Interference Statute Does Not Require Diligence For Re-Presenting Claims

10 December 2015 PharmaPatents Blog

In In re: Commonwealth Scientific & Industrial Research Organisation, the Federal Circuit held that pre-AIA 35 USC §135(b)(1) does not embody a diligence requirement, such that interfering claims presented more than 5 years after originally presented claims were abandoned were not time-barred by the statute. Although the decision was non-precedential, because it reversed a decision of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board on an important issue in interference proceedings, it seems worth noting.

The Statutory Bar Of 35 USC § 135(b)(1)

This case turned on the interpretation of pre-AIA 35 USC §135(b)(1), which places a time limit on presenting claims that “interfere” with the claims of a granted patent:

A claim which is the same as, or for the same or substantially the same subject matter as, a claim of an issued patent may not be made in any application unless such a claim is made prior to one year from the date on which the patent was granted.

(Pre-AIA 35 USC §135(b)(2) has a parallel provision for claims of published U.S. patent applications.)

The CCPA and Federal Circuit have held that a claim presented after the critical date can relate back to a claim presented before the critical date as long as the later claim is directed to the same or substantially the same subject matter as the earlier-presented claim. But is the statute still satisfied if the claim is presented years after the first claim is canceled?

The Interference At Issue

The interference at issue was declared between Carnegie Institution Of Washington’s U.S. Patent No. 6,506,559 and CSIRO’s U.S. Application No. 11/364,183.  The ‘559 Patent was issued on January 14, 2003, making January 14, 2004 the critical date under §135(b)(1).

The ‘183 application was filed in 2006 as a continuation of U.S. Application No. 10/755,328, which was filed January 13, 2004 (one day before the critical date) with claims copied from the ‘559 Patent. CSIRO eventually abandoned the ‘328 application. On August 10, 2009—more than five years after the critical date—CSIRO added claims to the ‘183 application that were substantially similar to claims previously presented in the ‘328 application (and to claims of the ‘559 Patent).

 

The Board found that CSIRO could not relate the post-critical date claims filed in the ‘183 application back to the pre-critical date claims presented in the ‘328 application, finding that CSIRO’s lack of diligence in prosecuting those claims and effectively delaying the declaration of interference ran afoul of the purpose of §135(b)(1), which was to “encourage promptitude.” According to the Board:

The safe-harbor provision of § 135(b)(1) cannot be reasonably be read to permit intentional delay or even—potentially—intentional frustration of a patentee’s repose.

Thus, the Board found CSIRO’s interfering claims to be time barred.

The Federal Circuit Decision

The Federal Circuit decision was authored by Judge Stoll and joined by Judges Chen and Meyer.

The Federal Circuit found no support for the Board decision in the statutory language or judicial precedent, noting instead that “[a]pplication of § 135(b)(1) does not turn on the patent applicant’s prosecution decisions or require diligence in prosecution.” After reviewing decisions applying the principle that “cancellation or amendment of a pre-critical date claim does not in itself result in a violation of § 135(b)(1)” such as Cryns v. Musher, 161 F.2d 217 (CCPA 1947); Corbett v. Chisholm, 568 F.2d 759 (CCPA 1977); Regents of Univ. of Cal. v. Univ. of Iowa Research Found., 455 F.3d 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2006); and Adair v. Carter, 668 F.3d 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2012), the court concluded:

We left no room for imposition of a requirement of diligent prosecution when the requisite relationship between post- and pre-critical date claims is otherwise established. We see no basis in this precedent or the statutory language itself for now reading in an exception to the exception in § 135(b)(1) to require a showing of diligent prosecution by the patent applicant. At no time have we held that a patent applicant’s prosecution strategy could bar claims otherwise permissible under § 135(b)(1), and the Board’s analysis does not persuade us to adopt such a rule at this time.

Thus, the Federal Circuit reversed the Board decision.

The Continued Relevance Of Interference Proceedings

The America Invents Act (AIA) phases out interference proceedings, but interference jurisprudence remains relevant because patent claims with an effective filing date prior to March 16, 2013, still can become involved in an interference. According to this article on Patently-O, 40% of recently published applications are “pre-AIA” applications that could become involved in an interference.

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.

Insights

Hatch Comments on DNC-Related Construction Projects in Milwaukee
14 June 2019
Milwaukee Business Journal
Bernard Quoted on Debt-Relief Settlement with ITT Tech Lender
14 June 2019
Wall Street Journal
Dodd and Daughter Profiled in Wisconsin Golf
13 June 2019
Wisconsin Golf
Brinckerhoff Comments on SCOTUS Ruling in Patent Case
11 June 2019
Intellectual Property Magazine
Review of 2020 Medicare Changes for Telehealth
11 December 2019
Member Call
2019 NDI Executive Exchange
14-15 November 2019
Chicago, IL
Association for Corporate Counsel Annual Meeting 2019
27-30 October 2019
Phoenix, AZ
Foley's Government Contracts Annual Update
16 October 2019
Liviona, MI