• Home
  • About
    • Client Reviews
    • Patent Samples
    • Accolades
    • About Firm
    • Technologies
    • FAQs
  • Services
    • Patent
      • Utility Patents
      • Design Patents
      • Patent Application
      • Patent Defense
      • Patent Enforcement
      • Working with In-House Attorneys
    • Trademark
      • Trademark Search
      • Trademark Application
      • Trademark Enforcement
      • Trademark Defense
    • Licensing
    • Worldwide IP
    • Risk Management
    • Due Diligence
  • Industries
    • Browse Patent Samples
    • Automotive Patents
    • Construction Patents
    • Consumer Products Patents
    • Electronics Patents
    • Food, Beverage, & Other Culinary Patents
    • Manufacturing Patents
    • Medical Products & Devices Patents
    • Optics Patents
    • Software & App Patents
    • Tools & Equipment Patents
  • Learning Resources
    • First-Time Inventor?
    • Why Patent Your Invention in a Bad Economy?
    • Videos on Patents
    • Search 180+ Articles
      • Patent process
        • Overview of Patent Process
          • Patent process timeline and major milestones
          • Patent Process: Invention to Patent Granted (Simplified)
          • Patent process, overall steps and procedures
        • Overview of the examination process within the USPTO
          • Highs and lows of securing patent protection for your invention
          • What is the Patent Office procedure after filing a patent application?
        • Benefits of a Patent Search
          • What is a patent search and How to do it?
        • Patent attorneys, agents and the USPTO can help with the patent process
        • USPTO Website
      • Invention Agreements
        • What is an NDA and when to use them?
        • How to use a contract to protect your invention?
        • Working with others without losing your IP rights
        • Patent Assignments for Independent Contractors
        • Losing Invention Rights When Hiring or Collaborating with Others
        • Avoid Problems: Get an Invention Assignment Agreement
      • Protect Inventions
        • Misconceptions of Provisional Patent Applications
        • Do you need to get your patent attorney to sign an NDA?
        • Can a confidentiality agreement protect me like a patent application?
        • Four types of intellectual property to protect your idea and how to use them
          • Overview of Patents and Intellectual Property
          • Patent protection benefits and why every inventor should consider getting one
          • 8 tips to successfully protect your idea
          • Benefits of Patent Protection
          • Best uses for design patents
        • Reasons to only market your invention after securing patent pendency
          • Dangers of 1 yr grace period under first-inventor-to-file system
          • File a patent application before telling others about the invention
        • Risks and benefits of securing software patent protection
          • Strategy to overcome patentable subject matter rejection
        • Pros and cons of filing a continuation-in-part application
          • What is a continuation patent application?
      • How Patent Applications Work: the Basics
        • How to respond to an office action?
        • Request for non-publication of a patent application
        • Anatomy of a Patent Document
        • How to write a broad patent application?
        • Design patents: pros and cons
      • Patent costs
        • How much does it cost to get a utility patent?
        • Provisional Patent Application: Cheap Alternative?
        • Patent Cost Framework and cash flow
        • Provisional patent application: a cheap option?
        • Cheap provisional patent applications
      • Patent infringement
        • Basics of writing a patent claim for a patent application
        • Patent Marking: Everything you wanted to know
        • Avoiding Patent Infringement
        • Can I Copy My Competitor’s Product?
        • Can I Copy My Competitor’s Product? (Design Patent)
      • Worldwide patents
        • Pros and cons of securing worldwide patent protection and their steps
        • Foreign patent filing to secure protection in other countries
      • Responding to Office Actions
        • Overview of Office Actions
      • Trademarks
        • Trademark Registration: common law, state and federal
        • How to obtain a federal trademark registration?
        • How to select a trademark?
          • Protect your idea when pitching to an investor, potential licensee, or buyer
  • Schedule Consultation
  • Contact

Top-Rated Orange County Patent Lawyer | Helping Inventors in Orange County, Los Angeles County & Beyond | OC Patent Lawyer, Irvine CA

Orange County Patent Attorney

(949) 433-0900
You are here: Home / Patent Infringements / Broken chain of priority invalidates patent

Broken chain of priority invalidates patent

January 28, 2014 by James Yang

Broken Chain of Priority Invalidates PatentThe filing of a continuing patent application (i.e., continuation, divisional, or continuation in part application) may have significant benefits for the patent owner.  For example, these continuing applications may be used to secure patent protection for the previously unexamined subject matter (i.e., non-elected inventions) or seek broader patent protection for what has already been granted.  However, to take advantage of the practice of filing continuing patent applications, strict adherence to patent laws and rules for claiming priority to the earlier filed patent application must be followed.  Otherwise, the earlier publication or issued patents may invalidate the follow-on continuing patent application.

Each of the patent applications in the family must have a proper priority claim continually linking it to the earlier applications in the chain, not just the patent at issue.

In Medtronic v. Edwards (Fed. Cir. Jan. 22, 2014), the patent owner had filed a series of patent applications all claiming priority back to French application 1b and International Application 2b.  (See patent family history below). Unfortunately, the patent owner failed to follow the strict requirements for properly claiming priority back to International Application 2b, and thus, the publication of the French Application 1b and the published International Application 2b became prior art against its own subsequent patent applications (i.e., child patent applications), namely, U.S. Patent Application 10 (Pat. No. 7,892,281) which is the patent at issue in this case. The Federal Circuit affirmed the district courts holding that this patent is invalid for being anticipated by the earlier patents and patent publications, namely, French Application 1b and International Application 2b.

Application Serial Number Filing Date Status Issue Date Pat. No.
French Application 1b French App. No. FR 00/14028 10/31/2000 – – –
International Application 2b International App. No. PCT/FR 01/03258 10/19/2001 – – –
U.S. Patent Application 4 U.S. Pat. App. Ser. No. 10/412,634 4/10/2003 Issued 3/28/2006 7,018,406
U.S. Patent Application 6 U.S. Pat. App. Ser. No. 11/352,614 2/13/2006 Issued 2/12/2008 7,329,278
U.S. Patent Application 8 U.S. Pat. App. Ser. No. 12/029,031 2/11/2008 Pending – –
U.S. Patent Application 10 U.S. Pat. App. Ser. No. 12/348,892 1/5/2009 Issued

2/22/2011 7,892,281

The patent statute (35 U.S.C. § 120) allows a later filed patent application to claim the benefit of an earlier filing date in the United States, if among other requirements, “it contains or is amended to contain a specific reference to the earlier filed application … submitted at such time during the pendency of the application.” (Emphasis added).  Additionally, the “specific reference” requirement mandates “each [intermediate] application in the chain of priority to refer to the prior applications.”  Encyclopedia Britannica, 609 F.3d 1345, 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2010).

U.S. Patent Application 10 issued as U.S. Pat. No. 7,892,281.  This patent which is the patent at issue contained a complete and proper chain of priority referring back to each of the prior patent applications. However, the intervening patent applications, namely, U.S. Patent Applications 6 and 8 failed to provide a specific reference to the earlier filed applications in the priority chain.  In particular, U.S. Patent Applications 6 and 8 referenced International Application 2b but failed to reference U.S. Patent Application 4.  As such, the court held that U.S. Pat. No. 7,892,281 is not entitled to claim the priority of International Application 2b.  Thus,  the French Application 1b and International Application 2b were published more than one year before the filing date of the patent application that was issued as U.S. Pat. No. 7,892,281 invalidated U.S. Pat. No. 7,892,281.

To try and remediate the situation, the patent owner argued that the claim of priority in the intervening patent applications did refer to the (missing) prior patent application(s).  In particular, U.S. Patent Applications 6 and 8 made a specific reference to International Application 2b but not to U.S. Application 4.  As such, the patent owner argued that a reference to “this application” in the claim of priority language of U.S. Applications 6 and 8 referred to U.S. Patent Application 4.  However, prior opinions of the Federal Circuit used and interpreted the phrase “this application” in this context always in the self-referential sense to mean the “present application” and not to a different, earlier filed application.  Put simply, the Federal Circuit disagreed with the patent owner.

The patent owner also argued that the exact verbiage of the claim of priority should be viewed from the perspective of the “reasonable person” and how he/she would read the claim of priority.  The Federal Circuit declined to adopt the “reasonable person” test to interpret the sufficiency of the priority claim. The reason is that the patentee is the person best suited to understand the genealogy and relationship of the application.  The “reasonable person” test would misplace the burden on the public.

The patent owner also pointed to the Macdermid Printing case wherein the claim of priority failed to use the words “claims the benefit of” as recommended by the USPTO but yet the court found the claim of priority to be effective.  The Federal Circuit distinguished that case from the present dispute in that the Macdermid Printing case had a proper priority claim except that they did not use the magic words.  In the present case, the patent owner failed to identify the prior applications and their relationships.

Under current patent laws and rules, the claim of priority does not have per se magic words that must be used.  However, each of the patent applications in the family must have a proper priority claim continually linking it to the earlier applications in the chain, not just the patent at issue.  Moreover, since the passage of the America Invents Act, patent attorneys appear to be using the Application Data Sheet provided by the USPTO.  The Application Data Sheet includes a section for claiming priority and greatly simplifies the process.  As such, we should not see many of these types of disputes for patent applications filed under the America Invents Act.

I invite you to contact me with your patent questions at (949) 433-0900 or [email protected] Please feel free to forward this article to your friends. As an Orange County Patent Lawyer, I serve Orange County, Irvine, Los Angeles, San Diego, and surrounding cities.

Related Articles for Patent Infringement

  • Basics of writing a patent claim for a patent application
  • Avoiding Patent Infringement
  • Can I copy my competitor’s product?
  • Can I copy my competitor’s Product? (Design Patent)
  • Attacking patent claims as indefinite made easier
  • Reducing Scope of Doctrine of Equivalents Via Ensnarement Defense
  • Broken chain of priority invalidates patent
  • Combine Claim Elements to Avoid Infringement
  • How to invalidate a patent based on a restriction requirement
  • Active inducement of infringement in physician patient relationships
  • Irreparable harm easier to prove for grant of patent based injunction
  • Everyone in the supply chain could be sued for patent infringement
  • Penalty for False Patent Marking
  • CAFC defines competitive injury for false patent marking
  • Process patent blocks importation of product
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • LinkedIn

Author

James Yang is a patent attorney. For more than 16 years, James Yang has been representing clients to secure patent protection for their inventions and register trademarks to protect their brands. If you need help, call him at (949) 433-0900. Read More…

Popular Posts

  • Patent process overview
  • Patent process explained
  • How much does a patent cost?
  • Why patent your invention in a bad economy?

Patent Book

Navigating the Patent System - new book by Orange County patent attorney, James Yang

Navigating the Patent System: Learn the patent process and strategies to protect your invention

Read for Free
Buy at Amazon

RECEIVE PATENT ARTICLES

Stay up to date on major changes and get tips on the patent process.

We respect your privacy.

Popular Posts

Patent process overview
Patent process explained
How much does a patent cost?
Trademark process and costs
Patent process and costs

 

Services

Utility Patents
Design Patents
Patent Prosecution Services
Patent Defense Services
Patent-Law Counsel for In-House Attorneys
Trademark Prosecution Services
See All Services

Industries

Automotive Patents
Consumer Products Patents
Culinary Patents
Manufacturing Patents
Medical Patents
Optics Patents
Software & App Patents
See All Industries

Contact

James Yang
OC Patent Lawyer
2372 Morse Ave., Suite #178
Irvine, CA 92614
Tel: (949) 433-0900

Connect

  • Facebook
  • LinkedIn

Sitemaps

Sitemap: Pages | Sitemap: Posts

Terms of Use and Privacy Policy

By accessing this blog, you agree that no attorney-client relationship is formed except by a subsequent written retainer agreement. Also, you agree to not send confidential information unless directed by me to do so. The information posted on this blog is legal information and not legal advice.
Complete Terms of Use
Complete Privacy Policy

ADA Compliance

OC Patent Lawyer aims to ensure that its services are accessible to people with disabilities.
Accessibility Statement

Service Area

From our office in Irvine, California, we serve clients from all areas within Orange County and Los Angeles County, California.

© 2023 · James Yang, Your Entrepreneur and Mid-Size Business Patent Attorney