Advertisement

July 25, 2014

America Invents Act - Best Mode Removed as a Defense

On September 16, 2011, the America Invents Act (AIA) ushered in major changes to the U.S. patent system, including changes to available defenses for patent infringement. One provision that took place immediately on enactment amended 35 U.S.C. § 282 to remove the failure to disclose the best mode – required to obtain a patent under 35 U.S.C. § 112 – as a means to invalidate or cancel an issued patent.

In relevant part, 35 U.S.C. § 282 now enumerates the defenses available in any action involving validity or infringement of a patent as:

(1) Noninfringement, absence of liability for infringement or unenforceability, 

(2) Invalidity of the patent or any claim in suit on any ground specified in part II as a condition for patentability, 

(3) Invalidity of the patent or any claim in suit for failure to comply with— 

(A) any requirement of section 112, except that the failure to disclose the best mode shall not be a basis on which any claim of a patent may be canceled or held invalid or otherwise unenforceable; or 

(B) any requirement of section 251. 

(4) Any other fact or act made a defense by this title.

35 U.S.C. § 282 (emphasis added).

Disclosure of Best Mode not required for priority benefit to earlier-filed application(s)

Consistent with this amendment, the AIA also amended priority benefit sections 35 U.S.C. §§ 119(e)(1) and 120 to remove disclosure of best mode as a requisite to gain the benefit of an earlier filing date. If not otherwise amended, an unnecessary tension would have been created with removal of the defense under Section 282. That is, the failure to disclose the best mode in an earlier-filed application may arguably have provided an indirect basis to assert invalidity in view of intervening prior art, while it could not be the direct basis for invalidity under amended Section 282.

Disclosure of Best Mode required to satisfy statutory disclosure requirements

However, the AIA did not amend the statutory requirement to disclose the best mode as part of 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) (previously referred to as the first paragraph of 112). Thus, patent applicants should continue to comply with their statutory disclosure requirements to set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention. And, to gain the benefit of an earlier filing date under Sections 119(e)(1) and 120, patent applicants should continue to comply with the written description and enablement requirements of Section 112(a).

© 2014 Sterne Kessler

About the Author

Jeremiah B. Frueauf, Biotechnology, Chemical Attorney, Sterne Kessler, law firm
Associate

Mr. Frueauf is an associate in the Biotechnology/Chemical Group where he counsels domestic and international clients on the preparation, prosecution, and management of complex worldwide patent portfolios.  He is also experienced in the research and preparation of freedom-to-operate, validity, infringement, and patentability analyses.

202-772-8506

About the Author

Lori A. Gordon Intellectual Property Litigation Attorney Sterne Kessler law firm
Director

Lori Gordon is a director in both the Litigation and Electronics practice groups, focusing on inter partes matters, including district court litigation and contested case proceedings at the USPTO.  She has been involved in over a dozen district court patent litigations since joining the firm, acting as lead counsel for the claim construction, infringement and validity aspects of these cases.  In addition, she is currently acting as lead counsel in 11 AIA contested case proceedings at the USPTO. Ms. Gordon also has extensive experience handling reexamination...

202-772-8862

Boost: AJAX core statistics

Legal Disclaimer

You are responsible for reading, understanding and agreeing to the National Law Review's (NLR’s) and the National Law Forum LLC's  Terms of Use and Privacy Policy before using the National Law Review website. The National Law Review is a free to use, no-log in database of legal and business articles. The content and links on www.NatLawReview.com are intended for general information purposes only. Any legal analysis, legislative updates or other content and links should not be construed as legal or professional advice or a substitute for such advice. No attorney-client or confidential relationship is formed by the transmission of information between you and the National Law Review website or any of the law firms, attorneys or other professionals or organizations who include content on the National Law Review website. If you require legal or professional advice, kindly contact an attorney or other suitable professional advisor.  

Some states have laws and ethical rules regarding solicitation and advertisement practices by attorneys and/or other professionals. The National Law Review is not a law firm nor is www.NatLawReview.com  intended to be  a referral service for attorneys and/or other professionals. The NLR does not wish, nor does it intend, to solicit the business of anyone or to refer anyone to an attorney or other professional.  NLR does not answer legal questions nor will we refer you to an attorney or other professional if you request such information from us. 

Under certain state laws the following statements may be required on this website and we have included them in order to be in full compliance with these rules. The choice of a lawyer or other professional is an important decision and should not be based solely upon advertisements. Attorney Advertising Notice: Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Statement in compliance with Texas Rules of Professional Conduct. Unless otherwise noted, attorneys are not certified by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization, nor can NLR attest to the accuracy of any notation of Legal Specialization or other Professional Credentials.

The National Law Review - National Law Forum LLC 4700 Gilbert Ave. Suite 47 #230 Western Springs, IL 60558  Telephone  (708) 357-3317 If you would ike to contact us via email please click here.