Joint Research Agreement Exception

Another important exception to the definition of state of the art under the AIA is common ownership under joint research agreements (“JRAs”) pursuant to aia § ۱۰۲(c). [43] AIA § ۱۰۲(c) is similar to pre-AIA Article 103(c), but extends, for the benefit of the applicant, the scope of prior art which may be disqualified under Article 103(c) of the Pre-AIA. Under pre-AIA legislation, Article 103(c) Subject Matter, which is under Article 102(e), (f) or (g) of the Technique, is disqualified from use in a denial of evidence where the subject matter and claimed invention were in joint possession or under a JRA at the time of invention. AIA § ۱۰۲ (b) (2) (C) and 102 (c) extend pre-AIA § ۱۰۳ (c) thus, that the applicant only has to prove that common ownership or an ARJ existed at the time of the actual filing of the application (and not at the time of invention) and (2) that references used for both refusals of novelty and for refusals of evidence may be disqualified (instead of references), which are only used for denials of evidence). [44] AIA § ۱۰۲ (c) may allow inventors to proactively manage potential refusals from AIA § ۱۰۲ (a) (2) or AIA § ۱۰۲ (a) (2)/103). As soon as an examiner has found a case of non-patentability at first sight at 35 U.S.C. 102 (a) or 35 U.S.C 103, the burden of exceeding the refusal is due to the invocation of the provisions of the joint search agreement of 35 U.S.C 102 (b) (2) (C) and 35 U.P.C. 102 (c) to the applicant or patent owner. 35 U.S.C. 102 (b) (2) (C) provides that the disclosures were not technically compliant with 35 U.S.C 102 (a) (2) if the disclosed subject matter and claimed invention were the property of the same person or were subject to an obligation to assign to the same person no later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention. If the prior art exception referred to in 35 U.S.C 102(b)(2)(C) is duly invoked, the reference of the joint venture or joint search agreement is not available as prior art in 35 U.S.C 102(a)(2), both for refusals of anticipation and for refusals of evidence. See MPEP § ۷۱۷٫۰۲ (a) for more information on the invocation of this exception on the state of the art and MPEP § ۷۱۷٫۰۲ (b) for more information on the assessment of the date of application of the derogation and the duly invoked request. In addition, Article 273 does not specify which subsection of Article 102(b) provides for “the derogation from the state of the art”.

Finding: Therefore, for events occurring before 16 September 2013, the retroactive application of the definitions of prior art in AIA § ۱۰۲ (a) to determine whether any of the derogations of AIA § ۱۰۲ (۱) and Article 102 (b) (2) is applicable to events occurring before 16 September. 2013. Nor is it necessary for the nature of the disclosure (e.g. B patenting, publication, public use, sales activity) is identical to the nature of the disclosure of an intermediate disclosure. For example, the inventor or co-inventor may have made the object in question public at a scientific meeting through a film presentation, while the intermediate disclosure of the object may have taken place in a periodical article. A “fraud exception” also limits additional examination. If the Director learns that substantial fraud was committed at the USPTO during the grant of the patent, the matter will be referred to the Attorney General to take disciplinary action against the Prosecutor. The patent owner may also face criminal and antitrust claims under Article 257(f). Paschall earned a Ph.D. in biomedicine at the University of Virginia, where he focused on the adoption of leukocytes in inflammatory reactions and their use on targeted drug distribution.

. . .

Comments are closed.