Assuring Quality U.S. Patents: Patent Owners' Perspective Part 1 Of A 3 Part Series

• Published date: 15 June 2020
• Author: Ms Adriana Burgy, Stacy Lewis and Thomas L. Irving
• Subject Matter: Intellectual Property, Litigation, Mediation & Arbitration, Patent, Trials & Appeals & Compensation
• Law Firm: Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP

Finnegan's Prosecution First blog embarks on a three-part series that outlines considerations from a patent owners' perspective for assuring quality patents. This series of blog posts addresses the interaction between attorney and inventor on quality and preparing a quality patent (Part 1), satisfying Section 112 (Part 2), and considerations for quality patent drafting to avoid inequitable conduct or unclean hand implications (Part 3).

PART 1: Interaction Between Attorney and Inventor on Quality and Preparing a Quality Patent

I. Interaction Between Patent Attorney and Inventor on Quality

A. Understand full scope of invention
B. Understand differences between invention and prior art
C. Explore alternatives for each element
D. Disclose all known and possible embodiments
E. Details needed to fulfill enablement, written description and best mode requirements
F. Discuss invention story

1. Unpredictability in art may be helpful; OSI Pharms., LLC v. Apotex Inc., 939 F.3d 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2019)
2. Balance arguments in favor of nonobviousness with satisfaction of written description and enablement requirements

II. Preparing a Quality Patent

A. Eliminate potential issues around subject matter eligibility

1. 35 U.S.C. ' 101
2. Mayo/Alice Test
3. 2019 USPTO Guidance Revision to Step 2A
   

B. Specification

1. Important because disclosure may drive claim construction

a. Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc)
b. Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic, Inc., 90 F.3d 1576 (Fed. Cir. 1996)
c. Halliburton Energy Services, Inc. v. M-I LLC, 514 F.3d 1244 (Fed. Cir. 2008)
d. Cultor Corp. v. A.E. Staley Mfg. Co., 224 F.3d 1328 (Fed. Cir. 2000)
e. Allen Engineering Corp. v. Bartell Indus., 299 F.3d 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2002)

2. Focus on objective of literal infringement (by single actor)

a. Amgen, Inc. v. Hoechst Marion Roussel, Inc., 314 F.3d 1313 (Fed. Cir. 2003)
b. Osram GmbH v. ITC, 505 F.3d 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2007)
c. Vanda Pharm. Inc. v. West-Ward Pharm. Int'l Ltd., 887 F.3d 1117 (Fed. Cir. 2018)

3. Specification acts as a dictionary for the claim terminology

a) If broad meaning for a term intended, set forth a broad definition in the specification.
b) Alternatively, consider embodiments with narrower definitions; maybe patent profanity, mentioned below, could assist in construing alternative claims more narrowly.
c) Consider crafting definitions to address concerns about related prior art, but live by the sword, die by the sword; are the definitions broad enough; too broad?
d) Clearly define any intended special meaning.

(1) Aventis Pharma S.A. v. Hospira, Inc., 675 F.3d 1324 (Fed. Cir. 2012)
(2) AIA Engineering Ltd. v. Magotteaux Intern. S/A, 657 F.3d 1264 (Fed. Cir. 2011)

e) Use specification to eliminate uncertainty.

(1) Athletic Alternatives, Inc. v. Prince Manufacturing, Inc. (Fed. Cir. 1996): when there is an equal choice between a broad and a narrow meaning of a claim, the public notice function is better served by interpreting the claim more narrowly.
(2) ACS, Inc. v. Medtronic, Inc. (Fed. Cir. 2001)
(3) SciMed Life Systems, Inc. v. ACS, Inc. (Fed. Cir. 2001)

f) Define and consistently use terms.

(1) Union...