United States: "Why, I Declare" … Proper Use Of Evidentiary Declarations Under New (Post-AIA) Rule 37 C.F.R. 1.130

The Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (AIA) was signed into law on September 16, 2011. While the AIA alters U.S. patent practice in several ways, perhaps the most significant change brought about by the law is the switch from a "first to invent" to a "first inventor to file" system, largely for purposes of harmonizing U.S. practice with the majority of other countries. This article explains the different ways that declarations can be used for evidentiary purposes under AIA rules and provides practical tips for right (and wrong) ways of using declarations.

U.S. utility applications fall under the AIA regime if the application contains or ever contained a claim to an invention with an effective filing date on or after March 16, 2013 or is a continuation, divisional, or continuation-in-part of an earlier application that at any time contained a claim to an invention with an effective filing date on or after March 16, 2013. As of September 2014, based on information provided by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), approximately 34% of currently pending applications filed on or after March 16, 2013 are subject to the requirements of the new law.1

Before describing the use of evidentiary declarations in a post-AIA world, it is important to first understand what qualifies as prior art under the statute.

The AIA Redefines Prior Art and Sets Out Exceptions for Its Application

In addition to the switch to a first inventor to file system, the AIA also overhauled the definitions of what is considered prior art for purposes of assessing the novelty and obviousness of claims during prosecution. In contrast to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. §102, only two subsections of the AIA identify potential prior art. 2

AIA 35 U.S.C. §102(a)(1) is most directly comparable to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. §§102(a) and (b) and is for public disclosures having a public availability date prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention under examination. AIA 35 U.S.C. §102(a)(2) is similar to old 35 U.S.C. §102(e) and is directed to issued or published U.S. patent documents3 "by another" with an effective filing date prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention under examination.

In contrast to pre-AIA rules, the AIA now contains exceptions to prior art identified under §§102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2). That is, even if a prior disclosure of claimed subject matter falls within the scope of §102(a)(1) and/or §102(a)(2), it may not be used in a prior art rejection if one of the exceptions of §§102(b)(1) or 102(b)(2) applies.4

Practice Tip: With respect to the exceptions to §§102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2), it is important for practitioners to remember that §102(b)(1) exceptions apply only to §102(a)(1) prior art and that §102(b)(2) exceptions apply only to §102(a)(2) art, respectively. In other words, the exceptions for §102(b)(2) cannot be applied to §102(a)(1) art and §102(b)(1) exceptions cannot be applied to §102(a)(2) art.

Declarations for §§102(b)(1)(A) and 102(b)(2)(A) Exceptions to Prior Art

While differing in their statutory requirements, the §§102(b)(1)(A) and 102(b)(2)(A) exceptions for art raised under §§102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2), respectively, are exceptions based on "attribution." That is, if an applicant can demonstrate that the potential prior art originated with one or more members of the inventive entity, that art cannot be raised by an Examiner during prosecution or be relied upon for invalidation in litigation or during a post-issuance USPTO proceeding.

For the 35 U.S.C. §102(b)(1)(A) exception to apply to potential prior art under §102(a)(1), the prior art must be (1) a public disclosure made within the one year grace period prior to the effective filing date of a claimed invention, and (2) an "inventor-originated disclosure." That is to say, the subject matter in the publicly disclosed material must be attributable to the inventor, one or more co-inventors, or another who obtained the subject matter directly from the inventor or a co-inventor.

In contrast, for the 35 U.S.C. §102(b)(2)(A) exception to apply to potential prior art under §102(a)(2), the prior art U.S. patent or U.S. patent application publication must disclose subject matter that was obtained from one or more members of the inventive entity either directly or indirectly. Note that in contrast to the exception under §102(b)(1)(A), the §102(b)(2)(A) exception does not contain a grace period.

Under the new AIA regime, rule 37 C.F.R. 1.130(a) sets out the requirements for declarations 5 of attribution which can be used to invoke the §102(b)(1)(A) and the §102(b)(2)(A) exceptions. According to 1.130(a),

when any claim of an application or a patent under reexamination is rejected, the applicant or a patent owner may submit an appropriate affidavit or declaration to disqualify a disclosure as prior art by establishing that the disclosure was made by the inventor, or the subject matter disclosed was obtained directly or indirectly from the inventor or joint inventor.

With respect to drafting Rule 130(a) Declarations of Attribution, they must show sufficient facts, in weight and character, to establish that raised prior art is an inventor-originated disclosure. If the declaration provides both (1) an unequivocal statement from one or more joint inventors that he/she/they invented the potential prior art subject matter, and (2) a reasonable explanation of the presence of additional authors/inventors of the potential prior art subject matter, then the declaration will generally be considered acceptable to disqualify that reference unless evidence to the contrary exists.6

Example of a proper use of a Rule 130(a) Declaration: a company files a patent application claiming an invention and Inventor X is listed on the Application Data Sheet. During prosecution, the Examiner cites a journal article authored by Inventor X and Author Y under §102(a)(1) in a novelty rejection, where the article was publicly available six months before the effective filing date of the application. In response, the patent attorney for the company can file a Rule 130(a) Declaration signed by Inventor X asserting that he is the sole inventor of the subject matter disclosed in the journal article. Inventor X can also explain that Author Y was a lab technician working under his direction and supervision who did not contribute to the conception of the claimed invention. A Rule 130(a) Declaration such as this should be sufficient to establish that the journal article is not prior art to this application because it falls within the §102(b)(1)(A) exception for §102(a)(1) art.

Declarations for §§102(b)(1)(B) and 102(b)(2)(B)

Exceptions to Prior ArtThe §§102(b)(1)(B) and 102(b)(2)(B) exceptions for prior art raised under §§102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2), respectively, are exceptions based on "prior public disclosure" by a third party. In other words, if an applicant can show that the potential prior art subject matter was preceded by an inventor-originated disclosure of the same subject matter, then the prior art can be disqualified.

For the §102(b)(1)(B) exception to apply to potential prior art under §102(a)(1), (1) the third party's disclosure must have been made during the one year grace period of the claimed invention; (2) an inventor-originated disclosure (i.e. a "shielding" disclosure) must have been made prior to the third party's disclosure; and (3) both the third party's disclosure and the inventor-originated disclosure must have disclosed the same subject matter.7

The §102(b)(2)(B) exception can apply if (1) the third party's U.S. patent document is effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention; (2) an inventor-originated disclosure was made prior to the effectively filed date of the third party's U.S. patent document; and (3) both the third party's U.S. patent and the inventor-originated disclosure disclose the same subject matter. There is no grace period for the §102(b)(2)(B) exception.

Rule 37 C.F.R. 1.130(b) sets out the requirements for declarations of prior public disclosure which can be used to invoke the §102(b)(1)(B) and the §102(b)(2)(B) exceptions. Under this rule,

[w]hen any claim of an application or a patent under reexamination is rejected, the applicant or patent owner may submit an appropriate affidavit or declaration to disqualify a disclosure as prior art by establishing that the subject matter disclosed had, before such disclosure was made or before such subject matter was effectively filed, been publicly disclosed by the inventor or a joint inventor or another who obtained the subject matter disclosed directly or indirectly from the inventor or joint inventor.

Practice Tip: Rule 130(b) Declarations of Prior Public Disclosure should be drafted to show sufficient facts, in weight and character, to establish that the potential prior art subject matter was previously publicly disclosed in an inventor-originated disclosure. The declaration must describe the subject matter disclosed with sufficient detail and particularity, provide the date of disclosure, and be accompanied by a copy of the disclosure if it was a printed publication. Notably, the §102(b)(1)(B) or §102(b)(2)(B) exception applies only when there has been a previous inventor-originated public disclosure of the same subject matter as that of a third party's potential art disclosure. The third party's disclosure is construed fairly strictly. If the third party's potential prior art disclosure (the intervening disclosure) discloses broad general description of the subject matter (e.g., a broad class encompassing X) and the inventor's disclosure describes specific subject matter X, then this would be deemed to be the same subject matter. However, an obvious variant of the third party's disclosure would not be deemed to be the same subject matter and the exceptions under §102(b)(1)(B) and §102(b)(2)(B) would not apply.8

Example of a proper use of a Rule 130(b) Declaration: a company files a patent application claiming an invention and an Application Data Sheet listing Inventor X. Two months prior to the effective filing date, Author Y discloses the claimed invention in a journal article, and the Examiner uses this as the basis for a novelty rejection under 35 U.S.C. §102(a)(1). However, unknown to the Examiner and six months prior to the effective filing date of the application, Inventor X publicly disclosed the invention at a scientific conference. In response to the rejection, the company's patent attorney can file a Rule 130(b) Declaration signed by Inventor X stating that he disclosed the invention at the conference, which was four months prior to Author Y's publication. With the declaration, the company's attorney also includes a copy of the printed conference proceeding and a copy of the abstract of the talk presented at the conference by Inventor X. The declaration further explains that the claimed subject matter is the same in both disclosures and that an inventor's oath or declaration under 37 C.F.R. 1.63 has been signed by Inventor X and is already of record. 9 A Rule 130(b) Declaration containing these pieces of information should be sufficient to disqualify Author Y's journal article as prior art.

Formalities of Rule 130 Declarations

As with any evidentiary declaration, and in accordance with pre-AIA practice, the person who signs a declaration under Rule 130 must be someone with knowledge of the facts stated in the declaration itself. This can be anyone from an inventor to a joint inventor, or someone else familiar with the facts.

However, new to AIA declaration procedure, the person who files a Rule 130 Declaration (i.e. the individual signing the transmittal letter) must be someone who may sign a paper under 37 C.F.R. 1.33(b). As such, this person may differ from the individual signing the declaration. If the applicant is an organization or a corporation, a registered patent practitioner must sign the transmittal letter to file the declaration.

Conclusion

With the passage of time and as more patent applications fall under the AIA regime, it will be crucial for patent practitioners to fully understand and make use of the tools available to them under the new system. An effective Rule 130(a) or 130(b) Declaration can disqualify a disclosure which would otherwise be considered prior art under 35 U.S.C. §§102(a)(1) or 102(a)(2). Consequently, a complete understanding of the circumstances with respect to when these declarations may be used during prosecution will be critical for obtaining the broadest possible patent coverage for clients' inventions.

Footnotes

1 2014 USPTO AIA Fall Roadshow Presentation (available at http://www.uspto.gov/aia_implementation/2014_aia_fitf_roadshow_slides.pdf), October 7, 2014, Cupertino, CA.

2 See http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/USCODE-2013-title35/html/USCODE-2013-title35-partII-chap10-sec102.htm for the statutory text of 35 U.S.C. §§102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2).

3 Note: This also includes International (PCT) applications that designate the United States for National Phase entry.

4 See http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/USCODE-2013-title35/html/USCODE-2013-title35-partII-chap10-sec102.htm for the statutory text of 35 U.S.C. §§102(b)(1) and 102(b)(2).

5 While the word "declaration" is used throughout this article, 37 C.F.R. 1.130 applies to affidavits as well. Although these two types of evidence may differ with respect to formalistic requirements, substantively they are considered identical.

6 2014 USPTO AIA Fall Roadshow Presentation (available at http://www.uspto.gov/aia_implementation/2014_aia_fitf_roadshow_slides.pdf), October 7, 2014, Cupertino, CA; see also, MPEP §717.01.

7 Note that according to its training materials, the USPTO has determined that obviousness is not the standard for determining whether the third party subject matter is the same as the inventor-originated subject matter. As such, it is likely that the disclosures would have to be sufficient to anticipate one another under the rules governing the establishment of novelty; see 2014 USPTO AIA Fall Roadshow Presentation (available at http://www.uspto.gov/aia_implementation/2014_aia_fitf_roadshow_slides.pdf), October 7, 2014, Cupertino, CA.

8 2014 USPTO AIA Fall Roadshow Presentation (available at http://www.uspto.gov/aia_implementation/2014_aia_fitf_roadshow_slides.pdf), October 7, 2014, Cupertino, CA.

9 This is needed for purposes of establishing that Inventor X is the sole and unambiguous inventor of the subject matter at issue. Had the inventor's oath or declaration under 37 C.F.R. 1.63 not been filed when the Rule 130(b) Declaration was submitted, Inventor X would have needed to unambiguously state that he is the inventor of the claimed subject matter in the declaration itself.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Authors
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
McDermott Will & Emery
 
In association with
Related Topics
 
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
McDermott Will & Emery
Related Articles
 
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Tools
Print
Font Size:
Translation
Channels
Mondaq on Twitter
 
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
 
Email Address
Company Name
Password
Confirm Password
Position
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Accounting
 Anti-trust
 Commercial
 Compliance
 Consumer
 Criminal
 Employment
 Energy
 Environment
 Family
 Finance
 Government
 Healthcare
 Immigration
 Insolvency
 Insurance
 International
 IP
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Litigation
 Media & IT
 Privacy
 Real Estate
 Strategy
 Tax
 Technology
 Transport
 Wealth Mgt
Regions
Africa
Asia
Asia Pacific
Australasia
Canada
Caribbean
Europe
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
U.K.
United States
Worldwide Updates
Registration (you must scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions

Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of www.mondaq.com

To Use Mondaq.com you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these Terms or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.

Disclaimer

The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.

General

Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions