[Patentpractice] Third-Party exparte Challenge to Pending Application

[Sarah Adriano]

Thanks Rick!

CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE--This email is intended only for the person(s) named in the message header.  Unless otherwise indicated, this email contains information that is confidential, privileged and/or exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If you have received this message in error, please notify the sender of the error and delete the message.  Even if you are an intended recipient of this E-Mail, the author requests that you not forward it to any other person without written prior consent. E-Mail is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. Section 2510-2521 and is legally privileged. Thank you.

From: Patentpractice [mailto:patentpractice-bounces at oppedahl-lists.com] On Behalf Of Rick Neifeld via Patentpractice
Sent: Friday, February 16, 2024 9:22 AM
To: patentpractice at oppedahl-lists.com
Cc: Rick Neifeld <rneifeld at neifeld.com>
Subject: Re: [Patentpractice] Third-Party exparte Challenge to Pending Application

Keep in mind there are similar 3rd party submission procedures in the major offices. See for example slides 2-9 in "Company Perspectives, Procedures and Best Practices in View of the AIA<https://www.neifeld.com/pubs/Neifeld_IEEE_10-19-2012.pdf>" Presented by Rick Neifeld at IEEE-USA, Arlington, VA, October 19, 2012.

Best regards, Rick Neifeld, Ph.D., Patent Attorney
Neifeld IP Law PLLC
9112 Shearman Street, Fairfax VA 22032-1479, United States
Office: 1-7034150012
Mobile: 1-7034470727
Fax: 1-5712810045
Email: rneifeld at neifeld.com<mailto:rneifeld at neifeld.com>
and richardneifeld at gmail.com<mailto:richardneifeld at gmail.com>
Web: https://neifeld.com/
This is NOT a confidential communication of counsel. If you are not the intended recipient, delete this email and notify the sender that you did so.
On 2/8/2024 2:46 PM, Doreen Trujillo via Patentpractice wrote:
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.


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://oppedahl-lists.com/pipermail/patentpractice_oppedahl-lists.com/attachments/20240216/0ea490c5/attachment.htm>