Patent opposition

A patent opposition may be based upon evidence which shows that an invention lacks the basic requirements for a patentable invention and may aim for the invention as a whole or for individual claims or the scope of such claims. 

Grubert A (2006). Understanding European Patent Opposition In Light Of U.S. Patent Practice. Intellect. Prop. Report. 4 39. Available http //www.imakenews.com/ bakerbotts/e article000274940.cfm. Accessed 21 July 2006. 

By the turn of the century the U.S. PTO may be operating under a system that includes (/) pubHcation of patent appHcations (2) opposition of allowed appHcations for purposes of testing vaHdity (J) the dawn of first-to-file priority examination and (4) the end of the antiquated test of inventorship called "interference practice." Legislation implementing many of these changes is pending before the U.S. Congress. 

EDOC, available on the Questel host from INPI, is unique among non-Japanese language databases in including information on C-stage Japanese patents, ie, those that have successfiiUy weathered the pregrant opposition period and been sealed as patents under pre-1966 patent law. It also contains some information on patent family relationships from the period long before the advent of patent family databases. 

Patent and Trademark Office, U.S. Department of Commerce, OfficialGa tte, Washington, D.C., pubhshed weekly. The trademark section, available separately, Hsts marks accepted, subject to opposition, with details of the appHcation and all marks actually registered. 

In USA a patent is awarded to the person first producing an invention, not necessarily who first applied for a patent. The opposite policy prevails in the rest of the world with USA policy probably changing in order to achieve worldwide patent law harmonization. USA utility patents (machines, equipment, etc.) in the past where good for at least 17 years after date the patent was issued. As of 1995, the patent is good for 20 years after the date the patent is filed (prior to the date it is issued) that eliminated those who would file for a patent and let it drag out for many years prior to being issued when it would be needed for infringement, etc. 

Oppenauer oxidation, 24 506 Opponent theory, of color, 7 304 Opportunistic systematic generation strategy, 22 300 for binary systems, 22 324t flowsheet construction and, 22 307 rules for selecting, 22 313t, 315 Opportunity fuels, defined, 6 828 Opposition patent information searches, 18 235... 

The forces that swirled around Copeland and the Tugwell Bill (Senate Bill S.1944) were many. First was the immediate and fierce opposition from the patent... 

As a result of a lot of thinking by a lot of people, there has emerged an alternative proposal that attempts to consolidate the best of the opposition and reexamination procedures to achieve the beneficial effects and yet to reduce the costs of not only oppositions but also patent litigation. This alternative proposal has provided the focus for attempts to improve S.2255. This proposal has come to be known as "Chapter 31 because that was its place in a bill introduced in the Senate by Senator Fong. It had broad support from industry and bar associations, but it didn t carry in the Senate in its original form. 

Chapter 31 provided that anyone could request the Patent Office at any time to reexamine an issued patent by citing new references. Written arguments could be submitted, the patentee could narrow his claims, and the Patent Office would reexamine the patent in the light of this new information. If, during litigation, the validity of a patent were attacked because of new references that weren t before the Patent Office, Chapter 31 required that this too go to the Patent Office for reexamination and for an advisory opinion by the examiner. This is based on the statistic that somewhat over 70% of the patents that the courts have held invalid over the past few years were held invalid on the basis of references that were not before the Patent Office, and presumably if the Patent Office had had the references, they would not have issued the patent. Reexamination under Chapter 31 would be limited to published references, and thus there would be no need for discovery or depositions or cross-examination. It would be an inexpensive procedure that would cover almost all of the reasons for invalidity that could arise in a fullblown opposition proceeding. 

---