• 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 application process / After Filing a Patent Application / Procuring multiple patents (guns) is good patent strategy

Procuring multiple patents (guns) is good patent strategy

February 17, 2014 by James Yang

Multiple patentsIn Institut Pasteur v. Focarino (Fed. Cir. Dec. 30, 2013), the Federal Circuit dealt with three different patents all related to one parent patent application in three different ways.  One of the patents did not survive but the other two did.  For patent owners, a good patent strategy is to have a multiplicity of patents in the event that not all of the patents or claims of the patents survive litigation.  You only need one claim in one patent to be held valid and infringed to seek damages and an injunction.  For alleged infringers, it is significantly more difficult to avoid infringement and prove invalidity for all of the claims in several patents being asserted.

Now to the opinion and how the Federal Circuit dealt with each of the patents, namely, U.S. Pat. No. 7309605 (‘605 patent), 6610545 (‘545 patent) and 6833252 (‘252 patent).

The alleged infringer (Forcarino) filed a request for inter partes reexamination (IPR) of the ‘605 patent. Focarino challenged the validity of the patent at the Patent Office instead of in court. In reexamination, the examiner and the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences (now the Patent Trial and Appeal Board) found:

  1. the ‘605 patent to be invalid and any proposed claim amendment could not be entered since the ‘605 patent has expired,
  2. the ‘545 patent was invalid for being obvious, and
  3. the ‘252 patent was invalid for being obvious.

Pasteur appealed the Board’s decision.  The Federal Circuit affirmed the Board’s decision invalidating the ‘605 patent but reversed and remanded the ‘545 patent and the ‘252 patent for further consideration.

  • ‘605 Patent – No substantive amendments are allowed if the patent expires during reexamination

Focarino was successful in invalidating the claims of the ‘605 patent during reexamination.  Pasteur proposed certain claim amendments which may have allowed the examiner to allow the rejected claims.   But under 37 CFR 1.530(j), (k), claims amended during reexamination cannot issue as a patent if the scope of the claims have changed during reexamination and the patent has expired.  The examiner and the Board refused to enter the amendments to the claims to allow the patent to issue.  The patent owner appealed to the Federal Circuit.

The Federal Circuit affirmed the refusal and determined that the scope of the claims had changed because “the original claims covered situations where non-chromosomal DNA is the targeted DNA”, whereas “[t]he amendment substantively narrowed the claims in requiring chromosomal DNA as the target.”  Put simply, if the new amended claims do not cover all of the embodiments covered by the original claims, then there is a change of scope in the claims.  Hence, the Federal Circuit affirmed the Board’s decision.  The ‘605 patent was invalid and the amendments were not allowed.

  • ‘545 patent – Board failed to review the teaching of the prior art and evidence of secondary considerations

Here, the Board held that one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make the claimed invention based on two prior art references.  However, the Board failed to consider two different categories of evidence which showed that the claimed invention would have been non-obvious.

The first category of evidence was based on the teachings of the prior art.  The patent owner provided evidence that  there was no reasonable expectation of success in making the claimed invention based on the teachings of the prior art.  Put simply, the prior art taught away from the combination of the claimed invention.  In particular, the prior art taught that the claimed combination would lead to an undesireable level of toxicity.  As such, one of ordinary skill in the art would not have had a reasonable expectation of success in making the claimed combination.  Instead of the specific teachings of the prior art, the Board relied on a general interest in the art for the end result achieved by the claimed combination.  The court stated that “[T]he prior art confirmed the great potential payoff of a method that produced a particular result.  The desire for that payoff could motivate pursuit of the method, but ‘knowledge’ of the goal does not render its achievement obvious.”

The Federal Circuit remanded the case for further consideration as to whether one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make the claimed combination in spite of the toxicity concerns arising from one of the prior art references.

The second category of evidence revolved around secondary considerations of non-obviousness such as licensing activity and industry praise.  Pasteur brought forth evidence that competitors and customers had licensed the patented technology.  The Board rejected this evidence because the evidence did not prove that the licenses were established so that the licensees could have access to the claimed invention and not merely access to subject matter disclosed but not claimed in the patent.

The Federal Circuit held that the Board too finely parsed Pasteur’s licensing activity as the possibility that the competitors and customers licensed the technology for the claimed subject matter still provided strong probative value of non-obviousness.

Pasteur also submitted evidence of industry praise.  The Board rejected this evidence because the technology being praised was already in the prior art.  However, the Federal Circuit held that the Board erroneously read the prior art and what the prior art teaches.

  • ‘252 Patent – Board failed to identify a proper motivation to combine

The Board held that the ‘252 patent was invalid for the same reasons discussed in relation to the ‘545 patent.  However, the Federal Circuit vacated the decision and remanded for further consideration as to whether other motivations would have made the claimed combination recited in the ‘252 patent obvious.  Specifically, they were looking for some motivation to make the claimed combination even if there was no reasonable expectation of success in making the claimed combination.

  • 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