September 24, 2021
Authored and Edited by M. Paul Barker; Michele C. Bosch; Jill K. MacAlpine, Ph.D.; Amanda K. Murphy, Ph.D.; Adriana L. Burgy; Thomas L. Irving; Stacy Lewis†
Interpreting the language of the America Invents Act (AIA) remains an exciting challenge. The effective date provisions of the AIA transition sections 3(n)(1) and 3(n)(2) are no exceptions. Part 1 of this series discussed a recent Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“Board”) decision interpreting the language of § 3(n)(1) https://www.finnegan.com/en/insights/blogs/prosecution-first/aia-3n1-effective-filing-date-provisions-part-one-a-look-at-pgr-eligibiity.html. AIA § 3(n)(1) defines the effective date of the AIA’s amendments to 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103.
In this Part 2 installment, we discuss AIA § 3(n)(2). AIA § 3(n)(2) covers how certain sections of the old pre-AIA law will continue to apply to all claims of some patents along with the new AIA law.
(n) EFFECTIVE DATE. —
(1) IN GENERAL. — Except as otherwise provided in this section, the amendments made by this section shall take effect upon the expiration of the 18-month period beginning on the date of the enactment of this Act [March 15, 2013], and shall apply to any application for patent, and to any patent issuing thereon, that contains or contained at any time—
(A) a claim to a claimed invention that has an effective filing date as defined in section 100(i) of title 35, United States Code, that is on or after the effective date described in this paragraph; or
(B) a specific reference under section 120, 121, or 365(c) of title 35, United States Code, to any patent or application that contains or contained at any time such a claim.
(2) INTERFERING PATENTS.—The provisions of sections 102(g), 135, and 291 of title 35, United States Code, as in effect on the day before the effective date set forth in paragraph (1) of this subsection [March 15, 2013], shall apply to each claim of an application for patent, and any patent issued thereon, for which the amendments made by this section also apply, if such application or patent contains or contained at any time—
(A) a claim to an invention having an effective filing date as defined in section 100(i) of title 35, United States Code, that occurs before the effective date set forth in paragraph (1) of this subsection [March 15, 2013]; or
(B) a specific reference under section 120, 121, or 365(c) of title 35, United States Code, to any patent or application that contains or contained at any time such a claim.
(Emphasis and bracketed dates added.)
AIA § (3)(n)(2) expressly brings pre-AIA §§ 102(g), 135, and 291 into play for certain patents and applications.[1]
As seen below, the provisions of AIA § 3(n) give rise to the following three scenarios:
1. If all claims in a patent application have an effective filing date before March 16, 2013, only the pre-AIA law applies and neither section 3(n)(1) nor 3(n)(2) of the AIA applies.
2. If all claims in a patent application have an effective filing date after March 15, 2013, the AIA prior art provisions, exceptions, and definitions apply through transition section 3(n)(1).
3. However, if a patent application contains (or ever contained) at least one claim with an effective filing date before March 16, 2013, and at least one claim with an effective filing date after March 15, 2013 (so-called “transition applications”), the AIA law applies ALONG WITH pre-AIA §§ 102(g), 135, and 291.[2]
As the more creative among our readers have likely determined, there may be times when a patent drafter deliberately creates a “transition application,” such as to potentially eliminate a Metallizing Engineering forfeiture if an inventor secretly used a claimed process more than a year before applying for patent protection, or to take advantage of the provisions of AIA 35 U.S.C. §102(c) to eliminate a novelty problem for inventions that result from joint research agreements. However, careful consideration must be made of the implications of such a decision, including expanding the temporal and geographic scope of the available prior art available (since all the AIA prior art provisions will apply).
[1]This means lab notebooks still may be important!
[2]AIA Section 3(n); 78 Fed. Reg. 11,030 (Feb. 14, 2013).
†Stacy Lewis is a Law Clerk at Finnegan.
Copyright © 2021 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. One of our lawyers will be happy to discuss the possibility of representation with you. Additional disclaimer information.
June 10-12, 2024
San Francisco
Lecture
Patent Protection for Software-Related Inventions in Europe and the USA Training Course
June 5, 2024
Hybrid
10th Annual Georgia Asian Pacific American Bar Association Gala
May 29, 2024
Atlanta
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.