May 25, 2012

Use Petitions to Reverse Determination of No SNQ (Substantial New Questions of Patentability) in Inter Partes Reexamination

You see a competitor’s patent and believe it is invalid.  You perform a prior art search and find prior art that you think would render at least some of the patent claims unpatentable.  So after thinking about it some more, you decide to file a reexamination request in the Patent Office.  In that request you illustrate that the prior art was not considered before (or can be considered in a new light) and you propose how the prior art can be used to reject the patent’s claims.  You file the request.

To your surprise, you learn that the Patent Office determined that some of your proposals were substantial new questions of patentability (SNQs) and some were not.  Therefore, a reexamination is ordered, but not against all of the claims you requested.  You petition the Director to order reexamination for the proposed substantial questions of patentability that were not adopted.  The Director denies that petition.  What can you do?

The Third Party Requester in inter partes reexamination Control No. 95/001,089** tried to appeal the denial of the petition to the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences (BPAI), but did not succeed.  The Third Party Requester appealed on the basis that 35 U.S.C. 315 provides it the right to appeal “. . . with respect to any final decision favorable to the patentability of any original or proposed amended or new claim of the patent. . . .” 

But the BPAI disagreed, because 35 U.S.C. 312(c) states that the determination whether a SNQ is raised by the request “by the Director . . . shall be final and non-appealable.”  And since no reexamination will proceed, no final decision can be rendered pertaining to those claims.

To summarize, in an inter partes reexamination there is no appeal of the Director’s decision to not find that SNQ for those claims under 35 U.S.C. 312(c) and no reexamination of those claims means that no final decision will be rendered (favorable or otherwise) that is subject to appeal.  Therefore, in such cases 35 U.S.C. 315 does not afford a right of appeal and the BPAI has no jurisdiction to decide a non-appealable issue.

So, when no SNQ is determined for certain claims in an inter partes reexamination, that determination can be petitioned, but if the petition is denied then the BPAI has no jurisdiction to decide whether that determination should be reversed.

© 2012 Schwegman, Lundberg & Woessner, P.A. All Rights Reserved.

About the Author

Shareholder

Timothy Bianchi is a patent attorney with bachelor's and master's degrees in electrical engineering. He advises businesses in domestic and international patenting, reexamination, opinions, licensing and enforcement. Tim's patent experience includes electronics, software, medical devices, telecommunications, e-commerce, digital electronics, digital signal processing, computer security, embedded processor designs, hearing aids, network hardware and software, wireless signaling, and RFID. He represents a variety of large and small companies. Tim has engineering experience from...

612-373-6900

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. NLR does not accept advertising from attorneys or law firms. The National Law Review is not a law firm nor is www.NatLawReview.com  intended to be an advertisement or 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.