Court Voids PTO Final Rules

Court Voids PTO Final Rules

Publication

Related Solutions

Providing comprehensive solutions for the acquisition, enforcement and protection of IP.

By patenting their innovations, our clients increase the value of their intellectual property and enhance their ability to compete in the marketplace. We work with laboratory and research teams and R&D and product development groups to determine whether, when and where it is in our clients’ business and technical interests to seek patent protection. And we don’t just file patent applications. Drawing on our experience with patent litigation, corporate financings and technology transactions, we implement IP strategies that conserve resources, add measurable value and give our clients a cost-effective and commercially practical competitive edge.

We help clients obtain more than 750 US and foreign patents each year, covering innovations that span the technological spectrum, including aerospace, biochemistry, biotechnology, business methods, chemistry, computer science, fuel cells, genetics, high-speed data communication, integrated circuits, materials science, medical devices, nanotechnology, pharmaceuticals, semiconductor devices and processes, and software.

We also prepare and prosecute patent applications internationally under the Patent Cooperative Treaty and by working with a network of seasoned patent lawyers around the world. Our experience extends to appeals, interferences and opposition proceedings within the US Patent and Trademark Office, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit and the European Patent Office.

Clients trust us to protect their most important intellectual property matters.

Today, Senior Judge James Cacheris of the District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia issued a decision granting summary judgment in favor of the plaintiffs and voiding the US Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) Final Rules in the two consolidated cases, Tafas v. Dudas and SmithKline Beecham Corp. v. Dudas. The court determined that the rules were “‘not in accordance with law’ and ‘in excess of statutory jurisdiction [and] authority’” of the USPTO.

The Final Rules rejected by the court involved two sets of rules: the first limiting the number of continuation applications and requests for continued examination that an applicant may file, and the second limiting the number of claims that an applicant could present as a matter of right. Contrary to the USPTO’s arguments, Senior Judge Cacheris found that the Final Rules were substantive in nature and thus beyond the rulemaking power of the USPTO. While the USPTO argued that the rules fell within their rulemaking authority and were procedural in nature, the court found that the Final Rules were not procedural rules and did not relate only to application processing. Instead, the Final Rules were found to be “substantive rules that change existing law and alter the rights of applicants such as GSK and Tafas under the Patent Act.” The rules “constitute a drastic departure from the terms of the Patent Act as they are presently understood.”

To read the decision, please see the attachment or click here.

For more more information on this or other intellectual property matters, contact the authors listed above.

Authors

Notice

We appreciate your interest in WilmerHale. While we are pleased to have you contact us, please keep in mind that merely contacting WilmerHale does not create an attorney-client relationship. Such a relationship will not arise until the Firm agrees in writing to represent you in connection with a particular matter. Importantly, unless and until this has occurred, you should not provide us with any confidential information, and we have no duty to keep confidential any information that we may receive from you. Thank you for your understanding.

I Accept Cancel