IP: We passed the America Invents Act—now what?
Five tips to help companies prepare for the impending implementation of the AIAs provisions
November 15, 2011 at 08:04 AM
5 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Law.com
This article is the first in a series on the America Invents Act
Like the brave voyagers of Star Trek's Starship Enterprise, we are about to boldly go where no one has gone before. While based loosely on patent systems around the globe, the America Invents Act (AIA) and rules to be promulgated to affect its implementation, raise myriad new issues of statutory and regulatory interpretation for which existing patent systems offer little guidance. We've embarked on a continuing mission to predict and react to the federal courts' and the U.S. Patent & Trademark Office's (USPTO) resolution of these issues, and to devise effective prosecution and litigation strategies accordingly.
Some of AIA's provisions commenced immediately upon its Sept. 16, 2011 enactment, like changes to patent marking laws that nullified a large number of false marking suits and a change to joinder requirements in new infringement suits. A 15 percent increase in most USPTO fees kicked-in Sept. 26. The momentous change from “first-to-invent” to “first-to-file” launches March 16, 2013. Will your company be ready?
This series of articles offers practical, concrete steps companies can take in the coming months to prepare for March 16, 2013 and for the implementation of AIA's other provisions.
1. www.21stCenturyPatentMarking.com
Companies can already take advantage of AIA's new constructive notice provisions by marking products with the word “patented” or “pat.”, and the web address of a freely accessible Internet webpage associating an image of a product with applicable patent numbers. Patent numbers on the webpage could be hyperlinked to copies of corresponding patents.
Companies that routinely include patent numbers and website information on products might opt to utilize this new virtual marking. To be effective, markings should be applied directly on the product itself, as opposed to the packaging, if possible. This may require modifications to molds or engraving processes. An insufficient patent marking can result in loss of damages from an infringer prior to actual notice to the infringer. Companies' patent marking compliance review policies may also be simplified, as it is no longer necessary to discontinue marking upon a patent's expiration.
2. Warp-speed examination? Okay, but it'll cost you
What would a 21st Century patent system be without the ability to fly through the patent office at warp speed? AIA permits up to 10,000 applicants per fiscal year to request no-cause expedited examination of utility patent applications. Petition fees are $4,800, plus the usual fees for filing, search, examination and excess claims. Eligible applications are limited to four independent claims and 30 total claims. Effective Sept. 16, 2012, AIA gives the USPTO director authority to prioritize examination of applications on inventions likely to be considered important to the national economy or national competitiveness without the hefty petition fees.
3. E-File or pay a snail's tax
To encourage use of the USPTO's electronic filing system, as of Nov. 15, 2011, those who still choose to file patent applications by express mail or other non-electronic means must pay a surcharge of $400 ($200 for small entities).
4. New Year's resolution: Prepare for AIA by updating employment contracts
Start the new year running by updating employment agreements to include an express assignment to the company of inventions an employee may invent during the course of employment, or an acknowledgement by the employee of an obligation to assign to the company all patent rights, title and interest, including the right to claim priority to any patent applications that may be filed directed to such inventions. Trade-offs between language assigning future inventions versus agreeing to assign future inventions are beyond the scope of this article, but should be considered. Similarly, consult state laws to ensure employment agreements contain any applicable notice and other invention-related provisions as may be required in states governing the agreements.
Employment agreements and assignments for specific patent applications also should be updated to indicate each signing inventor authorized the assigned application(s) to be made, and that each signing inventor believes himself or herself to be the original inventor or an original joint inventor of a claimed invention in the application(s). AIA indicates having this language in an assignment will satisfy new requirements for patent declarations, effective Sept. 16, 2012. AIA will permit entities to which there is an obligation to assign to file an application even if an inventor refuses to sign a declaration. Including assignment language in employment agreements can avoid costly petitions in these situations.
5. Is it safe to let the cat out of the bag?
As we'll see in next month's installment, publications and commercial activities will become increasingly important under AIA. Companies should consider what trade shows or conferences they are likely to attend in 2012, identify any projects under development they intend to unveil at those events, and prepare and file patent applications prior to the events.
If not practical to file even a provisional patent application before the event, so long as foreign rights (which may be jeopardized by any pre-filing disclosure) are not important, a company should verify procedures are in place to meticulously document what, when, where and to whom any pre-filing disclosures are made.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2025 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllCrypto Industry Eyes Legislation to Clarify Regulatory Framework
SEC Official Hints at More Restraint With Industry Bars, Less With Wells Meetings
4 minute readTrump Fires EEOC Commissioners, Kneecapping Democrat-Controlled Civil Rights Agency
Trending Stories
- 1Law Firms Expand Scope of Immigration Expertise, Amid Blitz of Trump Orders
- 2Latest Boutique Combination in Florida Continues Am Law 200 Merger Activity
- 3Sarno da Costa D’Aniello Maceri LLC Announces Addition of New Office in Eatontown, NJ, and Named Partner
- 4Friday Newspaper
- 5Public Notices/Calendars
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250