19. Which of the following is true?
(A) A final decision by a United States District Court finding a patent to be invalid
will have no binding effect during reexamination since the PTO may still find the
claims of the patent to be valid.
(B) A final decision by a United States District Court finding a patent to be valid will
have no binding effect during reexamination since the PTO may still find the
claims of the patent to be invalid.
(C) Once the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit determines that the claims of a
patent are valid, the USPTO may not find such claims invalid based upon newly
discovered art.
(D) If a patentee fails to disclose prior art to the PTO during regular prosecution, the
only way that a patentee can disclose later discovered prior art to the PTO after
issuance is by filing a request for reexamination.
(E) Once a patent claim is found valid during a District Court Proceeding then the
patent claims are entitled to a higher standard of patentability and the presumption
of validity can only be rebutted by clear and convincing evidence in a concurrent
or later reexamination proceeding.
19. ANSWER: (B) is the most correct answer. As to (A) and (B) see MPEP 2286, page 2200-
97, stating, “[t]he issuance of a final district court decision upholding validity during a
reexamination also will have no binding effect on the examination of the reexamination.” Thus,
(A) is incorrect because a final holding of invalidity is binding on the PTO. As to (C), the PTO
may discover new art and find claims unpatentable as that art would raise a substantial new
question. MPEP §§ 2216 and 2286. As to (D), the patentee could file a prior art statement under
35 U.S.C. § 301, or disclose prior art in reissue application if the original patent (through error
without deceptive intent) is defective or claims more or less than should be claimed. As to (E),
preponderance of evidence standard does not change in reexamination proceedings. MPEP 2286.
{ 1 comment… read it below or add one }
One was about the extent to which a Federal Court decision was binding on the Office: if the Court finds it not invalid, or if the Court finds it invalid, etc.
2286 Ex Parte Reexamination and Litigation Proceedings
The issuance of a final Federal Court decision upholding validity during an ex parte reexamination also will have no binding effect on the examination of the reexamination. [...] The Office is not bound by a court’s holding of patent validity and should continue the reexamination. The court notes that district courts and the Office use different standards of proof in determining invalidity, and thus, on the same evidence, could quite correctly come to different conclusions. Specifically, invalidity in a district court must be shown by “clear and convincing” evidence, whereas in the Office, it is sufficient to show nonpatentability by a “preponderance of evidence.” Since the “clear and convincing” standard is harder to satisfy than the “preponderance” standard, deference will ordinarily be accorded to the factual findings of the court where the evidence before the Office and the court is the same. If sufficient reasons are present, claims held valid by the court may be rejected in reexamination.
On the other hand, a final Federal Court holding of invalidity or unenforceability (after all appeals), is binding on the Office. Upon the issuance of a final holding of invalidity or unenforceability, the claims held invalid or unenforceable will be withdrawn from consideration in the reexamination. The reexamination will continue as to any remaining claims.
RDS (Dec 9, 07) See Q19 PM, April 2000, Answer B which is correct