1 / 22

Biotechnology

June 13, 2006. 2. USPTO Study on Restriction ReformBackgroundFour OptionsSteps of the StudyGreen Paper Recommendations. Biotechnology/Chemical/Pharmaceutical Customer Partnership. June 13, 2006. 3. USPTO Study on Restriction Reform. BackgroundStudy possible reforms to restriction standards

axel
Download Presentation

Biotechnology

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

    1. June 13, 2006 1 Biotechnology/Chemical/Pharmaceutical Customer Partnership USPTO Study on Restriction Reform and TC1600 Restriction Practice Action Plan Kathleen Kahler Fonda, Ph.D., J.D. Legal Advisor, Office of Patent Legal Administration U.S. Patent &Trademark Office (571) 272-7754; kathleen.fonda@uspto.gov

    2. June 13, 2006 2 USPTO Study on Restriction Reform Background Four Options Steps of the Study Green Paper Recommendations

    3. June 13, 2006 3 USPTO Study on Restriction Reform Background Study possible reforms to restriction standards applicable to all technologies Part of 21st Century Strategic Plan

    4. June 13, 2006 4 USPTO Study on Restriction Reform Background (continued) Strategic Plan Initiate a study of the changes needed to implement a Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT) style Unity of Invention standard in the United States. Public Comment Notice published May 2003 No consensus to go to a PCT-style Unity standard. Suggestions for other options made. Revision of Study posted November 2003 Summary of public comments. Study expanded to include four restriction reform options.

    5. June 13, 2006 5 USPTO Study on Restriction Reform Four Options Option I: Current 35 U.S.C. §121 “independent or distinct” standard and option to request and pay for examination of up to 2 additional independent or distinct inventions for an additional fee. Option II: Current PCT “unity of invention” standard (modified to require that any purported special technical/common feature comply with 35 U.S.C. §112, 1st paragraph), and option to request and pay for examination of up to 2 additional inventions that lack unity of invention for an additional fee.

    6. June 13, 2006 6 USPTO Study on Restriction Reform Four Options (Continued) Option III: New three-tiered structure based on the related-ness of the inventions (substantially similar, related, and unrelated), and fees would be associated with the related-ness. Option IV: Re-interpreted “independent and distinct” standard.

    7. June 13, 2006 7 USPTO Study on Restriction Reform Steps of the Study Develop details of the standards for each the four options. Sample a representative number of restrictions (about 500), review and apply standard under each of the four options. Compile the data from the reviews and validate data. Perform the business analysis and impacts based on review data and process changes. Draft the “Green Paper.”

    8. June 13, 2006 8 USPTO Study on Restriction Reform Steps of the Study (Continued) June 6, 2005 – Published Green Paper “Notice of Availability of and Request for Comments on Green Paper Concerning Restriction Practice,” 70 FR 107 (June 6, 2005) Green Paper available at http://www.uspto.gov/ Comment period ended September 15, 2005. Next Steps – Assess the public comments prior to considering the desirability of drafting any proposed legislative changes in a final “White Paper.”

    9. June 13, 2006 9 USPTO Study on Restriction Reform Green Paper Conclusions/Recommendations: Options 3 and 4 – Development of standards highlights the difficulty in formulation of any new standard. Not considered viable for implementation. Options 1 and 2 – Somewhat more promising in terms of the standards being more workable to implement. The business analysis indicates these would not achieve a desired balance due to workload and pendency impacts. The process of improving the quality and predictability of restriction requirements must be a collaborative effort. This paper and the TC1600 Restriction Action Plan represent only the first step in an ongoing endeavor to discover feasible solutions.

    10. June 13, 2006 10 USPTO Study on Restriction Reform Green Paper Conclusions/Recommendation (Continued): The Office requests comments from the public on: The desirability of conducting further study on Options 1 and 2. Whether the perceived desirability justifies the costs to the Office of continuing the study The impact on the system as a whole. Appropriate legislation would need to be enacted in the event a decision to implement Option 1 or 2 is made. Implementation of Option 1 would not be viable without a revision to the fees for search/examination, issue and maintenance. Implementation of Option 2 would require revision to 35 U.S.C. § 121 in addition to the same fee revisions required to implement Option 1.

    11. June 13, 2006 11 USPTO Study on Restriction Reform Comments Received on Green Paper Concerning Restriction Practice 16 Responders: Groups: National Association of Patent Practitioners (NAPP) The Bar Association of the District of Columbia (BADC) Biotechnology Industry Organization (BIO) International Federation of Intellectual Property Attorneys (FICPI) Japan Intellectual Property Association (JIPA) National Institutes of Health (NIH) Corporations: Genentech, Inc. IBM Corporation

    12. June 13, 2006 12 USPTO Study on Restriction Reform Comments Received on Green Paper Concerning Restriction Practice 16 Responders (cont’d) Individuals Jon Henry Robert Johnson Todd Juneau Gordon Lindeen Raymond S. Parker, III and Julie Anne Knight James Lindon Paul Morgan Robert J. Webster

    13. June 13, 2006 13 USPTO Study on Restriction Reform Comments Received on Green Paper Concerning Restriction Practice Breakdown of Support for Options Option 1. Current national restriction practice with an option to pay for the examination of additional invention(s) within the original application. Five: BADC, IBM (partial support), Johnson (partial support), Juneau, Morgan

    14. June 13, 2006 14 USPTO Study on Restriction Reform Comments Received on Green Paper Concerning Restriction Practice Breakdown of Support for Options Option 2. Modified PCT unity of invention standard with: 1) an additional requirement that the special technical/common feature comply with 35 U.S.C. § 112, 1st paragraph and 2) an option to pay for additional invention(s). Eight: NAPP (second choice), BIO (partial support), FICPI, JIPA, Genentech (partial support), IBM (partial support), Parker et al. (partial support), Webster (partial support)

    15. June 13, 2006 15 USPTO Study on Restriction Reform Comments Received on Green Paper Concerning Restriction Practice Breakdown of Support for Options (cont’d) Option 3. Three-tiered fee structure dependent upon the search burden associated with, and the presence of different patentability issues between, various inventions. Two: BIO (partial support), Genentech (partial support) Option 4. Independent and distinct standard (as opposed to independent or distinct). Four: NAPP (first choice), Henry (partial support), Lindon, Parker et al.

    16. June 13, 2006 16 USPTO Study on Restriction Reform Comments Received on Green Paper Concerning Restriction Practice Recurring Themes support for reform; dissatisfaction with current practice only one comment against reform; many in favor need for predictability/uniformity of restriction process "independent and distinct" vs. "independent or distinct" many responders believe the Office is ignoring the statute

    17. June 13, 2006 17 USPTO Study on Restriction Reform Comments Received on Green Paper Concerning Restriction Practice Recurring Themes (cont’d) financial considerations balanced view; the Office needs resources but filing can be expensive large number of divisionals not desirable international harmonization timing of examination for 112 issues Comments addressing this issue see no need to consider 112 at the time of restriction

    18. June 13, 2006 18 TC1600 Restriction Practice Action Plan TC1600 Restriction Practice Action Plan Background Five Initiatives Phase I Examiner Training Next Steps

    19. June 13, 2006 19 TC1600 Restriction Practice Action Plan Background: Announced October 2003 Improve quality and consistency of restrictions in TC1600

    20. June 13, 2006 20 TC1600 Restriction Practice Action Plan The action plan includes 5 initiatives: Emphasis On Rejoinder Practice Policy memos to examiners Examiner Training On Restriction Practice Phase I training completed and training materials posted Aug 2004 Publish Examples Of Claim Sets Part of training materials, more to come in subsequent Phases Enhanced Review Of Restriction Requirements Rolling review of Art Units Continuous Assessment Reviews of restrictions and restriction-related petition decisions

    21. June 13, 2006 21 TC1600 Restriction Practice Action Plan Phase I Examiner Training (August 2004) Focused on restriction fundamentals Basic criteria for restrictions Linking claims Rejoinder opportunities Included example claims and restriction requirements Next Steps Examiner training on the revised MPEP Chapter 800 (Restriction) Examiner training on genus/species

    22. June 13, 2006 22 Biotechnology/Chemical/Pharmaceutical Customer Partnership Thank You Kathleen Kahler Fonda, Ph.D., J.D. Legal Advisor, Office of Patent Legal Administration U.S. Patent &Trademark Office (571) 272-7754; kathleen.fonda@uspto.gov

More Related