Go to MPEP - Table of Contents
2640 Decision on Request [R-7] - 2600 Optional Inter Partes Reexamination
2640 Decision on Request [R-7]
35 U.S.C. 312 Determination of issue by Director
(a) REEXAMINATION.- Not later than 3 months after the filing of a request for inter partes reexamination under section 311, the Director shall determine whether a substantial new question of patentability affecting any claim of the patent concerned is raised by the request, with or without consideration of other patents or printed publications. The existence of a substantial new question of patentability is not precluded by the fact that a patent or printed publication was previously cited by or to the Office or considered by the Office.
(b) RECORD.- A record of the Director's determination under subsection (a) shall be placed in the official file of the patent, and a copy shall be promptly given or mailed to the owner of record of the patent and to the third-party requester.
(c) FINAL DECISION.- A determination by the Director under subsection (a) shall be final and non-appealable. Upon a determination that no substantial new question of patentability has been raised, the Director may refund a portion of the inter partes reexamination fee required under section 311.
37 CFR 1.923 Examiner's determination on the request for inter partes reexamination.
**>Within three months following the filing date of a request for inter partes reexamination under § 1.915, the examiner will consider the request and determine whether or not a substantial new question of patentability affecting any claim of the patent is raised by the request and the prior art citation. The examiner's determination will be based on the claims in effect at the time of the determination, will become a part of the official file of the patent, and will be mailed to the patent owner at the address as provided for in § 1.33(c) and to the third party requester. If the examiner determines that no substantial new question of patentability is present, the examiner shall refuse the request and shall not order inter partes reexamination.<
37 CFR 1.925 Partial refund if request for inter partes reexamination is not ordered.
Where inter partes reexamination is not ordered, a refund of a portion of the fee for requesting inter partes reexamination will be made to the requester in accordance with § 1.26(c).
37 CFR 1.927 Petition to review refusal to order inter partes reexamination
The third party requester may seek review by a petition to the Director under § 1.181 within one month of the mailing date of the examiner's determination refusing to order inter partes reexamination. Any such petition must comply with § 1.181(b). If no petition is timely filed or if the decision on petition affirms that no substantial new question of patentability has been raised, the determination shall be final and nonappealable.
Prior to making a determination on the request for reexamination, the examiner must request a litigation * search by the Scientific and Technical Information Center (STIC) to check if the patent has been, or is, involved in litigation. A copy of the STIC search is scanned into the IFW reexamination file history. The "Litigation Review" box on the reexamination IFW file jacket form is completed to indicate that the review was conducted and the results thereof, and the reexamination file jacket form is then scanned into the IFW reexamination file history. In the rare instance where the record of the reexamination proceeding or the STIC search indicates that additional information is desirable, guidance as to making an additional litigation search may be obtained from the library of the Office of the Solicitor. If the patent is or was involved in litigation, and a paper referring to the Court proceeding has been filed, reference to the paper by number should be made in the "Litigation Review" box of the IFW file jacket form as, for example, "litigation; see paper filed 7-14-2005." If a litigation records search is already noted on the file, the examiner need not repeat or update it.
If litigation has concluded or is taking place in the patent on which a request for reexamination has been filed, the request must be promptly brought to the attention of the Reexamination Legal Advisor assigned to the case who should review the decision on the request and any examiner's action to ensure conformance to the current Office litigation policy and guidelines. See MPEP § 2686.04.
35 U.S.C. 312 requires that the Director of the Office determine whether or not a "substantial new question of patentability" affecting any claim of the patent of which reexamination is desired, is raised in the request not later than 3 months after the filing date of a request. See also MPEP § 2641. Such a determination may be made with or without consideration of other patents or printed publications in addition to those cited in the request. No input from the patent owner is considered prior to the determination. See Patlex v. Mossinghoff, 771 F.2d 480, 226 USPQ 985 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
The patent claims in effect at the time of the determination will be the basis for deciding whether a substantial new question of patentability has been raised (37 CFR 1.923). See MPEP § 2643. Amendments which (A) have been filed in a copending reexamination proceeding in which the reexamination certificate has not been issued, or (B) have been submitted in a reissue application on which no reissue patent has been issued, will not be considered or commented upon when deciding a request for reexamination.
The decision on the request for reexamination has as its main object either the granting or denial of the request for reexamination. This decision is based on whether or not "a substantial new question of patentability" is found. A **>determination as to patentability/unpatentability< of the claims is not made in the decision >on the request<; rather, it is made later, during the examination stage of the reexamination proceeding >if reexamination is ordered<. Accordingly, no prima facie case of unpatentability need be found to grant an order for reexamination. >If a decision to deny an order for reexamination is made, the requester may seek review by a petition under 37 CFR 1.181. See 37 CFR 1.927.< It should be noted that a decision to deny the request for reexamination is equivalent to a final holding (subject >only< to a petition pursuant to 37 CFR 1.927 for review of the denial), that the **>request failed to raise a substantial new question of patentability based on< the cited art (patents and printed publications).
Where there have been prior decisions relating to the patent, see MPEP § 2642.
It is only necessary to establish that a substantial new question of patentability exists as to one of the patent claims in order to grant reexamination. The Office's determination in both the order for reexamination and the examination stage of the reexamination will generally be limited solely to a review of the claim(s) for which reexamination was requested. If the requester was interested in having all of the claims reexamined, requester had the opportunity to include them in its request for reexamination. However, if the requester chose not to do so, those claim(s) for which reexamination was not requested will generally not be reexamined by the Office. It is further noted that 35 U.S.C. 311(b)(2) requires that a requester "set forth the pertinency and manner of applying cited prior art to every claim for which reexamination is requested." If the requester fails to apply the art to certain claims, then the requester is not statutorily entitled to reexamination of such claims. If a request fails to set forth the pertinency and manner of applying the cited art to any claim for which reexamination is requested as required by 37 CFR 1.915(b), that claim will generally not be reexamined. The decision to reexamine any claim for which reexamination has not been requested lies within the sole discretion of the Office, to be exercised based on the individual facts and situation of each individual case. If the Office chooses to reexamine any claim for which reexamination has not been requested, it is permitted to do so. In addition, the Office may always initiate a reexamination on its own initiative of the non-requested claim (35 U.S.C. 303(a)). See Sony Computer Entertainment America Inc. v. Dudas, **>85 USPQ2d 1594 (E.D. Va 2006). It is to be noted that if a request fails to set forth the pertinency and manner of applying the cited art to any claim for which reexamination is requested as required by 37 CFR 1.915, a filing date will not be awarded to the request. See MPEP § 2617 and § 2627.<
One instance where reexamination was carried out only for the claims requested occurred in reexamination control numbers 95/000,093 and 95/000,094, where reexamination was requested for patent claims which were being litigated, but not for claims which were not being litigated. In that instance, the entirety of the reexamination was limited to the claims which were being litigated, for which reexamination was requested. The Office's authority to carry out reexamination only for the claims for which reexamination was requested in reexamination control numbers 95/000,093 and 95/000,094 was confirmed by the court in Sony, supra. See MPEP § 2642 for the situation where there was a prior final federal court decision as to the invalidity/unenforceability of some of the claims, as another example of non-examination of some of the patent claims in a reexamination proceeding.
The decision on the request for reexamination should discuss all of the patent claims requested for reexamination. The examiner should limit the discussion of those claims in the order for reexamination as to whether a substantial new question of patentability has been raised. The examiner SHOULD NOT reject claims in the order for reexamination. Rather, any rejection of the claims will be made in the first Office action that normally will accompany the order for reexamination. See MPEP § 2660.
The Director of the Office has the authority to order reexamination only for a request which raises a substantial new question of patentability. The substantial new question of patentability requirement protects patentees from having to respond to, or participate in, unjustified reexaminations. See Patlex v. Mossinghoff, 771 F.2d 480, 226 USPQ 985, 989 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
I. REQUEST FOR REEXAMINATION OF THE PATENT AFTER REISSUE OF THE PATENT
Where a request for reexamination is filed on a patent after a reissue patent for that patent has already issued, reexamination will be denied, because the patent on which the request for reexamination is based has been surrendered. Should reexamination of the reissued patent be desired, a new request for reexamination, including and based on the specification and claims of the reissue patent, must be filed. Where the reissue patent issues after the filing of a request for reexamination, see MPEP § 2686.03.
II. SECOND OR SUBSEQUENT REQUEST FILED DURING REEXAMINATION
See MPEP § 2686.01 for a comprehensive discussion of the situation where a first reexamination is pending at the time a second or subsequent request for reexamination is to be decided, and one of the two is an inter partes reexamination. The present subsection merely provides guidance on the standard for the substantial new question of patentability to be applied in the decision on the second or subsequent request.
If a second or subsequent request for reexamination is filed (by any party permitted to do so) while a first reexamination is pending, the presence of a substantial new question of patentability depends on the art (patents and printed publications) cited by the second or subsequent request. The cited art will be reviewed for a substantial new question of patentability based on the following guidelines:
A. If one of the two reexaminations is an inter partes reexamination, the following possibilities exist:
(1) An ordered inter partes reexamination is pending, and an ex parte reexamination request is subsequently filed.
(2) An ordered inter partes reexamination is pending, and an inter partes reexamination request is subsequently filed.
(3) An ordered ex parte reexamination is pending, and an inter partes reexamination request is subsequently filed.
In all three instances, if the subsequent request includes the art which raised a substantial new question in the earlier pending reexamination, then reexamination should be ordered only if the art cited raises a substantial new question of patentability which is different from that raised in the earlier pending reexamination. If the art cited in the subsequent request raises the same substantial new question of patentability as that raised in the earlier pending reexamination, the subsequent request should be denied. Where the request raises a different substantial new question of patentability as to some patent claims, but not as to others, the request would be granted in part; see the order issued in reexamination control number 90/007,843 and 90/007,844. If the subsequent request does not include the art which raised the substantial new question of patentability in the earlier pending reexamination, reexamination may or may not be ordered, depending on whether the different art cited raises a substantial new question of patentability.
The second or subsequent request for reexamination may *>provide information raising< a substantial new question of patentability with respect to any new or amended claim which has been proposed in the first (or prior) pending reexamination proceeding. **>However, in order for the second or subsequent request for reexamination to be granted, the second or subsequent requester must independently provide a substantial new question of patentability which is different from that raised in the pending reexamination for the claims in effect at the time of the determination. The decision on the second or subsequent request is thus based on the claims in effect at the time of the determination (37 CFR 1.923). If a "different" substantial new question of patentability is not provided by the second or subsequent request for the claims in effect at the time of the determination, the second or subsequent request for reexamination must be denied since the Office is only authorized by statute to grant a reexamination proceeding based on a substantial new question of patentability "affecting any claim of the patent." See 35 U.S.C. 312(a). Accordingly, there must be at least one substantial new question of patentability established for the existing claims in the patent in order to grant reexamination.
Once the second or subsequent request has provided a "different" substantial new question of patentability based on the claims in effect at the time of the determination, the second or subsequent request for reexamination may also provide information< directed to any proposed new or amended claim in the pending reexamination, to permit examination of the entire patent package. *>The information directed to a proposed new or amended claim in the pending reexamination is addressed during the later filed reexamination (where a substantial new question of patentability is raised in the later filed request for reexamination for the existing claims in the patent), in order to permit examination of the entire patent package. When a proper basis for the second or subsequent request for reexamination is established, it< would be a waste of resources to prevent addressing the proposed new or amended claims, by requiring parties to wait until the certificate issues for the proposed new or amended claims, and only then to file a new reexamination request challenging the claims as revised via the certificate. This also prevents a patent owner from simply amending all the claims in some nominal fashion to preclude a subsequent reexamination request during the pendency of the reexamination proceeding.
Where reexamination is granted on a second or subsequent request, but the patent owner can clearly show that the second or subsequent request was filed for purposes of harassment, the patent owner can petition under 37 CFR 1.182 that the second or subsequent request should be suspended. If such a petition is granted, prosecution on the second or subsequent reexamination would be suspended until conclusion of proceedings in the first reexamination. In such an instance, merger of the second (or subsequent) reexamination with the first would unduly prolong the conclusion of the pending reexamination and be inconsistent with the requirement that the reexamination proceeding be conducted with special dispatch.
Where an ordered inter partes reexamination is pending, and an inter partes reexamination request is subsequently filed, the prohibition provision of 37 CFR 1.907(a) must be borne in mind. Once an order for inter partes reexamination has been issued, neither the third party requester of the inter partes reexamination, nor its privies, may file a subsequent request for inter partes reexamination of the same patent until an inter partes reexamination certificate has been issued, unless expressly authorized by the Director of the Office. Note that 37 CFR 1.907(a) tracks the statutory provision of 35 U.S.C. 317(a). A petition for such express authorization is a request for extraordinary relief and will not be granted where there is a more conventional avenue to accomplish the same purpose and provide relief analogous to that requested. See also Cantello v. Rasmussen, 220 USPQ 664 (Comm'r Pat. 1982) for the principle that extraordinary relief will not normally be considered if the rules provide an avenue for obtaining the relief sought.
>For additional treatment of cases in which either the first or subsequent request for examination, or both, is/are an inter partes reexamination proceeding, see MPEP § 2640 and § 2686.01.
For additional treatment of cases in which a first ex parte reexamination is pending at the time a second or subsequent request for ex parte reexamination is to be decided, see MPEP § 2283.<
Go to MPEP - Table of Contents