Posts Tagged: "priority"

The IP Counselor’s Checklist for Adding Value During Patent Prosecution

As the new year begins, I’ve been reflecting on what makes patent practitioners highly valuable to their clients. In a prior IPWatchdog article, I asserted that one should aspire to practice as an intellectual property counselor—who leverages patent prosecution as one strategic tool among many, rather than narrowly conceptualizing his or her role. What about the day-to-day acts of preparing and prosecuting a patent application? Here are ten concrete steps IP counselors can take to advance their clients’ interests and distinguish themselves from their peers.

Change in the Electronic Retrieval Method for Priority Documents between USPTO and KIPO

Effective December 1, 2018, electronic retrieval of priority documents between the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) and the Korean Intellectual Property Office (KIPO) will be managed via the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) Digital Access Service (DAS), in accordance with the WIPO DAS agreement established on April 20, 2009. The certified copy requirement is considered satisfied when a foreign priority document is retrieved electronically via the WIPO DAS service during pendency of the U.S. application. There is no fee for this service and participation for a particular application is voluntary.

What are the Priority Date, Patent Term, and Effective Filing Date of a Patent: The Roles of Specific Reference, Incorporation by Reference, and Claim Support

A recent Federal Circuit decision demonstrates that for priority claims and patent term, the phrase “specific reference” is key. For example, amongst three related applications, to get the benefit of priority of an earlier U.S. patent application 1, application 3 in a priority claim has to have a “specific reference” to earlier application 1. A mere priority claim in application 3 to application 2, even though application 2 specifically “incorporates by reference” application 1, is not sufficient to allow application 3 to rely on the filing date of application 1. Rather, the priority chain is broken between applications 2 and 1, leaving application 3, at best, with a priority date of application 2 for purposes of patentability… From the Federal Circuit in Droplets, practitioners are reminded that both priority claims and incorporation by reference are very specific tools that should not be relied on during prosecution without careful consideration and deliberate use. Certainly, incorporation by reference does not trump “specific reference” and may lead to a break in the priority chain for purposes of patentability.

A Claim of priority Cannot Be Made With an Incorporation by Reference

Upon filing a patent application, the USPTO mails a filing receipt.  The domestic and foreign claim of priority is stated and should be checked to make sure that it reflects the claim of priority that the inventor intends.  Otherwise, the patent owner may not be able to cure the defect when trying to sue an infringer after it issues as a patent.  If it can be fixed after it matures into a patent, the costs are much higher than the costs to fix while the patent application is still pending. 

PCT Species Claim Sufficient to Support Priority Claim of Later-filed Genus Claim

The issue was whether the PCT, which disclosed a “connection to fibre optics bundle which provides for lighting” was a sufficient written description to support the “light guide” “permanently affixed” in the “first channel” of the patented claims. The Board reversed the Examiner and concluded that the earlier application had sufficient written description to qualify as a priority document… The Federal Circuit affirmed. The disclosure of a species, here a “fibre optics bundle,” was sufficient support for a priority claim by a later-filed patent application utilizing genus claims, here a “light guide,” because the patent-in-suit was in a predictable art field and the genus claims covered well-known limitations.