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

7th International Conference on Biofuels and Bioenergy

June 25-26, 2026

Edinburgh

Charitable

Bridges From School to Work Gala 2026

June 22, 2026

Washington, DC

Charitable

Banding Together 2026

June 18, 2026

Washington, DC

Conference

17th Summit on Biosimilars & Innovator Biologics

June 2-3, 2026

New York

Articles

Article_D.-Mass-Patent-Litigation-Update-October-2024

D. Mass. Patent Litigation Update: April 2026

June 1, 2026

At the PTAB Blog

Consistency Is Key – USPTO Issues Three New Informative Decisions

May 29, 2026

At the PTAB Blog

Discretion All the Way Down: USPTO Uses a Discretionary IPR Denial to Justify a    
§ 325(d) EPR Denial

May 28, 2026

Articles

Colorado Replaces Landmark AI Act: An Overview of the New SB 26-189 Framework

May 26, 2026

At the PTAB Blog

Claim Disclaimer Derails Instituted IPR in Freightcar America

May 26, 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