直 Japanese PDF Font
  • Our Professionals
  • Our Work
  • Our Insights
  • Offices
  • Firm
  • Careers
Finnegan
  • Articles & Books
    • Ad Law Buzz Blog
    • At the PTAB Blog
    • European IP Blog
    • Federal Circuit IP Blog
    • INCONTESTABLE® Blog
    • Prosecution First Blog
  • Events & Webinars
  • IP Updates
  • Podcasts
    • AI + Finnegan
    • AI + Copyright
    • AI + Patent
    • AI + Privacy
    • AI + Trade Secrets
    • AI + Trademark
  • Unified Patent Court (UPC) Hub

Prosecution First Blog

The First Year of First-Inventor-to-File: Applicants, Patentees, Assignees, and Petitioners Adjusting to the New Regime

March 18, 2014

Authored and Edited by Adriana L. Burgy

Anniversaries invite reflection. On the one-year anniversary of the first-inventor-to-file (FITF) provisions of the America Invents Act (AIA), we look back at the past year.

On March 16, 2013, many patent applications were filed just prior to the implementation of FITF. But many parties filed applications under the new rules, perhaps taking advantage of opportunities that they may afford.

Eighteen months ago, on a Sunday night at midnight, AIA Trials replaced inter partes reexaminations (IPX), but not before parties filed what the Board calls the “bubble” of cases—the last IPXes under the old rules. Those late-filed IPXes continue to work their way through the Board.

That night, IPR and CBM practice joined the ranks of essential litigation considerations. While many still do not fully understand the proceedings, parties should consider them as a part of overall litigation strategy, given the speed and effectiveness of early petitions. To date, parties have filed over 1,000 IPR and CBM petitions (of which over 100 are CBMs). And soon brave parties will file post-grant review (PGR) petitions on patents issuing from applications subject to FITF provisions of AIA, further altering the post-issuance landscape.

Parties are also taking advantage of preissuance submissions, filing over 1200 in the first fifteen months of availability. Supplemental examination filings are slowly increasing, with at least two district court stays related to those proceedings.

The Office no longer allows patents on tax strategies. The Best Mode requirement is nearly defunct. The AIA codified the § 101 prohibition on human organism patentability. AIA § 33(a). The inventor’s oath-or-declaration rules also changed dramatically, allowing assignees a broader role in filing for and prosecuting patents. 35 U.S.C. § 118.

In the year since the changeover, the Office has examined hundreds of Track One applications. To date for the 2014 fiscal year, the Office has granted 456 Track One patents. And the Office has issued some first-inventor-to-file patents in those twelve months, defying historical pendency rates exceeding three years. A brave new world, indeed.

We will also see the first AIA patents in action—in litigation, in due diligence, in freedom-to-operate, and in AIA trials, as well as in licensing, opinion, and contract work. The complexity astounds. What an exciting time to practice patent law.

Tags

35 U.S.C. § 101, First to file (FTF), Obviousness (35 USC § 103)

Contacts

Adriana L. Burgy
Partner
Washington, DC
+1 202 408 4345
Email

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. 

Related Insights

Conference

IAM Live: Navigating the UPC 2026

November 3, 2026

Paris

Hybrid Conference

Intellectual Property Law Institute 2026 – New York

September 28-29, 2026

New York

Seminar

IAM and WTR Live: Australasia IP Forum 2026

August 11, 2026

Melbourne

Webinar

Successful Strategies to Win Alice Motions and Fee Awards in Patent Cases Against Non-Practicing Entities

July 22, 2026

Webinar

Webinar

Early Motions in Trade Secret Litigation – Offensive and Defensive Insights

July 15, 2026

Webinar

Federal Circuit IP Blog

Federal Circuit Vacates and Remands Infringement and Damages Judgment After Erroneous Verdict Form and Eligibility Analysis

July 8, 2026

Webinar

Inventive Step in Europe and the US: Comparing the UPC, EPO and National Approaches

July 8, 2026

Webinar

Federal Circuit IP Blog

“2” Does Not Provide Written Description Support for “1”: Federal Circuit Affirms District Court’s Invalidation of Patent

July 8, 2026

Articles

When the Classroom Goes Dark: Lessons from the Canvas Breach for Corporate Cyber Preparedness

July 8, 2026

Due to international data regulations, we’ve updated our privacy policy. Click here to read our privacy policy in full.

  • Privacy
  • Disclaimer
  • Legal Notices
  • Fraud Alert
  • EEO Statement
  • Cookies
  • Contact Us

© 2026 Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP