IP: What every bioscience company needs to know about provisional applications
The upcoming changes to the U.S. patent law, and particularly the transition from a first-to-invent to a first-to-file system on March 16, 2013, brings with it some changes that bioscience companies should be aware of and which could adversely impact pending patent rights.
January 29, 2013 at 02:30 AM
4 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Law.com
The upcoming changes to the U.S. patent law, and particularly the transition from a first-to-invent to a first-to-file system on March 16, 2013, brings with it some changes that bioscience companies should be aware of and which could adversely impact pending patent rights.
Bioscience patent applications are frequently filed as provisional applications, applications which are not examined and do not need to have claims. The provisional application must be converted to a regular “utility” application within one year of the filing of the provisional application. The lack of formalities required for provisional applications has made them particularly popular with universities and bioscience companies, where pending publication and presentation deadlines sometimes require immediate filings and the desire to stay ahead of one's competitors urges immediate, if incomplete, provisional filings. Indeed, a “cover sheet” provisional can be filed and is so named because the inventor's manuscript or data are filed without substantial change. The practice has always been fraught with danger; however, the coming changes to U.S. patent law render the practice even more dangerous and may suggest a more immediate conversion to a complete utility application and a review of pending provisional applications prior to the first-to-file transition.
A provisional application may provide an effective priority date for all claims in a utility application (U.S. or Patent Cooperation Treaty) filed on or after March 16, 2013, only if the provisional application provides support for all claims of the utility application under 35 U.S.C. 112 (112 support). This section of the law requires that patent applicants fully disclose and support their claims to an invention. Although the requirements are relatively unchanged from the previous law, other proposed changes in the rules of practice before the U.S. Patent Office appear to indicate that a more careful examination of this priority claim will now be required and that the ability to rely on the priority of some types of provisional applications will be narrowed. Further, depending on such priority, the examination rules for an application may vary. In particular, an application may be examined under the potentially stricter first-to-file rules instead of the older first-to-invent rules.
The practical effect of the proposed rule changes is that the filing of a “cover sheet” provisional application consisting of a publication, presentation or the like may no longer provide an enforceable priority date for claims in an application filed on or after March 16, 2013, if Section 112 support is absent from the provisional application. In the case of a currently pending provisional application, a lack of 112 support may prevent a subsequent application from taking advantage of rules allowing examination under the old first-to-invent rules. As a result of such changes, applicants should consider:
- Whether the filing and preparation of a utility, or at least a well-developed provisional, to preserve the earliest priority date possible is advisable
- Whether such a filing should be completed prior to March 16, 2013.
Provisional applications and even “cover sheet” provisional applications will continue to be useful in the future to provide some protection for imminent disclosures or subsequent developments, as these applications protect such disclosures from being cited as prior art in subsequent applications. However, it is worth considering following up the filing of such a “cover sheet” application with another application with 112 support for all potential embodiments as soon as possible to eliminate the potential of third-party prior art and/or to allow examination under the old first-to-invent rules. The bioscience applicant must, as always, remain abreast of legal changes in a rapidly changing legal landscape.
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
© 2024 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 AllAfter 2024's Regulatory Tsunami, Financial Services Firms Hope Storm Clouds Break
2024 in Review: Judges Met Out Punishments for Ex-Apple, FDIC, Moody's Legal Leaders
Financial Watchdog Alleges Walmart Forced Army of Gig-Worker Drivers to Receive Pay Through High-Fee Accounts
Trending Stories
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
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