997 and
41.60-41.81 of title 37 CFR, effective on September 16, 2011, will
apply throughout the reexamination, even after September 16, 2012.
3. Inter partes reexamination requests filed on or after September
16, 2012: With respect to any inter partes reexamination proceeding for
which a request is submitted on or after September 16, 2012, the Office
cannot grant, or even accord a filing date to, the request. The inter
partes reexamination provisions of 35 U.S.C. chapter 31 are not
available for any request for inter partes reexamination submitted on
or after September 16, 2012. In other words, the Office will no longer
entertain original requests for inter partes reexamination on or after
September 16, 2012, but instead will accept petitions to conduct inter
partes review.
II. Section-by-Section Discussion of Specific Rules
Title 37 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Part 1, Subpart H, is
amended as follows:
Section 1.913: The title of § 1.913 is revised to add ", and
time for filing, a" before "request for inter partes reexamination."
The sole existing paragraph of § 1.913 is revised to add "(a)"
before the paragraph, and to add after "Except as provided for in
§ 1.907 and in paragraph (b) of this section." New paragraph (b)
is added to explicitly provide that any request for an inter partes
reexamination that is submitted on or after September 16, 2012, will
not be accorded a filing date and that any such request will not be
granted.
Section 1.915: Section 1.915 is amended by revising paragraph
(b)(2) to replace the SNQ standard for granting reexamination with the
"reasonable likelihood" standard. After "citation of the patents and
printed publications which are presented to provide," the language "a
showing that there is a reasonable likelihood that the requester will
prevail with respect to at least one of the claims challenged in the
request" is added in place of "a substantial new question of
patentability."
Section 1.915 is additionally amended by revising paragraph (b)(3)
to replace the SNQ standard for granting reexamination with the
"reasonable likelihood" standard:
A statement pointing out, based on the cited patents and printed
publications, each showing of a reasonable likelihood that the
requester will prevail with respect to at least one of the claims
challenged in the request, and a detailed explanation of the
pertinency and manner of applying the patents and printed
publications to every claim for which reexamination is requested.
The amended language replaces the prior language:
| Top of Notices (145) December 27, 2016 |
US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE |
1433 CNOG 455 |
A statement pointing out each substantial new question of
patentability based on the cited patents and printed publications,
and a detailed explanation of the pertinency and manner of applying
the patents and printed publications to every claim for which
reexamination is requested.
Section 1.923: The first sentence of § 1.923 is amended to
replace the SNQ standard for granting reexamination with the
"reasonable likelihood" standard:
Within three months following the filing date of a request for
inter partes reexamination under § 1.915, the examiner will
consider the request and determine whether or not the request and
the prior art establish a reasonable likelihood that the requester
will prevail with respect to at least one of the claims challenged
in the request.
The amended language replaces the prior language:
Within three months following the filing date of a request for
inter partes reexamination under § 1.915, the examiner will
consider the request and determine whether or not a substantial new
question of patentability affecting any claim of the patent is
raised by the request and the prior art citation.
The last sentence of § 1.923 is amended to replace the SNQ
standard for granting reexamination with the "reasonable likelihood"
standard:
If the examiner determines that the request has not established
a reasonable likelihood that the requester will prevail with respect
to at least one of the challenged claims, the examiner shall refuse
the request and shall not order inter partes reexamination.
The amended language replaces the prior language:
If the examiner determines that no substantial new question of
patentability is present, the examiner shall refuse the request and
shall not order inter partes reexamination.
Section 1.927: The last sentence of § 1.927 is amended by
deleting "no substantial new question of patentability has been
raised" after "[i]f no petition is timely filed or if the decision on
petition affirms that." The language "a reasonable likelihood that
the requester will prevail with respect to at least one of the claims
challenged in the request has not been established" is added in its
place.
Section 1.931: Section 1.931 is amended by revising paragraph (a)
to replace the SNQ standard for granting reexamination with the
"reasonable likelihood" standard:
If it is found that there is a reasonable likelihood that the
requester will prevail with respect to at least one of the claims
challenged in the request, the determination will include an order
for inter partes reexamination of the patent for resolution of the
question of whether the requester will prevail.
The amended language replaces the prior language:
If a substantial new question of patentability is found, the
determination will include an order for inter partes reexamination
of the patent for resolution of the question.
III. Rule Making Considerations
| Top of Notices (145) December 27, 2016 |
US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE |
1433 CNOG 456 |
A. Administrative Procedure Act (APA): This final rule merely
revises the rules governing inter partes reexamination to implement the
provisions in section 6(c)(3) of the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act,
which include: (1) A change to the standard for granting a request for
inter partes reexamination; and (2) the termination of inter partes
reexamination on September 16, 2012. Therefore, the changes in this
final rule are merely interpretative. See Nat'l Org. of Veterans'
Advocates v. Sec'y of Veterans Affairs, 260 F.3d 1365, 1375 (Fed. Cir.
2001). Accordingly, prior notice and opportunity for public comment are
not required pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(b) or (c) (or any other law), and
thirty-day advance publication is not required pursuant to 5 U.S.C.
553(d) or any other law. See Cooper Techs. Co. v. Dudas, 536 F.3d 1330,
1336-37 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (stating that 5 U.S.C. 553, and thus 35 U.S.C.
2(b)(2)(B), does not require notice and comment rule making for
"interpretative rules, general statements of policy, or rules of
agency organization, procedure, or practice.") (quoting 5 U.S.C.
553(b)(A)).
B. Regulatory Flexibility Act: As prior notice and an opportunity
for public comment are not required pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553 or any
other law, neither a regulatory flexibility analysis nor a
certification under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et
seq.) is required. See 5 U.S.C. 603.
C. Executive Order 13132 (Federalism): This rule making does not
contain policies with federalism implications sufficient to warrant
preparation of a Federalism Assessment under Executive Order 13132
(Aug. 4, 1999).
D. Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review): This
rule making has been determined not to be significant for purposes of
Executive Order 12866 (Sept. 30, 1993), as amended by Executive Order
13258 (Feb. 26, 2002) and Executive Order 13422 (Jan. 18, 2007).
E. Executive Order 13175 (Tribal Consultation): This rule making
will not: (1) Have substantial direct effects on one or more Indian
tribes; (2) impose substantial direct compliance costs on Indian tribal
government; or (3) preempt tribal law. Therefore, a tribal summary
impact statement is not required under Executive Order 13175 (Nov. 6,
2000).
F. Executive Order 13211 (Energy Effect): This rule making is not a
significant energy action under Executive Order 13211 because this rule
making is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the
supply, distribution, or use of energy. Therefore, a Statement of
Energy Effects is not required under Executive Order 13211 (May 18,
2001).
G. Executive Order 12988 (Civil Justice Reform): This rule making
meets applicable standards to minimize litigation, eliminate ambiguity,
and reduce burden as set forth in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of
Executive Order 12988 (Feb. 5, 1996).
H. Executive Order 13045 (Protection of Children): This rule making
is not an economically significant rule and does not concern an
environmental risk to health or safety that may disproportionately
affect children under Executive Order 13045 (Apr. 21, 1997).
I. Executive Order 12630 (Taking of Private Property): This rule
making will not effect a taking of private property or otherwise have
taking implications under Executive Order 12630 (Mar. 15, 1988).
J. Congressional Review Act: Under the Congressional Review Act
provisions of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of
1996 (5 U.S.C. 801 et seq.), prior to issuing any final rule, the
United States Patent and Trademark Office will submit a report
| Top of Notices (145) December 27, 2016 |
US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE |
1433 CNOG 457 |
containing the final rule and other required information to the U.S.
Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General
of the Government Accountability Office. This final rule merely revises
the rules governing inter partes reexamination to conform them to the
change to the standard for granting a request for inter partes
reexamination set forth in section 6(c)(3) of the Leahy-Smith America
Invents Act, and the September 16, 2012 date of termination of inter
partes reexamination provided for in section 6(c)(3) of the Leahy-Smith
America Invents Act. The change in this rule making is not expected to
result in an annual effect on the economy of 100 million dollars or
more, a major increase in costs or prices, or significant adverse
effects on competition, employment, investment, productivity,
innovation, or the ability of United States-based enterprises to
compete with foreign-based enterprises in domestic and export markets.
Therefore, this rule making is not expected to result in a "major
rule" as defined in 5 U.S.C. 804(2).
K. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995: The changes in this rule
will not result in the expenditure by State, local, and tribal
governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of 100 million
dollars or more in any one year, and it will not significantly or
uniquely affect small governments. Therefore, no actions are necessary
under the provisions of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995. See 2
U.S.C. 1501 et seq.
L. National Environmental Policy Act: The rule making will not have
any effect on the quality of the environment and is thus categorically
excluded from review under the National Environmental Policy Act of
1968. See 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.
M. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act: The
requirements of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and
Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) are inapplicable, because
this rule making does not involve the use of technical standards.
N. Paperwork Reduction Act: This rule making involves information
collection requirements which are subject to review by the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
(44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). The collection of information involved in
this rule making has been reviewed and previously approved by OMB under
OMB control number 0651-0064. This final rule merely revises the rules
governing inter partes reexamination to conform them to the change to
the standard for granting a request for inter partes reexamination set
forth in the transition provisions of section 6(c)(3) of the Leahy-
Smith America Invents Act, and the September 16, 2012 date of
termination of inter partes reexamination provided for in section
6(c)(3) of the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act. This rule making does
not impose additional collection requirements under the Paperwork
Reduction Act. Therefore, the United States Patent and Trademark Office
is not submitting an information collection package to OMB for its
review and approval because the changes in this rule making will not
affect the information collection requirements associated with the
information collection under OMB control number 0651-0064.
List of Subjects in 37 CFR Part 1
Administrative practice and procedure, Courts, Freedom of
information, Inventions and patents, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Small businesses, and Biologics.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, 37 CFR part 1 is amended
as follows:
PART 1 - RULES OF PRACTICE IN PATENT CASES
1. The authority citation for 37 CFR part 1 continues to read as
follows:
| Top of Notices (145) December 27, 2016 |
US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE |
1433 CNOG 458 |
Authority: 35 U.S.C. 2(b)(2), unless otherwise noted.
2. Section 1.913 is revised to read as follows:
§ 1.913 Persons eligible to file, and time for filing, a request
for inter partes reexamination.
(a) Except as provided for in § 1.907 and in paragraph (b) of
this section, any person other than the patent owner or its privies
may, at any time during the period of enforceability of a patent which
issued from an original application filed in the United States on or
after November 29, 1999, file a request for inter partes reexamination
by the Office of any claim of the patent on the basis of prior art
patents or printed publications cited under § 1.501.
(b) Any request for an inter partes reexamination submitted on or
after September 16, 2012, will not be accorded a filing date, and any
such request will not be granted.
3. Section 1.915 is amended by revising paragraphs (b)(2) and (b)(3),
to read as follows:
§ 1.915 Content of request for inter partes reexamination.
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(2) A citation of the patents and printed publications which are
presented to provide a showing that there is a reasonable likelihood
that the requester will prevail with respect to at least one of the
claims challenged in the request.
(3) A statement pointing out, based on the cited patents and
printed publications, each showing of a reasonable likelihood that the
requester will prevail with respect to at least one of the claims
challenged in the request, and a detailed explanation of the pertinency
and manner of applying the patents and printed publications to every
claim for which reexamination is requested.
* * * * *
4. Section 1.923 is revised to read as follows:
§ 1.923 Examiner's determination on the request for inter partes
reexamination.
Within three months following the filing date of a request for
inter partes reexamination under § 1.915, the examiner will
consider the request and determine whether or not the request and the
prior art establish a reasonable likelihood that the requester will
prevail with respect to at least one of the claims challenged in the
request. The examiner's determination will be based on the claims in
effect at the time of the determination, will become a part of the
official file of the patent, and will be mailed to the patent owner at
the address as provided for in § 1.33(c) and to the third party
requester. If the examiner determines that the request has not
established a reasonable likelihood that the requester will prevail
with respect to at least one of the challenged claims, the examiner
shall refuse the request and shall not order inter partes
reexamination.
5. Section 1.927 is revised to read as follows:
§ 1.927 Petition to review refusal to order inter partes
reexamination.
The third party requester may seek review by a petition to the
Director under § 1.181 within one month of the mailing date of the
examiner's determination refusing to order inter partes reexamination.
| Top of Notices (145) December 27, 2016 |
US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE |
1433 CNOG 459 |
Any such petition must comply with § 1.181(b). If no petition is
timely filed or if the decision on petition affirms that a reasonable
likelihood that the requester will prevail with respect to at least one
of the claims challenged in the request has not been established, the
determination shall be final and nonappealable.
6. Section 1.931 is amended by revising paragraph (a) to read as
follows:
§ 1.931 Order for inter partes reexamination.
(a) If it is found that there is a reasonable likelihood that the
requester will prevail with respect to at least one of the claims
challenged in the request, the determination will include an order for
inter partes reexamination of the patent for resolution of the question
of whether the requester will prevail.
* * * * *
September 16, 2011 DAVID J. KAPPOS
Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and
Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office
[1371 OG 160]