Revision of Standard for Granting an Inter Partes Reexamination Request, 59055-59058 [2011-24464]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 185 / Friday, September 23, 2011 / Rules and Regulations
paragraph must be present upon filing
and must be accompanied by the
prioritized examination fee set forth in
§ 1.17(c), the processing fee set forth in
§ 1.17(i), and the publication fee set
forth in § 1.18(d). An application for
which prioritized examination has been
requested may not contain or be
amended to contain more than four
independent claims, more than thirty
total claims, or any multiple dependent
claim. Prioritized examination under
this paragraph will not be accorded to
international applications, design
applications, reissue applications,
provisional applications, or
reexamination proceedings.
Dated: September 19, 2011.
David J. Kappos,
Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual
Property and Director of the United States
Patent and Trademark Office.
[FR Doc. 2011–24467 Filed 9–22–11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–16–P
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
United States Patent and Trademark
Office
37 CFR Part 1
[Docket No. PTO–P–2011–0037]
RIN 0651–AC61
Revision of Standard for Granting an
Inter Partes Reexamination Request
erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES
AGENCY: United States Patent and
Trademark Office, Commerce.
ACTION: Final rule.
SUMMARY: The United States Patent and
Trademark Office (Office) is revising the
rules of practice governing inter partes
reexamination to implement a transition
provision of the Leahy-Smith America
Invents Act that changes the standard
for granting a request for inter partes
reexamination. The Office is also
revising the rules governing inter partes
reexamination to reflect the termination
of inter partes reexamination effective
September 16, 2012, which is provided
for in the Act. The Leahy-Smith
America Invents Act replaces inter
partes reexamination by a new inter
partes review process effective one year
after the date of enactment of the LeahySmith America Invents Act (i.e.,
September 16, 2012), and provides that
any request for inter partes
reexamination filed on or after
September 16, 2011, will not be granted
unless the information presented in the
request establishes that there is a
reasonable likelihood that the requester
will prevail with respect to at least one
VerDate Mar<15>2010
14:40 Sep 22, 2011
Jkt 223001
of the claims challenged in the request.
This replaces the prior standard for
granting a request for inter partes
reexamination that required a
substantial new question of
patentability (SNQ) affecting any claim
of the patent raised by the request. The
Leahy-Smith America Invents Act does
not revise the SNQ standard for granting
an ex parte reexamination request.
DATES: Effective Date: September 23,
2011. Applicability Date: The changes in
this final rule apply to any request for
inter partes reexamination filed on or
after September 16, 2011, and before
September 16, 2012.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: By
telephone to Kenneth M. Schor, at (571)
272–7710, or Joseph F. Weiss, Jr., at
(571) 272–7759; or by mail addressed to
United States Patent and Trademark
Office, Mail Stop Comments—Patents,
Commissioner for Patents, P.O. Box
1450, Alexandria, VA 22313–1450,
marked to the attention of Kenneth M.
Schor and Joseph F. Weiss, Jr.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section
6(a) of the Leahy-Smith America Invents
Act replaces the inter partes
reexamination process that was
established by the American Inventors
Protection Act of 1999 (AIPA) (Pub. L.
106–113, 113 Stat. 1501, 1501A–552
through 1501A–591 (1999)) with a new
inter partes review process. The
replacement of inter partes
reexamination with inter partes review
is effective on September 16, 2012.
Section 6(c)(3)(A) of the Leahy-Smith
America Invents Act provides a
transition provision under which a
request for inter partes reexamination
will not be granted unless the
information presented in the request
shows that there is a reasonable
likelihood that the requester will prevail
with respect to at least one of the claims
challenged in the request.
The Office is revising the rules of
practice to (1) conform the standard for
granting an inter partes reexamination
to the one specified in section 6(c)(3)(A)
of the Leahy-Smith America Invents
Act, and (2) provide for termination of
inter partes reexamination on
September 16, 2012, as set forth in
section 6(c)(3) of the Leahy-Smith
America Invents Act.
The Leahy-Smith America Invents Act
also creates a new inter partes review
process to replace inter partes
reexamination. The Office will
implement the new inter partes review
proceedings in a separate rule making.
I. Background
Prior to the enactment of the LeahySmith America Invents Act, 35 U.S.C.
PO 00000
Frm 00053
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
59055
312(a) provided, as to the standard for
granting an inter partes reexamination
request, that ‘‘the Director shall
determine whether a substantial new
question of patentability affecting any
claim of the patent concerned is raised
by the request, with or without
consideration of other patents or printed
publications * * *.’’ The Office has
referred to this standard as ‘‘SNQ.’’ The
SNQ standard for granting an inter
partes reexamination request was
enacted in the AIPA.
Section 6(c)(3)(A) of the Leahy-Smith
America Invents Act amended 35 U.S.C.
312 and 313 to delete any reference to
the SNQ standard, and provide, in place
of each deletion, language requiring the
information presented in a request for
inter partes reexamination (filed
pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 311) to show that
there is a reasonable likelihood that the
requester will prevail with respect to at
least one of the claims challenged in the
request.
With respect to the reasonable
likelihood standard, House Rep. 112–98
(Part 1), 112th Cong., 1st Sess., provides,
in connection with inter partes review,
the following:
‘‘The threshold for initiating an inter partes
review is elevated from ‘significant new
question of patentability’—a standard that
currently allows 95% of all requests to be
granted—to a standard requiring petitioners
to present information showing that their
challenge has a reasonable likelihood of
success.’’ H.R. Rep. No. 112–98 (Part 1), at
47.
The Office is revising the rules of
practice for inter partes reexamination
in title 37 of the Code of Federal
Regulations (CFR) by amending
§§ 1.915, 1.923, 1.927, and 1.931 to
delete any reference to the SNQ
standard for granting reexamination,
and insert in its place reference to the
newly enacted ‘‘reasonable likelihood’’
standard.
The SNQ standard for granting ex
parte reexamination has not been
revised by the Leahy-Smith America
Invents Act, and accordingly, the rules
of practice for ex parte reexamination
are not being revised.
When the standards for Office
jurisdiction over the proceeding are
effective: Section 6(c)(3)(B) of the LeahySmith America Invents Act provides
that this transition provision applies to
any request for inter partes
reexamination filed on or after the date
of enactment of the Leahy-Smith
America Invents Act (i.e., September 16,
2011), but before the effective date of
the inter partes review provisions of the
Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (i.e.,
September 16, 2012). Section 6(c)(3)(C)
of the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act
E:\FR\FM\23SER1.SGM
23SER1
erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES
59056
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 185 / Friday, September 23, 2011 / Rules and Regulations
provides that the inter partes
reexamination provisions of 35 U.S.C.
chapter 31, as amended by section
6(c)(3) of the Leahy-Smith America
Invents Act, shall apply to requests for
inter partes reexamination filed before
September 16, 2012. Accordingly, for
inter partes reexamination, the
following applies:
1. Inter partes reexamination requests
filed prior to September 16, 2011: With
respect to any inter partes
reexamination proceeding for which a
request has been filed prior to
September 16, 2011, the SNQ standard
is applicable in determining whether
the request for inter partes
reexamination will be granted. If
reexamination is ordered based on the
SNQ standard, then the SNQ standard
will apply throughout the
reexamination proceeding, even after
September 16, 2011, or September 16,
2012.
2. Inter partes reexamination requests
filed on or after September 16, 2011, but
before September 16, 2012: With respect
to any inter partes reexamination
proceeding for which a request is filed
on or after September 16, 2011, the
‘‘reasonable likelihood’’ standard is
applicable in determining whether the
request for inter partes reexamination
will be granted. If reexamination is
ordered based on the ‘‘reasonable
likelihood’’ standard, then the
‘‘reasonable likelihood’’ standard will
apply throughout the reexamination
proceeding, even after September 16,
2012. In addition, the inter partes
reexamination provisions of 35 U.S.C.
chapter 31, as amended by section
6(c)(3) of the Leahy-Smith America
Invents Act, and §§ 1.902–1.997 and
41.60–41.81 of title 37 CFR, effective on
September 16, 2011, will apply
throughout the reexamination, even
after September 16, 2012.
3. Inter partes reexamination requests
filed on or after September 16, 2012:
With respect to any inter partes
reexamination proceeding for which a
request is submitted on or after
September 16, 2012, the Office cannot
grant, or even accord a filing date to, the
request. The inter partes reexamination
provisions of 35 U.S.C. chapter 31 are
not available for any request for inter
partes reexamination submitted on or
after September 16, 2012. In other
words, the Office will no longer
entertain original requests for inter
partes reexamination on or after
September 16, 2012, but instead will
accept petitions to conduct inter partes
review.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
14:40 Sep 22, 2011
Jkt 223001
II. Section-by-Section Discussion of
Specific Rules
The amended language replaces the
prior language:
Title 37 of the Code of Federal
Regulations, Part 1, Subpart H, is
amended as follows:
Section 1.913: The title of § 1.913 is
revised to add ‘‘, and time for filing, a’’
before ‘‘request for inter partes
reexamination.’’ The sole existing
paragraph of § 1.913 is revised to add
‘‘(a)’’ before the paragraph, and to add
after ‘‘Except as provided for in § 1.907
and in paragraph (b) of this section.’’
New paragraph (b) is added to explicitly
provide that any request for an inter
partes reexamination that is submitted
on or after September 16, 2012, will not
be accorded a filing date and that any
such request will not be granted.
Section 1.915: Section 1.915 is
amended by revising paragraph (b)(2) to
replace the SNQ standard for granting
reexamination with the ‘‘reasonable
likelihood’’ standard. After ‘‘citation of
the patents and printed publications
which are presented to provide,’’ the
language ‘‘a showing that there is a
reasonable likelihood that the requester
will prevail with respect to at least one
of the claims challenged in the request’’
is added in place of ‘‘a substantial new
question of patentability.’’
Section 1.915 is additionally amended
by revising paragraph (b)(3) to replace
the SNQ standard for granting
reexamination with the ‘‘reasonable
likelihood’’ standard:
Within three months following the filing
date of a request for inter partes
reexamination under § 1.915, the examiner
will consider the request and determine
whether or not a substantial new question of
patentability affecting any claim of the patent
is raised by the request and the prior art
citation.
A statement pointing out, based on the
cited patents and printed publications, each
showing of a reasonable likelihood that the
requester will prevail with respect to at least
one of the claims challenged in the request,
and a detailed explanation of the pertinency
and manner of applying the patents and
printed publications to every claim for which
reexamination is requested.
The last sentence of § 1.923 is
amended to replace the SNQ standard
for granting reexamination with the
‘‘reasonable likelihood’’ standard:
If the examiner determines that the request
has not established a reasonable likelihood
that the requester will prevail with respect to
at least one of the challenged claims, the
examiner shall refuse the request and shall
not order inter partes reexamination.
The amended language replaces the
prior language:
If the examiner determines that no
substantial new question of patentability is
present, the examiner shall refuse the request
and shall not order inter partes
reexamination.
Section 1.927: The last sentence of
§ 1.927 is amended by deleting ‘‘no
substantial new question of
patentability has been raised’’ after ‘‘[i]f
no petition is timely filed or if the
decision on petition affirms that.’’ The
language ‘‘a reasonable likelihood that
the requester will prevail with respect to
at least one of the claims challenged in
the request has not been established’’ is
added in its place.
Section 1.931: Section 1.931 is
amended by revising paragraph (a) to
replace the SNQ standard for granting
reexamination with the ‘‘reasonable
likelihood’’ standard:
The amended language replaces the
prior language:
A statement pointing out each substantial
new question of patentability based on the
cited patents and printed publications, and a
detailed explanation of the pertinency and
manner of applying the patents and printed
publications to every claim for which
reexamination is requested.
If it is found that there is a reasonable
likelihood that the requester will prevail with
respect to at least one of the claims
challenged in the request, the determination
will include an order for inter partes
reexamination of the patent for resolution of
the question of whether the requester will
prevail.
The amended language replaces the
prior language:
Section 1.923: The first sentence of
§ 1.923 is amended to replace the SNQ
standard for granting reexamination
with the ‘‘reasonable likelihood’’
standard:
Within three months following the filing
date of a request for inter partes
reexamination under § 1.915, the examiner
will consider the request and determine
whether or not the request and the prior art
establish a reasonable likelihood that the
requester will prevail with respect to at least
one of the claims challenged in the request.
PO 00000
Frm 00054
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
If a substantial new question of
patentability is found, the determination will
include an order for inter partes
reexamination of the patent for resolution of
the question.
III. Rule Making Considerations
A. Administrative Procedure Act
(APA): This final rule merely revises the
rules governing inter partes
reexamination to implement the
provisions in section 6(c)(3) of the
Leahy-Smith America Invents Act,
which include: (1) A change to the
standard for granting a request for inter
E:\FR\FM\23SER1.SGM
23SER1
erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 185 / Friday, September 23, 2011 / Rules and Regulations
partes reexamination; and (2) the
termination of inter partes
reexamination on September 16, 2012.
Therefore, the changes in this final rule
are merely interpretative. See Nat’l Org.
of Veterans’ Advocates v. Sec’y of
Veterans Affairs, 260 F.3d 1365, 1375
(Fed. Cir. 2001). Accordingly, prior
notice and opportunity for public
comment are not required pursuant to
5 U.S.C. 553(b) or (c) (or any other law),
and thirty-day advance publication is
not required pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(d)
or any other law. See Cooper Techs. Co.
v. Dudas, 536 F.3d 1330, 1336–37 (Fed.
Cir. 2008) (stating that 5 U.S.C. 553, and
thus 35 U.S.C. 2(b)(2)(B), does not
require notice and comment rule
making for ‘‘interpretative rules, general
statements of policy, or rules of agency
organization, procedure, or practice.’’)
(quoting 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(A)).
B. Regulatory Flexibility Act: As prior
notice and an opportunity for public
comment are not required pursuant to
5 U.S.C. 553 or any other law, neither
a regulatory flexibility analysis nor a
certification under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) is
required. See 5 U.S.C. 603.
C. Executive Order 13132
(Federalism): This rule making does not
contain policies with federalism
implications sufficient to warrant
preparation of a Federalism Assessment
under Executive Order 13132 (Aug. 4,
1999).
D. Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory
Planning and Review): This rule making
has been determined not to be
significant for purposes of Executive
Order 12866 (Sept. 30, 1993), as
amended by Executive Order 13258
(Feb. 26, 2002) and Executive Order
13422 (Jan. 18, 2007).
E. Executive Order 13175 (Tribal
Consultation): This rule making will
not: (1) Have substantial direct effects
on one or more Indian tribes; (2) impose
substantial direct compliance costs on
Indian tribal government; or (3) preempt
tribal law. Therefore, a tribal summary
impact statement is not required under
Executive Order 13175 (Nov. 6, 2000).
F. Executive Order 13211 (Energy
Effect): This rule making is not a
significant energy action under
Executive Order 13211 because this rule
making is not likely to have a significant
adverse effect on the supply,
distribution, or use of energy. Therefore,
a Statement of Energy Effects is not
required under Executive Order 13211
(May 18, 2001).
G. Executive Order 12988 (Civil
Justice Reform): This rule making meets
applicable standards to minimize
litigation, eliminate ambiguity, and
reduce burden as set forth in sections
VerDate Mar<15>2010
14:40 Sep 22, 2011
Jkt 223001
3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order
12988 (Feb. 5, 1996).
H. Executive Order 13045 (Protection
of Children): This rule making is not an
economically significant rule and does
not concern an environmental risk to
health or safety that may
disproportionately affect children under
Executive Order 13045 (Apr. 21, 1997).
I. Executive Order 12630 (Taking of
Private Property): This rule making will
not effect a taking of private property or
otherwise have taking implications
under Executive Order 12630 (Mar. 15,
1988).
J. Congressional Review Act: Under
the Congressional Review Act
provisions of the Small Business
Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of
1996 (5 U.S.C. 801 et seq.), prior to
issuing any final rule, the United States
Patent and Trademark Office will
submit a report containing the final rule
and other required information to the
U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller
General of the Government
Accountability Office. This final rule
merely revises the rules governing inter
partes reexamination to conform them
to the change to the standard for
granting a request for inter partes
reexamination set forth in section 6(c)(3)
of the Leahy-Smith America Invents
Act, and the September 16, 2012 date of
termination of inter partes
reexamination provided for in section
6(c)(3) of the Leahy-Smith America
Invents Act. The change in this rule
making is not expected to result in an
annual effect on the economy of 100
million dollars or more, a major increase
in costs or prices, or significant adverse
effects on competition, employment,
investment, productivity, innovation, or
the ability of United States-based
enterprises to compete with foreignbased enterprises in domestic and
export markets. Therefore, this rule
making is not expected to result in a
‘‘major rule’’ as defined in 5 U.S.C.
804(2).
K. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of
1995: The changes in this rule will not
result in the expenditure by State, local,
and tribal governments, in the aggregate,
or by the private sector, of 100 million
dollars or more in any one year, and it
will not significantly or uniquely affect
small governments. Therefore, no
actions are necessary under the
provisions of the Unfunded Mandates
Reform Act of 1995. See 2 U.S.C. 1501
et seq.
L. National Environmental Policy Act:
The rule making will not have any effect
on the quality of the environment and
is thus categorically excluded from
review under the National
PO 00000
Frm 00055
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
59057
Environmental Policy Act of 1968. See
42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.
M. National Technology Transfer and
Advancement Act: The requirements of
section 12(d) of the National
Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) are
inapplicable, because this rule making
does not involve the use of technical
standards.
N. Paperwork Reduction Act: This
rule making involves information
collection requirements which are
subject to review by the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) under
the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
(44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). The collection
of information involved in this rule
making has been reviewed and
previously approved by OMB under
OMB control number 0651–0064. This
final rule merely revises the rules
governing inter partes reexamination to
conform them to the change to the
standard for granting a request for inter
partes reexamination set forth in the
transition provisions of section 6(c)(3) of
the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act,
and the September 16, 2012 date of
termination of inter partes
reexamination provided for in section
6(c)(3) of the Leahy-Smith America
Invents Act. This rule making does not
impose additional collection
requirements under the Paperwork
Reduction Act. Therefore, the United
States Patent and Trademark Office is
not submitting an information collection
package to OMB for its review and
approval because the changes in this
rule making will not affect the
information collection requirements
associated with the information
collection under OMB control number
0651–0064.
List of Subjects in 37 CFR Part 1
Administrative practice and
procedure, Courts, Freedom of
information, Inventions and patents,
Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Small businesses, and
Biologics.
For the reasons set forth in the
preamble, 37 CFR part 1 is amended as
follows:
PART 1—RULES OF PRACTICE IN
PATENT CASES
1. The authority citation for 37 CFR
part 1 continues to read as follows:
■
Authority: 35 U.S.C. 2(b)(2), unless
otherwise noted.
2. Section 1.913 is revised to read as
follows:
■
E:\FR\FM\23SER1.SGM
23SER1
59058
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 185 / Friday, September 23, 2011 / Rules and Regulations
§ 1.913 Persons eligible to file, and time
for filing, a request for inter partes
reexamination.
(a) Except as provided for in § 1.907
and in paragraph (b) of this section, any
person other than the patent owner or
its privies may, at any time during the
period of enforceability of a patent
which issued from an original
application filed in the United States on
or after November 29, 1999, file a
request for inter partes reexamination
by the Office of any claim of the patent
on the basis of prior art patents or
printed publications cited under
§ 1.501.
(b) Any request for an inter partes
reexamination submitted on or after
September 16, 2012, will not be
accorded a filing date, and any such
request will not be granted.
■ 3. Section 1.915 is amended by
revising paragraphs (b)(2) and (b)(3), to
read as follows:
§ 1.915 Content of request for inter partes
reexamination.
*
*
*
*
*
(b) * * *
(2) A citation of the patents and
printed publications which are
presented to provide a showing that
there is a reasonable likelihood that the
requester will prevail with respect to at
least one of the claims challenged in the
request.
(3) A statement pointing out, based on
the cited patents and printed
publications, each showing of a
reasonable likelihood that the requester
will prevail with respect to at least one
of the claims challenged in the request,
and a detailed explanation of the
pertinency and manner of applying the
patents and printed publications to
every claim for which reexamination is
requested.
*
*
*
*
*
■ 4. Section 1.923 is revised to read as
follows:
erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES
§ 1.923 Examiner’s determination on the
request for inter partes reexamination.
Within three months following the
filing date of a request for inter partes
reexamination under § 1.915, the
examiner will consider the request and
determine whether or not the request
and the prior art establish a reasonable
likelihood that the requester will prevail
with respect to at least one of the claims
challenged in the request. The
examiner’s determination will be based
on the claims in effect at the time of the
determination, will become a part of the
official file of the patent, and will be
mailed to the patent owner at the
address as provided for in § 1.33(c) and
to the third party requester. If the
VerDate Mar<15>2010
14:40 Sep 22, 2011
Jkt 223001
examiner determines that the request
has not established a reasonable
likelihood that the requester will prevail
with respect to at least one of the
challenged claims, the examiner shall
refuse the request and shall not order
inter partes reexamination.
■ 5. Section 1.927 is revised to read as
follows:
§ 1.927 Petition to review refusal to order
inter partes reexamination.
The third party requester may seek
review by a petition to the Director
under § 1.181 within one month of the
mailing date of the examiner’s
determination refusing to order inter
partes reexamination. Any such petition
must comply with § 1.181(b). If no
petition is timely filed or if the decision
on petition affirms that a reasonable
likelihood that the requester will prevail
with respect to at least one of the claims
challenged in the request has not been
established, the determination shall be
final and nonappealable.
■ 6. Section 1.931 is amended by
revising paragraph (a) to read as follows:
§ 1.931 Order for inter partes
reexamination.
(a) If it is found that there is a
reasonable likelihood that the requester
will prevail with respect to at least one
of the claims challenged in the request,
the determination will include an order
for inter partes reexamination of the
patent for resolution of the question of
whether the requester will prevail.
*
*
*
*
*
Dated: September 16, 2011.
David J. Kappos,
Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual
Property and Director of the United States
Patent and Trademark Office.
[FR Doc. 2011–24464 Filed 9–22–11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–16–P
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Bureau of Land Management
43 CFR Part 3000
[L13100000 PP0000 LLWO310000; L1990000
PO0000 LLWO320000]
RIN 1004–AE22
Minerals Management: Adjustment of
Cost Recovery Fees
AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management,
Interior.
ACTION: Final rule.
SUMMARY: This final rule amends the
Bureau of Land Management (BLM)
mineral resources regulations to update
PO 00000
Frm 00056
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
some fees that cover the BLM’s cost of
processing certain documents relating to
its minerals programs and some filing
fees for mineral-related documents.
These updated fees include those for
actions such as lease renewals and
mineral patent adjudications.
DATES: This final rule is effective
October 1, 2011.
ADDRESSES: You may send inquiries or
suggestions to Director (630), Bureau of
Land Management, 2134LM, 1849 C
Street, NW., Washington, DC 20240;
Attention: RIN 1004–AE22.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Steven Wells, Chief, Division of Fluid
Minerals, (202) 912–7143, or Faith
Bremner, Regulatory Affairs Analyst,
(202) 912–7441. Persons who use a
telecommunications device for the deaf
(TDD) may leave a message for these
individuals with the Federal
Information Relay Service (FIRS) at
1–800–877–8339, 24 hours a day,
7 days a week.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
The BLM has specific authority to
charge fees for processing applications
and other documents relating to public
lands under Section 304 of the Federal
Land Policy and Management Act of
1976 (FLPMA), 43 U.S.C. 1734. In 2005,
the BLM published a final cost recovery
rule (70 FR 58854) establishing or
revising certain fees and service charges,
and establishing the method it would
use to adjust those fees and service
charges on an annual basis.
At 43 CFR 3000.12(a), the regulations
provide that the BLM will annually
adjust fees established in Subchapter C
according to changes in the Implicit
Price Deflator for Gross Domestic
Product (IPD–GDP), which is published
quarterly by the U.S. Department of
Commerce. See also 43 CFR 3000.10.
This final rule will allow the BLM to
update these fees and service charges by
October 1 of this year, as required by the
2005 regulation. The fee recalculations
are based on a mathematical formula.
The public had an opportunity to
comment on this procedure during the
comment period on the original cost
recovery rule, and this new rule simply
administers the procedure set forth in
those regulations. Therefore, the BLM
has changed the fees in this final rule
without providing opportunity for
additional notice and comment. The
Department of the Interior, therefore, for
good cause finds under 5 U.S.C.
553(b)(B) and (d)(3) that notice and
public comment procedures are
unnecessary and that the rule may be
E:\FR\FM\23SER1.SGM
23SER1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 185 (Friday, September 23, 2011)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 59055-59058]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-24464]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
United States Patent and Trademark Office
37 CFR Part 1
[Docket No. PTO-P-2011-0037]
RIN 0651-AC61
Revision of Standard for Granting an Inter Partes Reexamination
Request
AGENCY: United States Patent and Trademark Office, Commerce.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The United States Patent and Trademark Office (Office) is
revising the rules of practice governing inter partes reexamination to
implement a transition provision of the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act
that changes the standard for granting a request for inter partes
reexamination. The Office is also revising the rules governing inter
partes reexamination to reflect the termination of inter partes
reexamination effective September 16, 2012, which is provided for in
the Act. The Leahy-Smith America Invents Act replaces inter partes
reexamination by a new inter partes review process effective one year
after the date of enactment of the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act
(i.e., September 16, 2012), and provides that any request for inter
partes reexamination filed on or after September 16, 2011, will not be
granted unless the information presented in the request establishes
that there is a reasonable likelihood that the requester will prevail
with respect to at least one of the claims challenged in the request.
This replaces the prior standard for granting a request for inter
partes reexamination that required a substantial new question of
patentability (SNQ) affecting any claim of the patent raised by the
request. The Leahy-Smith America Invents Act does not revise the SNQ
standard for granting an ex parte reexamination request.
DATES: Effective Date: September 23, 2011. Applicability Date: The
changes in this final rule apply to any request for inter partes
reexamination filed on or after September 16, 2011, and before
September 16, 2012.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: By telephone to Kenneth M. Schor, at
(571) 272-7710, or Joseph F. Weiss, Jr., at (571) 272-7759; or by mail
addressed to United States Patent and Trademark Office, Mail Stop
Comments--Patents, Commissioner for Patents, P.O. Box 1450, Alexandria,
VA 22313-1450, marked to the attention of Kenneth M. Schor and Joseph
F. Weiss, Jr.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section 6(a) of the Leahy-Smith America
Invents Act replaces the inter partes reexamination process that was
established by the American Inventors Protection Act of 1999 (AIPA)
(Pub. L. 106-113, 113 Stat. 1501, 1501A-552 through 1501A-591 (1999))
with a new inter partes review process. The replacement of inter partes
reexamination with inter partes review is effective on September 16,
2012.
Section 6(c)(3)(A) of the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act provides
a transition provision under which a request for inter partes
reexamination will not be granted unless the information presented in
the request shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the
requester will prevail with respect to at least one of the claims
challenged in the request.
The Office is revising the rules of practice to (1) conform the
standard for granting an inter partes reexamination to the one
specified in section 6(c)(3)(A) of the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act,
and (2) provide for termination of inter partes reexamination on
September 16, 2012, as set forth in section 6(c)(3) of the Leahy-Smith
America Invents Act.
The Leahy-Smith America Invents Act also creates a new inter partes
review process to replace inter partes reexamination. The Office will
implement the new inter partes review proceedings in a separate rule
making.
I. Background
Prior to the enactment of the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act, 35
U.S.C. 312(a) provided, as to the standard for granting an inter partes
reexamination request, that ``the Director shall determine whether a
substantial new question of patentability affecting any claim of the
patent concerned is raised by the request, with or without
consideration of other patents or printed publications * * *.'' The
Office has referred to this standard as ``SNQ.'' The SNQ standard for
granting an inter partes reexamination request was enacted in the AIPA.
Section 6(c)(3)(A) of the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act amended
35 U.S.C. 312 and 313 to delete any reference to the SNQ standard, and
provide, in place of each deletion, language requiring the information
presented in a request for inter partes reexamination (filed pursuant
to 35 U.S.C. 311) to show that there is a reasonable likelihood that
the requester will prevail with respect to at least one of the claims
challenged in the request.
With respect to the reasonable likelihood standard, House Rep. 112-
98 (Part 1), 112th Cong., 1st Sess., provides, in connection with inter
partes review, the following:
``The threshold for initiating an inter partes review is
elevated from `significant new question of patentability'--a
standard that currently allows 95% of all requests to be granted--to
a standard requiring petitioners to present information showing that
their challenge has a reasonable likelihood of success.'' H.R. Rep.
No. 112-98 (Part 1), at 47.
The Office is revising the rules of practice for inter partes
reexamination in title 37 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) by
amending Sec. Sec. 1.915, 1.923, 1.927, and 1.931 to delete any
reference to the SNQ standard for granting reexamination, and insert in
its place reference to the newly enacted ``reasonable likelihood''
standard.
The SNQ standard for granting ex parte reexamination has not been
revised by the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act, and accordingly, the
rules of practice for ex parte reexamination are not being revised.
When the standards for Office jurisdiction over the proceeding are
effective: Section 6(c)(3)(B) of the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act
provides that this transition provision applies to any request for
inter partes reexamination filed on or after the date of enactment of
the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (i.e., September 16, 2011), but
before the effective date of the inter partes review provisions of the
Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (i.e., September 16, 2012). Section
6(c)(3)(C) of the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act
[[Page 59056]]
provides that the inter partes reexamination provisions of 35 U.S.C.
chapter 31, as amended by section 6(c)(3) of the Leahy-Smith America
Invents Act, shall apply to requests for inter partes reexamination
filed before September 16, 2012. Accordingly, for inter partes
reexamination, the following applies:
1. Inter partes reexamination requests filed prior to September 16,
2011: With respect to any inter partes reexamination proceeding for
which a request has been filed prior to September 16, 2011, the SNQ
standard is applicable in determining whether the request for inter
partes reexamination will be granted. If reexamination is ordered based
on the SNQ standard, then the SNQ standard will apply throughout the
reexamination proceeding, even after September 16, 2011, or September
16, 2012.
2. Inter partes reexamination requests filed on or after September
16, 2011, but before September 16, 2012: With respect to any inter
partes reexamination proceeding for which a request is filed on or
after September 16, 2011, the ``reasonable likelihood'' standard is
applicable in determining whether the request for inter partes
reexamination will be granted. If reexamination is ordered based on the
``reasonable likelihood'' standard, then the ``reasonable likelihood''
standard will apply throughout the reexamination proceeding, even after
September 16, 2012. In addition, the inter partes reexamination
provisions of 35 U.S.C. chapter 31, as amended by section 6(c)(3) of
the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act, and Sec. Sec. 1.902-1.997 and
41.60-41.81 of title 37 CFR, effective on September 16, 2011, will
apply throughout the reexamination, even after September 16, 2012.
3. Inter partes reexamination requests filed on or after September
16, 2012: With respect to any inter partes reexamination proceeding for
which a request is submitted on or after September 16, 2012, the Office
cannot grant, or even accord a filing date to, the request. The inter
partes reexamination provisions of 35 U.S.C. chapter 31 are not
available for any request for inter partes reexamination submitted on
or after September 16, 2012. In other words, the Office will no longer
entertain original requests for inter partes reexamination on or after
September 16, 2012, but instead will accept petitions to conduct inter
partes review.
II. Section-by-Section Discussion of Specific Rules
Title 37 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Part 1, Subpart H, is
amended as follows:
Section 1.913: The title of Sec. 1.913 is revised to add ``, and
time for filing, a'' before ``request for inter partes reexamination.''
The sole existing paragraph of Sec. 1.913 is revised to add ``(a)''
before the paragraph, and to add after ``Except as provided for in
Sec. 1.907 and in paragraph (b) of this section.'' New paragraph (b)
is added to explicitly provide that any request for an inter partes
reexamination that is submitted on or after September 16, 2012, will
not be accorded a filing date and that any such request will not be
granted.
Section 1.915: Section 1.915 is amended by revising paragraph
(b)(2) to replace the SNQ standard for granting reexamination with the
``reasonable likelihood'' standard. After ``citation of the patents and
printed publications which are presented to provide,'' the language ``a
showing that there is a reasonable likelihood that the requester will
prevail with respect to at least one of the claims challenged in the
request'' is added in place of ``a substantial new question of
patentability.''
Section 1.915 is additionally amended by revising paragraph (b)(3)
to replace the SNQ standard for granting reexamination with the
``reasonable likelihood'' standard:
A statement pointing out, based on the cited patents and printed
publications, each showing of a reasonable likelihood that the
requester will prevail with respect to at least one of the claims
challenged in the request, and a detailed explanation of the
pertinency and manner of applying the patents and printed
publications to every claim for which reexamination is requested.
The amended language replaces the prior language:
A statement pointing out each substantial new question of
patentability based on the cited patents and printed publications,
and a detailed explanation of the pertinency and manner of applying
the patents and printed publications to every claim for which
reexamination is requested.
Section 1.923: The first sentence of Sec. 1.923 is amended to
replace the SNQ standard for granting reexamination with the
``reasonable likelihood'' standard:
Within three months following the filing date of a request for
inter partes reexamination under Sec. 1.915, the examiner will
consider the request and determine whether or not the request and
the prior art establish a reasonable likelihood that the requester
will prevail with respect to at least one of the claims challenged
in the request.
The amended language replaces the prior language:
Within three months following the filing date of a request for
inter partes reexamination under Sec. 1.915, the examiner will
consider the request and determine whether or not a substantial new
question of patentability affecting any claim of the patent is
raised by the request and the prior art citation.
The last sentence of Sec. 1.923 is amended to replace the SNQ
standard for granting reexamination with the ``reasonable likelihood''
standard:
If the examiner determines that the request has not established
a reasonable likelihood that the requester will prevail with respect
to at least one of the challenged claims, the examiner shall refuse
the request and shall not order inter partes reexamination.
The amended language replaces the prior language:
If the examiner determines that no substantial new question of
patentability is present, the examiner shall refuse the request and
shall not order inter partes reexamination.
Section 1.927: The last sentence of Sec. 1.927 is amended by
deleting ``no substantial new question of patentability has been
raised'' after ``[i]f no petition is timely filed or if the decision on
petition affirms that.'' The language ``a reasonable likelihood that
the requester will prevail with respect to at least one of the claims
challenged in the request has not been established'' is added in its
place.
Section 1.931: Section 1.931 is amended by revising paragraph (a)
to replace the SNQ standard for granting reexamination with the
``reasonable likelihood'' standard:
If it is found that there is a reasonable likelihood that the
requester will prevail with respect to at least one of the claims
challenged in the request, the determination will include an order
for inter partes reexamination of the patent for resolution of the
question of whether the requester will prevail.
The amended language replaces the prior language:
If a substantial new question of patentability is found, the
determination will include an order for inter partes reexamination
of the patent for resolution of the question.
III. Rule Making Considerations
A. Administrative Procedure Act (APA): This final rule merely
revises the rules governing inter partes reexamination to implement the
provisions in section 6(c)(3) of the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act,
which include: (1) A change to the standard for granting a request for
inter
[[Page 59057]]
partes reexamination; and (2) the termination of inter partes
reexamination on September 16, 2012. Therefore, the changes in this
final rule are merely interpretative. See Nat'l Org. of Veterans'
Advocates v. Sec'y of Veterans Affairs, 260 F.3d 1365, 1375 (Fed. Cir.
2001). Accordingly, prior notice and opportunity for public comment are
not required pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(b) or (c) (or any other law), and
thirty-day advance publication is not required pursuant to 5 U.S.C.
553(d) or any other law. See Cooper Techs. Co. v. Dudas, 536 F.3d 1330,
1336-37 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (stating that 5 U.S.C. 553, and thus 35 U.S.C.
2(b)(2)(B), does not require notice and comment rule making for
``interpretative rules, general statements of policy, or rules of
agency organization, procedure, or practice.'') (quoting 5 U.S.C.
553(b)(A)).
B. Regulatory Flexibility Act: As prior notice and an opportunity
for public comment are not required pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553 or any
other law, neither a regulatory flexibility analysis nor a
certification under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et
seq.) is required. See 5 U.S.C. 603.
C. Executive Order 13132 (Federalism): This rule making does not
contain policies with federalism implications sufficient to warrant
preparation of a Federalism Assessment under Executive Order 13132
(Aug. 4, 1999).
D. Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review): This
rule making has been determined not to be significant for purposes of
Executive Order 12866 (Sept. 30, 1993), as amended by Executive Order
13258 (Feb. 26, 2002) and Executive Order 13422 (Jan. 18, 2007).
E. Executive Order 13175 (Tribal Consultation): This rule making
will not: (1) Have substantial direct effects on one or more Indian
tribes; (2) impose substantial direct compliance costs on Indian tribal
government; or (3) preempt tribal law. Therefore, a tribal summary
impact statement is not required under Executive Order 13175 (Nov. 6,
2000).
F. Executive Order 13211 (Energy Effect): This rule making is not a
significant energy action under Executive Order 13211 because this rule
making is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the
supply, distribution, or use of energy. Therefore, a Statement of
Energy Effects is not required under Executive Order 13211 (May 18,
2001).
G. Executive Order 12988 (Civil Justice Reform): This rule making
meets applicable standards to minimize litigation, eliminate ambiguity,
and reduce burden as set forth in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of
Executive Order 12988 (Feb. 5, 1996).
H. Executive Order 13045 (Protection of Children): This rule making
is not an economically significant rule and does not concern an
environmental risk to health or safety that may disproportionately
affect children under Executive Order 13045 (Apr. 21, 1997).
I. Executive Order 12630 (Taking of Private Property): This rule
making will not effect a taking of private property or otherwise have
taking implications under Executive Order 12630 (Mar. 15, 1988).
J. Congressional Review Act: Under the Congressional Review Act
provisions of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of
1996 (5 U.S.C. 801 et seq.), prior to issuing any final rule, the
United States Patent and Trademark Office will submit a report
containing the final rule and other required information to the U.S.
Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General
of the Government Accountability Office. This final rule merely revises
the rules governing inter partes reexamination to conform them to the
change to the standard for granting a request for inter partes
reexamination set forth in section 6(c)(3) of the Leahy-Smith America
Invents Act, and the September 16, 2012 date of termination of inter
partes reexamination provided for in section 6(c)(3) of the Leahy-Smith
America Invents Act. The change in this rule making is not expected to
result in an annual effect on the economy of 100 million dollars or
more, a major increase in costs or prices, or significant adverse
effects on competition, employment, investment, productivity,
innovation, or the ability of United States-based enterprises to
compete with foreign-based enterprises in domestic and export markets.
Therefore, this rule making is not expected to result in a ``major
rule'' as defined in 5 U.S.C. 804(2).
K. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995: The changes in this rule
will not result in the expenditure by State, local, and tribal
governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of 100 million
dollars or more in any one year, and it will not significantly or
uniquely affect small governments. Therefore, no actions are necessary
under the provisions of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995. See 2
U.S.C. 1501 et seq.
L. National Environmental Policy Act: The rule making will not have
any effect on the quality of the environment and is thus categorically
excluded from review under the National Environmental Policy Act of
1968. See 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.
M. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act: The
requirements of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and
Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) are inapplicable, because
this rule making does not involve the use of technical standards.
N. Paperwork Reduction Act: This rule making involves information
collection requirements which are subject to review by the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
(44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). The collection of information involved in
this rule making has been reviewed and previously approved by OMB under
OMB control number 0651-0064. This final rule merely revises the rules
governing inter partes reexamination to conform them to the change to
the standard for granting a request for inter partes reexamination set
forth in the transition provisions of section 6(c)(3) of the Leahy-
Smith America Invents Act, and the September 16, 2012 date of
termination of inter partes reexamination provided for in section
6(c)(3) of the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act. This rule making does
not impose additional collection requirements under the Paperwork
Reduction Act. Therefore, the United States Patent and Trademark Office
is not submitting an information collection package to OMB for its
review and approval because the changes in this rule making will not
affect the information collection requirements associated with the
information collection under OMB control number 0651-0064.
List of Subjects in 37 CFR Part 1
Administrative practice and procedure, Courts, Freedom of
information, Inventions and patents, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Small businesses, and Biologics.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, 37 CFR part 1 is amended
as follows:
PART 1--RULES OF PRACTICE IN PATENT CASES
0
1. The authority citation for 37 CFR part 1 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 35 U.S.C. 2(b)(2), unless otherwise noted.
0
2. Section 1.913 is revised to read as follows:
[[Page 59058]]
Sec. 1.913 Persons eligible to file, and time for filing, a request
for inter partes reexamination.
(a) Except as provided for in Sec. 1.907 and in paragraph (b) of
this section, any person other than the patent owner or its privies
may, at any time during the period of enforceability of a patent which
issued from an original application filed in the United States on or
after November 29, 1999, file a request for inter partes reexamination
by the Office of any claim of the patent on the basis of prior art
patents or printed publications cited under Sec. 1.501.
(b) Any request for an inter partes reexamination submitted on or
after September 16, 2012, will not be accorded a filing date, and any
such request will not be granted.
0
3. Section 1.915 is amended by revising paragraphs (b)(2) and (b)(3),
to read as follows:
Sec. 1.915 Content of request for inter partes reexamination.
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(2) A citation of the patents and printed publications which are
presented to provide a showing that there is a reasonable likelihood
that the requester will prevail with respect to at least one of the
claims challenged in the request.
(3) A statement pointing out, based on the cited patents and
printed publications, each showing of a reasonable likelihood that the
requester will prevail with respect to at least one of the claims
challenged in the request, and a detailed explanation of the pertinency
and manner of applying the patents and printed publications to every
claim for which reexamination is requested.
* * * * *
0
4. Section 1.923 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 1.923 Examiner's determination on the request for inter partes
reexamination.
Within three months following the filing date of a request for
inter partes reexamination under Sec. 1.915, the examiner will
consider the request and determine whether or not the request and the
prior art establish a reasonable likelihood that the requester will
prevail with respect to at least one of the claims challenged in the
request. The examiner's determination will be based on the claims in
effect at the time of the determination, will become a part of the
official file of the patent, and will be mailed to the patent owner at
the address as provided for in Sec. 1.33(c) and to the third party
requester. If the examiner determines that the request has not
established a reasonable likelihood that the requester will prevail
with respect to at least one of the challenged claims, the examiner
shall refuse the request and shall not order inter partes
reexamination.
0
5. Section 1.927 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 1.927 Petition to review refusal to order inter partes
reexamination.
The third party requester may seek review by a petition to the
Director under Sec. 1.181 within one month of the mailing date of the
examiner's determination refusing to order inter partes reexamination.
Any such petition must comply with Sec. 1.181(b). If no petition is
timely filed or if the decision on petition affirms that a reasonable
likelihood that the requester will prevail with respect to at least one
of the claims challenged in the request has not been established, the
determination shall be final and nonappealable.
0
6. Section 1.931 is amended by revising paragraph (a) to read as
follows:
Sec. 1.931 Order for inter partes reexamination.
(a) If it is found that there is a reasonable likelihood that the
requester will prevail with respect to at least one of the claims
challenged in the request, the determination will include an order for
inter partes reexamination of the patent for resolution of the question
of whether the requester will prevail.
* * * * *
Dated: September 16, 2011.
David J. Kappos,
Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and Director of
the United States Patent and Trademark Office.
[FR Doc. 2011-24464 Filed 9-22-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-16-P
