First Post Grant Review Petition Shows That Amending Claims Is Not Child's Play

11 August 2014 PharmaPatents Blog

The first Post Grant Review petition visible to the public was filed August 5, 2014, against U.S. Patent 8,684,420. The patent was granted from an application filed July 26, 2013, but claims priority through a series of continuation applications to an application filed September 8, 2011, and to a provisional application filed November 5, 2010. The Petitioners, LaRose Industries, LLC and Toys “R” Us-Delaware, Inc., allege that the patent is subject to post grant review because the granted claims allegedly are not supported by the original disclosure, and so have an effective filing date later than the March 16, 2013 critical date for post grant review.

The Patent at Issue

The patent at issue is U.S. Patent 8,684,420, directed to a “Brunnian link making device and kit,” also known as a Rainbow Loom® product. (The patent owner, Choon’s Design Inc., is the company behind the Rainbow Loom® craze.)

Independent claim 1 recites:

1. A device for creating an item consisting of a series of links, the device comprising: a base; and a plurality of pins supported on the base, wherein each of the plurality of pins includes a top portion for holding a link in a desired orientation and an opening on at least one side of each of the plurality of pins, wherein the plurality of pins comprises rows of offset pins spaced apart and extending upward from the base.

The claim limitation alleged to constitute new matter vis-à-vis the original specification is the “plurality of pins supported on the base.” The Petitioners allege that the original specification only describes devices where the base supports pin bars that in turn “include a plurality of pins.” That is, according to the Petitioners, the original specification does not describe any devices where pins are supported by a base, because in all of the described embodiments it is the pin bars, not the pins, that are supported by the base.

The Serious Consequences of Claim Amendments

The complicated effective date provisions of the first-to-file and post grant review sections of the America Invents Act (AIA) could make any claim amendment in a “pre-AIA” application a ticking time bomb that could bring the application or patent under those sections of the AIA if it is found to introduce “new matter” that is not supported by the original disclosure. Here, the claims at issue were the original claims of the “continuation” applications filed after March 16, 2013. Thus, if they are not supported by the earlier applications, they are presumptively entitled to the actual, post-AIA filing date of the application in which they were presented, and would be subject to post grant review.

The applicant did not “check the box” on the Application Data Sheet (ADS) indicating that the application “contains, or contained at any time, a claim to a claimed invention that has an effective fling date on or after March 16, 2013.” The Board’s first step in deciding whether to grant this petition may be to determine whether or not that box should have been checked.

This blog is made available by Foley & Lardner LLP (“Foley” or “the Firm”) for informational purposes only. It is not meant to convey the Firm’s legal position on behalf of any client, nor is it intended to convey specific legal advice. Any opinions expressed in this article do not necessarily reflect the views of Foley & Lardner LLP, its partners, or its clients. Accordingly, do not act upon this information without seeking counsel from a licensed attorney. This blog is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship. Communicating with Foley through this website by email, blog post, or otherwise, does not create an attorney-client relationship for any legal matter. Therefore, any communication or material you transmit to Foley through this blog, whether by email, blog post or any other manner, will not be treated as confidential or proprietary. The information on this blog is published “AS IS” and is not guaranteed to be complete, accurate, and or up-to-date. Foley makes no representations or warranties of any kind, express or implied, as to the operation or content of the site. Foley expressly disclaims all other guarantees, warranties, conditions and representations of any kind, either express or implied, whether arising under any statute, law, commercial use or otherwise, including implied warranties of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Foley or any of its partners, officers, employees, agents or affiliates be liable, directly or indirectly, under any theory of law (contract, tort, negligence or otherwise), to you or anyone else, for any claims, losses or damages, direct, indirect special, incidental, punitive or consequential, resulting from or occasioned by the creation, use of or reliance on this site (including information and other content) or any third party websites or the information, resources or material accessed through any such websites. In some jurisdictions, the contents of this blog may be considered Attorney Advertising. If applicable, please note that prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Photographs are for dramatization purposes only and may include models. Likenesses do not necessarily imply current client, partnership or employee status.

Related Services

Insights

Text Messages, EDiscovery, and the New Threat to Privacy
21 November 2019
CMS Proposes Enhanced Scrutiny over Medicaid Supplemental Payments
20 November 2019
Health Care Law Today
The Purpose of a Corporation
November 2019
Legal News: Business Law
Should This Be a "Mobility" Industry Blog?
19 November 2019
Dashboard Insights
PATH Summit 2019
18-20 December 2019
Arlington, VA
Madison CLE Days
18-19 December 2019
Madison, WI
MedTech Impact Expo & Conference
13-15 December 2019
Las Vegas, NV
HFMA MA-RI Annual Compliance Update
12 December 2019
Boston, MA