Under the new US Patent Law, Interference Proceedings (i.e., proceedings to determine who first invented the claimed invention) have been phased out and there will be a revamped system to challenge applications and patents at the PTO.  For further information contact us.

As of Sept. 16, 2012 Post-grant Review will allow a person who is not the owner of a patent to seek to cancel as unpatentable one or more claims because, for example, it is not novel, obvious, indefinite or not properly supported by the patent specification. Iinvalidity can be established through, for example, patents, printed publications and affidavits or declarations of supporting factual evidence or expert opinions, and the standard of proof is preponderance of the evidence.

As of Sept. 16, 2012 Inter Partes Review is similar in some respects to the current inter partes reexamination, which is being phased out.   Inter Partes Review allows a person who is not the owner of a patent to seek to cancel as unpatentable one or more claims because it is not novel or obvious. Anticipation or obviousness can be established through only prior art patents or printed publications, and the standard of proof is preponderance of the evidence.

As of March 16, 2013, Derivation Proceedings will allow a person to correct the named inventor(s) on an application or patent if that person can establish that “an inventor named in an earlier application derived the claimed invention from an inventor named in the petitioner’s application and, without authorization, the earlier application claiming such invention was filed.”