<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
<style type="text/css" style="display:none;"> P {margin-top:0;margin-bottom:0;} </style>
</head>
<body dir="ltr">
<div><span style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; font-size: 11pt; color: rgb(32, 31, 30);">My experience has been that the Examiner is much more likely to make use of a 3rd-party submission than a reference filed by the applicant in an IDS.</span></div>
<div class="elementToProof"><span style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; font-size: 11pt; color: rgb(32, 31, 30);"><br>
</span></div>
<div class="elementToProof"><span style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; font-size: 11pt; color: rgb(32, 31, 30);">My personal rule of thumb is:</span></div>
<ul data-editing-info="{"orderedStyleType":1,"unorderedStyleType":1}" style="margin-block: 0px; list-style-type: disc;">
<li style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; font-size: 11pt; color: rgb(32, 31, 30);">
<div class="elementToProof"><span style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; font-size: 11pt; color: rgb(32, 31, 30);">Are you fine with this product co-existing and you just want to cost-effectively shove their claim scope comfortably away from yours? --> 3<sup>rd</sup> party
submission may be a great choice especially for clients without a budget for litigation, and/or companies without an appetite for litigation. </span></div>
</li><li style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; font-size: 11pt; color: rgb(32, 31, 30);">
<div class="elementToProof"><span style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; font-size: 11pt; color: rgb(32, 31, 30);">Are you likely to have to duke it out with them later and/or this is a high-value product you want every possible avenue available, and the
client's willing to go to litigation? --> holding your fire is probably a better option</span></div>
</li></ul>
<div class="elementToProof" style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; font-size: 11pt; color: rgb(32, 31, 30);">
Of course there's thousands of variables that can weigh in, but it's usually a good starting point.</div>
<div id="Signature"></div>
<div id="appendonsend"></div>
<hr style="display:inline-block;width:98%" tabindex="-1">
<div id="divRplyFwdMsg" dir="ltr"><font face="Calibri, sans-serif" style="font-size:11pt" color="#000000"><b>From:</b> Patentpractice <patentpractice-bounces@oppedahl-lists.com> on behalf of Dan Feigelson via Patentpractice <patentpractice@oppedahl-lists.com><br>
<b>Sent:</b> Thursday, February 8, 2024 7:32 AM<br>
<b>To:</b> For patent practitioners. This is not for laypersons to seek legal advice. <patentpractice@oppedahl-lists.com><br>
<b>Cc:</b> Dan Feigelson <djf@iliplaw.com><br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [Patentpractice] Third-Party exparte Challenge to Pending Application</font>
<div> </div>
</div>
<div><img width="1" height="1" src="https://gcfagjf.r.af.d.sendibt2.com/tr/op/cQ21xnm6L-ZlG5MR6qrggY_R4NOpkLibHEjPMoFeojt-jkHQB1nt1nsRuq_MhdP2OmaTFZG8XgcclMAu33omZ1oGwTYH8xSL6tz-KHrdx6otp5kTKl5r8VsBzA4-wOTdTScpI4_BtIWXkgsAq9usbFwKC_OKchNLxDKVn7P73gza9hXKWVqvJbi4lvuR0FbWckUxVJ9RX6BloelStFGRkjEYZTx8fdH1NhvO">
<div dir="ltr">
<div>I call this the "you can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink" provision. When Congress enacted 18-month publication as part of the AIPA in 1999, it also enacted third party submissions of prior art, but there was concern that the office
might be inundated with such submissions. So as third parties, we're not allowed to say "this anticipates claim 1" or "these references in combination make claim 2 obvious". See the end of the
<a href="https://gcfagjf.r.af.d.sendibt2.com/tr/cl/0KDITt0qd0fqBdN4GJuqJDCF9TzH2uorFdYyDqDa7xwf2bSbQYTagtuoNUl_ZUu5VUAb3abBj7L6TeYNpS9kEtB58-YzjfP2m3aJxxk1zTQveM5Sqxa80sVYh2dmnGGgug7x-dxunEJUXOJlYqFRrHICC01Xhy84o56odo-mFJU1TwsanEP0qR1j8YyVLmILIoS7kvISoPE7wzMQ4nPKFdE_BvYe-JyW8TmLnJBVkGbGEggbI342IEzDBHz-VzKnPuhqJ4Pz_hFyF7GYHRnoqFMZMhImdSwlY1ssOnIrKDkvmF70G44DaYxTBOZOgvrheWCseLO4Sy8" originalsrc="https://gcfagjf.r.af.d.sendibt2.com/tr/cl/0KDITt0qd0fqBdN4GJuqJDCF9TzH2uorFdYyDqDa7xwf2bSbQYTagtuoNUl_ZUu5VUAb3abBj7L6TeYNpS9kEtB58-YzjfP2m3aJxxk1zTQveM5Sqxa80sVYh2dmnGGgug7x-dxunEJUXOJlYqFRrHICC01Xhy84o56odo-mFJU1TwsanEP0qR1j8YyVLmILIoS7kvISoPE7wzMQ4nPKFdE_BvYe-JyW8TmLnJBVkGbGEggbI342IEzDBHz-VzKnPuhqJ4Pz_hFyF7GYHRnoqFMZMhImdSwlY1ssOnIrKDkvmF70G44DaYxTBOZOgvrheWCseLO4Sy8" shash="RMVESWbGwuBBMnmsGTtjmyTMKII1VfvfyVaPYFqjtHnohK8fXCHBPbeP5nweNgGWv3VQ461SzBSxqbueMhryeY6hNfMTkter4ja/2kRmk55uFgGF1BTnx9KN0hQhG7b3KhrM2COKxpRHe6yrqsu5dQCOzjeqPS1Qhw32hS6EBwA=">
MPEP discussion</a> that Scott linked to. So you can say, "Claim 1 recites a widget comprising an A attached to a B mounted on a C. Reference 1 is relevant because it shows a widget comprising an A (page 2, line 5 and element 10 in Fig. 1), a B attached to
A (page 2, line 6, element 12 in Fig. 1) mounted on a C (page 2, line 8, element 14 in Fig. 1)". That's fine, and is likely to get your submission into the record. But if you dare to add words like, "...and therefore claim 1 is anticipated by Reference 1",
they'll bounce it.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>I have not followed the success rate with these things in terms of affecting prosecution. If you submit the publications with an explanation of the relevance and the claims get allowed anyway, you have probably made it harder for your client to invalidate
the patent based on those same publications. And if you yourself appear as the attorney of record on your client's own patents, then if you're the one who makes the third-party submission, the competitor will be able to more easily figure out who's behind
the submission (which doesn't need to identify the real-party-in-interest, but only the party actually making the submission). So you might want to consider having a different attorney make the filing. Or, you can go the tried-and-true route of bringing the
publications to the attention of the applicant's attorney, who will in all likelihood then want to disclose the pubs in an IDS. The examiner make still allow the case, but there will be no discussion in the record of the relevance, thus leaving an easier path
to make such arguments yourself in subsequent adversarial proceedings.<br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Dan<br>
</div>
</div>
<br>
<div class="x_gmail_quote">
<div dir="ltr" class="x_gmail_attr">On Thu, Feb 8, 2024 at 2:09 PM Stanley H. Kremen via Patentpractice <<a href="mailto:patentpractice@oppedahl-lists.com">patentpractice@oppedahl-lists.com</a>> wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote class="x_gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204); padding-left:1ex">
Colleagues:<br>
<br>
Many years ago, I learned that there is a procedure at the USPTO whereby an interested third party may inform the examiner of prior art and other pertinent information relating to another party’s pending patent application. This would be done before a notice
of allowance or issue of a patent. However, I forgot details of the procedure. This would not be accomplished via an IPR or PGR, as no patent would have yet been issued.
<br>
<br>
Can anyone tell me the statute, regulation, or MPEP section that describes this procedure. Any additional information would be greatly appreciated. Are there any fees associated with such a submission?<br>
<br>
Thank you in advance. <br>
<br>
Stan Kremen <br>
<br>
Stanley H. Kremen, Esq. <br>
<a href="mailto:shk@shk-dplc.com" target="_blank">shk@shk-dplc.com</a><br>
<br>
Sent from my iPhone<br>
-- <br>
Patentpractice mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Patentpractice@oppedahl-lists.com" target="_blank">Patentpractice@oppedahl-lists.com</a><br>
<a href="https://gcfagjf.r.af.d.sendibt2.com/tr/cl/ydepIQ9mrE0n_BgMpjclocA7Bfd-D-21jnKrApj2HCu-2N9xK_Wrm86vsGscejuwWTXG6rHSwkySlQr9MByTQijg_xBTfRA5q-C_-4GVgxwoaSG4G8kCCr-jWN-IzcOC5GRiqnSHdBtOm8FdfPqMZ2Lwob2sWDIS3Hb5NVbN2hGUzUSsYrblpbumx-0l7-mYEINPi6ywuczInl_YVhlm2TPlqaPELnhkXidOaNRHaSesm1dIkwcG2IpJNt5Ls_Q69vxpoooixs5I1b9q-a9AFKSyLmMZsFrc5ow_qFqH8jPHglS1Vz9GLTsl23RXGvHJPQGv_zKdUvbjB6ATsN1aAaRsacuZxlg448eh" originalsrc="https://gcfagjf.r.af.d.sendibt2.com/tr/cl/ydepIQ9mrE0n_BgMpjclocA7Bfd-D-21jnKrApj2HCu-2N9xK_Wrm86vsGscejuwWTXG6rHSwkySlQr9MByTQijg_xBTfRA5q-C_-4GVgxwoaSG4G8kCCr-jWN-IzcOC5GRiqnSHdBtOm8FdfPqMZ2Lwob2sWDIS3Hb5NVbN2hGUzUSsYrblpbumx-0l7-mYEINPi6ywuczInl_YVhlm2TPlqaPELnhkXidOaNRHaSesm1dIkwcG2IpJNt5Ls_Q69vxpoooixs5I1b9q-a9AFKSyLmMZsFrc5ow_qFqH8jPHglS1Vz9GLTsl23RXGvHJPQGv_zKdUvbjB6ATsN1aAaRsacuZxlg448eh" shash="Cak82CBtb3R8qD5WeNq/53seSJwQR1rJSyDHZO+sCeySES0xT5f9QZA4sHcWLKtnyIBNwFwy/pE67Yn262IlmOroL9tTiDvZ2I4l+v4SciRmWEvI2T0CJgD7fxpTBz/Zxt7qvuM/TOWWiutbPLm6mEAJT3f0mXDPYeeElWaBNiQ=" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://oppedahl-lists.com/mailman/listinfo/patentpractice_oppedahl-lists.com</a><br>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
</body>
</html>