America Invents the Supplemental Examination, But Retains the Duty of Candor: Questions and Implications

6 Akron Intell. Prop. J. (forthcoming 2012) Akron Intellectual Property Journal, Vol. 6, 2012, Forthcoming

29 Pages Posted: 28 Mar 2012

See all articles by Lisa A. Dolak

Lisa A. Dolak

Syracuse University - College of Law

Date Written: March 27, 2012

Abstract

The America Invents Act (“AIA”) authorizes the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) to undertake a “supplemental examination” of an issued patent to “consider, reconsider, or correct information believed to be relevant to the patent.” It further bars the federal courts from holding a patent unenforceable “on the basis of conduct relating to information” considered during supplemental examination. Supplemental examination will obviate inequitable conduct challenges even if patent applicants have withheld or misrepresented material information with the intent to deceive the USPTO.

The introduction of supplemental examination into the patent system raises a number of questions. In particular, the new law includes a requirement that the USPTO refer incidents of suspected prosecution-related fraud to the Attorney General for investigation if the USPTO becomes aware of such circumstances. Registered practitioners are not only duty-bound, however, to refrain from fraud. They, as well as inventors and others who participate substantively in patent prosecution and reexamination, have a broader duty of candor. Under pre-AIA law, both the patent owner and the responsible practitioner could be penalized as a result of an intentional violation of the duty of candor. Using supplemental examination, however, an owner can decouple the enforceability of the patent from a prior candor violation, leaving the practitioner who is alleged or suspected to have committed the violation to face any potential consequences. These changes create implementation issues for the USPTO, potential ethics and tactical issues for practitioners, and questions about the impact of the new proceeding on the patent system, generally. This paper considers these duty-of-candor-related issues — issues that the USPTO, the courts, patent owners, and patent challengers may face in the wake of the enactment of the AIA’s provisions relating to supplemental examination.

Keywords: patent, supplemental examination, America Invents Act, ethics, inequitable conduct

JEL Classification: K20, O34

Suggested Citation

Dolak, Lisa A., America Invents the Supplemental Examination, But Retains the Duty of Candor: Questions and Implications (March 27, 2012). 6 Akron Intell. Prop. J. (forthcoming 2012) Akron Intellectual Property Journal, Vol. 6, 2012, Forthcoming. Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2029691

Lisa A. Dolak (Contact Author)

Syracuse University - College of Law ( email )

Syracuse, NY 13244-1030
United States

Register to save articles to
your library

Register

Paper statistics

Downloads
64
Abstract Views
520
rank
355,775
PlumX Metrics