Posts Tagged: "secret prior art"

On May 6, 2013, I sat down with Steve Kunin and we discussed a wide range of patent issues. In Part 1 of the interview we discussed the new post grant procedures for challenging issued patents, and started discussing the estoppel provisions. In Part 2 we conclude our discussion of estoppel and move into discussing secret prior art, the Economic Espionage Act, the algorithm line of cases from the Federal Circuit and the erosion of patent rights that started with eBay v. MercExchange.

Steve Kunin is the head of Oblon’s Post Grant Patent Proceedings practice group, and is also on the firm’s Management Committee. He is also a friend. For several years now I’ve been getting together with Steve for lunch periodically to talk about a variety of patent issues. On May 6, 2013, we sat down for a wide ranging discussion about patents, ranging from post grant proceedings to secret prior art to the Supreme Court and the Economic Espionage Act. Of course, we ended with several fun topics including discussion of the Washington Nationals and must-see Sci-Fi summer movies.

There are some exceptions whereby a person who files second can still prevail, but those exceptions are infinitesimally insignificant, and the law surrounding the parameters of the exceptions is non-existent and unfortunately rather ill defined by the USPTO at this point. It is also critical to understand that the new law contains traps and loopholes. For those who have not spent adequate time considering the many nuances of the law you will be surprised to learn what it really means. For example, did you know that long held and previously unpatentable trade secrets can now be patented? It seems unthinkable, but then again it is also unthinkable that the law will allow for the repatenting of inventions, but it does that as well.

The doctrines of “secret prior art” and “inherency” both merged in the case Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. v. AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals LP to surprise, and unpleasantly upend the patentee. Judge Linn’s opinion ruled that “[a]n inventor need not understand precisely why his invention works in order to achieve an actual reduction to practice.” Relying upon the collective holdings in Dow Chemical, Mycogen Plant Science, and Invitrogen, the Federal Circuit panel then concluded that “it is apparent that the district court correctly entered summary judgment” of invalidity of the asserted claims in the ‘502 patent under 35 § 102(g)(2).