February 20, 2014
Authored and Edited by Leythem A. Wall; Anthony C. Tridico, Ph.D.
With over 1000 IPRs and CBMs already filed and PGR eligible patents beginning to issue, can we expect similar growth of PGR filings? The European Patent Office (EPO) Opposition may provide us a bit of a crystal ball regarding what we can expect from PGR. As previously reported in the AIA blog, there are a number of significant differences such as cost, effect on later litigation and anonymity. However, can these really be seen as substantive differences that would lead to different results and trends than we currently see at the EPO. Both procedures assess anticipation (novelty) and obviousness (inventive step). Both procedures take into account formal matters (written description in the United States, added matter in the EPO) and do not allow broadening of patents. Whilst clarity is not a ground of opposition at the EPO, when amended claims are filed during the opposition process they have to satisfy clarity requirements.
Overall, about 5.5% of European patents granted by the EPO are opposed. Of those, about 1/3 are revoked, 1/3 are maintained in amended form and 1/3 are maintained as granted. Most revocations occur in the area of medical or veterinary science (IPC class G21). The greatest proportion of successful oppositions (i.e. over 60% of patents opposed are revoked) is found in nuclear physics and nuclear engineering (IPC class G21). This is compared with a 6% success rate with storing or distributing gases or liquids (IPC class F17).
The statistics on revocation at the EPO also make interesting reading with 43% of patents revoked in 2010 and 2011 being for lack of inventive step, 22% for lack of novelty, 11% for added matter and 5% for insufficiency.
It does not appear there would be too many differences between the findings in a PGR and an EPO opposition for anticipation and novelty grounds. However, the clear advantage of PGR over IPR is challenging written description and enablement, which account for over 15% of the basis of revocation at the EPO. In the area of added matter (U.S. written description), the EPO has become increasingly strict in recent years as demonstrated by the sizeable 11% of revocations being for just this ground. Will we see a similar trend evolve at the PTAB?
Of course the best barometer for comparing the two procedures will be results from corresponding PGR’s and EPO oppositions for the same patent families and claims. As time passes and the PGR decisions roll in it will be interesting to see where there are trends and differences in the outcomes between the two procedures.
Copyright © 2014 Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP.
DISCLAIMER: Although we wish to hear from you, information exchanged in this blog cannot and does not create an attorney-client relationship. Please do not post any information that you consider to be personal or confidential. If you wish for Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP to consider representing you, in order to establish an attorney-client relationship you must first enter a written representation agreement with Finnegan. Contact us for additional information. Additional disclaimer information.
Lecture
Patent Protection for Software-Related Inventions in Europe and the USA Training Course
June 5, 2024
Hybrid
Webinar
May 9, 2024
Webinar
Workshop
Life Sciences Workshop: Updates and Key Trends in Pharmaceutical and Biotechnology IP Law
May 2, 2024
Cambridge
At the PTAB Blog
USPTO Releases Notice of Proposed Rule Making Codifying Several Precedential Case Factors
April 25, 2024
Due to international data regulations, we’ve updated our privacy policy. Click here to read our privacy policy in full.
We use cookies on this website to provide you with the best user experience. By accepting cookies, you agree to our use of cookies. Please note that if you opt not to accept or if you disable cookies, the “Your Finnegan” feature on this website will be disabled as well. For more information on how we use cookies, please see our Privacy Policy.
Finnegan is thrilled to announce the launch of our new blog, Ad Law Buzz, devoted solely to breaking news, developments, trends, and analysis in advertising law.