On April 5, 2018, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) revised MPEP § 2136.03 to provide additional guidance regarding the effective prior art dates of references cited under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 102(e). Pre-AIA § 102(e) prohibits an applicant from receiving a patent if the invention was described in a third party’s published patent application or granted patent that was filed before the applicant’s date of invention.
But what if the published patent application or granted patent was filed after the applicant’s date of invention, but claims priority to a provisional application that was filed before applicant’s date of invention? In light the Federal Circuit’s decision in Dynamic Drinkware, LLC, v. National Graphics, Inc., 800 F.3d 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2015), the USPTO revised MPEP § 2136.03 in January 2018 to indicate that granted patents (i.e., U.S. patents) have effective prior art dates under § 102(e) based on the filing date of an underlying provisional application only if the subject matter relied upon in the patent is described in the provisional application, and at least one of the issued claims is supported by the written description of the provisional application in compliance with pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph.
Late last year, the Federal Circuit decided Amgen v. Sanofi, 872 F.3d 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2017), which extended this principle to published patent applications (i.e., U.S. patent application publications and international application publications). Accordingly, on April 5, 2018, the USPTO further revised MPEP § 2136.03 to indicate that, as with granted patents, the critical reference date under § 102(e) for published patent applications may be the filing date of an underlying provisional application if the subject matter relied upon in the published application is described in the provisional application, and at least one of the claims of the published application is supported by the written description of the provisional application.
In light of these changes, patent applicants facing rejections under § 102(e) should look for ways to argue that none of the claims of the cited reference are supported by the underlying provisional application. On the other hand, applicants looking to bolster the prior art effect of their patent application should consider presenting at least one claim that has full § 112 support in the provisional application before the application publishes.
A copy of the USPTO’s Memorandum discussing the update to MPEP § 2136.03 can be accessed here.
Amanda K. Murphy, Ph.D. Partner London +44 (0)20 7864 2814 Email
Adriana L. Burgy Partner Washington, DC +1 202 408 4345 Email
Copyright © 2018 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.
November 11-13, 2024
October 29-30, 2024
October 24-26, 2024
October 20-23, 2024
October 19-22, 2024
October 17, 2024
Due to international data regulations, we’ve updated our privacy policy. Click here to read our privacy policy in full.
I understandWe 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.
Accept DeclineFinnegan 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.
