·       In In re Hubbell the Federal Circuit confirmed the rejection of all of the pending claims in an application, filed with Jeffrey Hubbell, Jason Schense, Andreas Zisch, and Heike Hall as named inventors.  The invention disclosed in the application was based on research performed while all of the named inventors were at California Institute of Technology (CalTech). As a result, the application is assigned to CalTech.  Approximately five years before the CalTech application was filed, Hubbell left CalTech for Eidgenossische Technische Hochschule Zurich (ETHZ).  A second application filed based on research Hubbell and Schense conducted at ETHZ was filed less than a year before the CalTech application, which is assigned to ETHZ and Zurich University.  Aside from Hubbell and Schense, the two patents do not have identical inventive entities, or common owners or assignees.  The ETHZ application, which issued as a U.S. patent in 2009, was used as the basis for an obviousness-type double patenting rejection, which was upheld by the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences.

Hubbell appealed the Board decision, arguing that the judicially created obviousness-type double patenting rejection should not apply where an application and a conflicting patent share common inventors, but do not have identical inventive entities, were never commonly owned, and are not subject to a joint research agreement.  Alternatively, Hubbell argued that should the court find the obviousness-type double patenting rejection is applicable, he should either be allowed to file a terminal disclaimer as an equitable measure, or the court should employ a two-way obviousness analysis for the rejected claims. 

The Federal Circuit affirmed the Board, finding that both the MPEP and Federal Circuit precedent supported application of the obviousness-type double patenting rejection to cases where an application and a conflicting patent have one or more inventors in common but the inventive entities are not identical and the applications were never commonly owned.  The court rejected Hubbell’s argument that the case precedent only involved applications that were once commonly owned by the same entity, and did not apply to his application because CalTech never controlled the ownership of the second application.  The court based its decision on the underlying concerns over the possibility of harassment by multiple assignees that exists when issued patents lack common ownership—if the claims of the ETHZ application were to issue, a potential infringer could be subject to suit from both CalTech and ETHZ.  The court also rejected Hubbell’s argument that a terminal disclaimer should be permitted, based on the fact that there is no statutory basis for doing so.  Finally, the court affirmed the Board’s rejection of Hubbell’s request to have the two-way obviousness analysis applied in the case.  The court concluded that Hubbell’s application did not meet the requirements to apply the narrow exception to the general rule of the one-way test.  

Judge Newman dissented in the opinion, concluding that the majority’s decision is a “flawed ruling on incorrect law.”  Specifically, Judge Newman concluded that because there are different inventive entities and that there is not common ownership, obviousness-type double patenting does not apply, but if there indeed is obviousness-type double patenting, then a terminal disclaimer is necessarily available. Judge Newman took issue with the circularity of the majority opinion—a terminal disclaimer is not available because there is not common ownership, yet if there is not common ownership or common inventorship, there cannot be double patenting. 

·       In Dawson v. Dawson, the Federal Circuit upheld the USPTO Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences (BPAI) decision determining that an earlier-filed patent application for topically treating and preventing infections of the eye, naming Dr. Chandler Dawson as inventor, had priority over a later-filed patent application, also naming Dr. Chandler Dawson as inventor.  The earlier-filed application was submitted by Dr. Dawson and Dr. Lyle Bowman and assigned to InSite Vision Incorporated.  The University of California San Francisco (UCSF) filed the later-filed application, without the involvement of Dr. Dawson but naming Dr. Dawson as the sole inventor, for the sole purpose of instituting an interference.  The BPAI determined that UCSF had not met its burden to show that Dr. Dawson had conceived of the invention prior to his collaboration with Dr. Bowman.   

On appeal to the Federal Circuit, UCSF asserted that the invention embodied in the InSite application was conceived of by Dr. Dawson while he was employed at UCSF and before he joined InSite, and therefore priority of the invention should rest in the UCSF later-filed application.  UCSF argued that the conception requirement was met by the time Dr. Dawson made a presentation at a WHO conference, as demonstrated by documents produced from that conference.  UCSF argued that even though the conference documents lacked the particular carrier and concentrations recited in the claims, conception was achieved because the documents showed that Dr. Dawson had formed the idea that of topical use of azithromycin would be effective for treating eye infections, and that the subsequent preparation of an effective ointment was merely corroboration of the idea.  

The court rejected UCSF’s arguments, reasoning that the WHO documents themselves demonstrated the lack of conception because they constituted “a ‘preliminary’ statement about a ‘possibility’ or ‘potential use,’ alongside a recommendation for continued work and a ‘report back’ in the future.”  The court concluded that this fell short of the requirement for a definite and permanent idea of the complete and operative invention, as it is to be applied in practice, as set out in Hybritech Inc. v. Monoclonal Antibodies, Inc.  The court further held that UCSF failed to make a sufficient showing with respect to the individual interference counts—the specific concentrations, the suspending agent, or the claimed “amount effective to treat infection in a tissue of the eye.”  Finally, the court rejected UCSF’s argument that the BPAI had improperly required a showing of reduction to practice in order to prove conception, concluding that UCSF’s argument was based on an erroneous view of what is needed to prove conception, and holding that “there is a critical difference between conceiving a way to make an idea operative and knowing that a completed invention will work for its intended purpose.” 

Judge Reyna dissented in the opinion, concluding that the record was sufficient to demonstrate that Dr. Dawson possessed a definite and permanent idea of his complete and operative invention when he was employed by UCSF, not InSite, and therefore UCSF had demonstrated prior conception.   

·       In Saffran v. Johnson &Johnson, Dr. Bruce N. Saffran (Saffran) sued Johnson & Johnson and Cordis Corporation (collectively “J&J”), alleging that J&J infringed a number of claims in Saffran’s U.S. patent.  The patent involved methods and apparatus that would sequester macromolecules within a defined area, for example a sheet that could be wrapped around a bone fracture that would keep growth factors from diffusing out of the fractured area.  The claims of the patent were also drawn to the additional capability of controlled release of a substance incorporated into the apparatus via a “means for release.”  The alleged infringing device was a drug-eluting stent comprising a metallic mesh with a microscopic layer of polymer that coats the surface of each strut, the polymer being mixed with a macromolecular drug that would gradually escape through gaps in the polymer matrix.  The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas held that J&J infringed the patent based on its construction of the terms “device” and “release means”.  J&J appealed to the Federal Circuit, arguing that the district courts construction of the two terms was erroneous, and that a proper construction precluded infringement. 

On appeal, the Federal Circuit construed the term “device”—as used in the preamble and body of independent claim 1, in the bodies of independent claims 8 and 15, and at least by reference in each of the dependent claims—to mean a continuous sheet and to exclude stents having open mesh holes.  The court came to this conclusion based on the prosecution history, during which the patentee sought to distinguish the prior art by asserting that the device used in the invention is a sheet rather than the structure disclosed in the prior art reference.  The court confirmed that this corresponded to the disclosure in the specification, and Saffran’s argument that the specification contained alternative embodiments did not persuade the court otherwise.   

The court confirmed that “[u]nder § 112, ¶ 6, the question is not what structures a person of ordinary skill in the art would know are capable of performing a given function, but what structures are specifically disclosed and tied to that function in the specification” and “a patentee cannot rely on claim differentiation to broaden a means-plus-function limitation beyond those structures specifically disclosed in the specification.”  Thus, the court construed “release means” to only include treating material attached to the substantially impermeable sheet via hydrolyzable bonds or an equivalent thereof.

Based on its construction of “device” and “release means” the court concluded that J&J did not infringe the asserted Saffran patent. 

The United States Patent and Trademark Office has released its rules regarding changes under first inventor to file provisions of the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act. The rules published by the USPTO in the Federal Register on March 16, 2013 provide guidelines for implementing the new patent law and guidelines for examination of patent applications under the new standards.  The documents cover a broad range of topics, with a high degree of specificity, but we provide highlights from both of the Federal Register publications are as follows:

-          First-to-file standards only apply to applications filed on or after March 16, 2013

·         In U.S. Polo Assoc., Inc. v. PRL USA Holdings, Inc., the Second Circuit Court of Appeals found that the natural zone of expansion doctrine did not permit the United States Polo Association (“USPA”) to expand its offerings into a line of fragrances and affirmed the district court’s entry of a permanent injunction prohibiting such use.  The USPA filed a declaratory judgment to approve use of its Double Horseman mark, accompanied by the words “U.S. POLO ASSN.,” “USPA,” and/or “1890,” in the sale of men’s fragrances.  PRL counterclaimed, seeking entry of a permanent injunction precluding such use—which the district court granted.  USPA’s argument was centered on the, so called, natural zone of expansion doctrine.  USPA argued that its history of selling branded apparel provided it with the right to expand into related markets, i.e., apparel sales give rise to the right to expand into fragrances.  The district court gave little weight to USPA’s survey and found that PRL’s survey gave strong evidence of a likelihood of confusion.  The Second Circuit found that the district court’s holdings regarding the survey evidence did not abuse its discretion and that the previous litigation and USPA’s history did not support USPA’s argued natural right to expand.

·         In Function Media, L.L.C. v. Google, Inc., the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals held that the denial of a pre-trial motion for summary judgment of non-infringement is not sufficient to show that the district court delegated claim construction to the jury.  Function Media (“FM”) sued Google for infringement of three patents directed at “facilitate[ing] advertising on multiple advertising outlets such as newspapers and websites.”  Slip op. at p. 2.  The district court held that one patent was invalid for being indefinite “because the specification did not disclose sufficient structure for its sole independent claim’s means plus function term ‘means for transmitting.’”  Id. at pp. 5–6 (citations omitted).  A jury found the asserted claims in other two patents invalid and not infringed.  FM moved for judgment as a matter of law (“JMOL”) that the claims were not invalid, which the district court granted with respect to four claims.  This did not alter the jury verdict of non-infringement. 

FM appealed on a number of grounds, including an assertion that the district court gave the claim interpretation to the jury.  The argument was based on the fact that the district court denied Google’s motion for summary judgment of non-infringement. FM argued that the denial of summary judgment demonstrated that there were unresolved issues regarding claim scope, which were subsequently left to the jury rather than construed by the court.  The Federal Circuit did not agree that the district court improperly gave the claim interpretation to the jury, the Federal Circuit stated, “We hold that the denial of a pre-trial motion for summary judgment of non-infringement does not, by itself, show that the district court delegated claim construction to the jury.  This is especially true where, as here, the jury was instructed to apply the district court's claim constructions.”  Id. at pp. 21–22. 

·         In Cephalon, Inc. v. Watson Pharma., Inc. , the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals reversed a district court’s holding of invalidity for lack of enablement stating, “Watson failed as a matter of law to show with clear and convincing evidence that Cephalon’s patents require undue experimentation to practice the invention.”  Slip op. at p. 2.  Throughout the discussion of enablement, the Federal Circuit highlighted that the burden is on Watson to show lack of enablement—undue experimentation—and to do so by clear and convincing evidence.  The district court’s analysis was that, “the disclosures lacked teachings directed to formulating and co-administering two separate dosage forms . . . to achieve an effervescent reaction.  The lack of disclosure of such methods of co-administration would, according to the court, necessitate undue experimentation to practice the invention.”  Id. at p. 11 (citations omitted).  Watson merely provided “[u] nsubstantiated statements indicating that experimentation would be ‘difficult’ and ‘complicated.’”  Id. at pp. 15–16.  The Federal Circuit found that these statements did not meet the standard of clear and convincing evidence to establish undue burden as opposed to reasonable experimentation.  As such, the Federal Circuit reversed the district court’s holding of invalidity and remanded.

·         The United States Patent and Trademark Office published the final rules and guidelines governing First-Inventor-to-File.  (http://www.uspto.gov/news/pr/2013/13-10.jsp)  There were two separate Federal Register publications and each is briefly discussed below.  A more thorough discussion of each is forthcoming.

o   Changes to Implement First Inventor to File Provisions of Leahy-Smith America Invents Act

This publication sets forth the changes that will be necessary to implement the First-Inventor-to-File standards.  It addresses changes regarding each of the following:

§  The addition of definitions in the AIA to the rules of practice;

§  The submission of affidavits or declarations regarding:  disclosures in priority disputes under the first-to-file standards and prior public disclosures;

§  Standards regarding a U.S. Patent or Published Applications having a prior art effect as of the filing date of a foreign priority application;

§  Elimination of the provisions regarding statutory invention registrations; and

§  Adoption of requirements for nonprovisional applications filed on or after March 16, 2013, that claim priority to or the benefit of the filing date of an application filed prior to March 16, 2013.

o   Examination Guidelines for Implementing First Inventor to File Provisions of Leahy-Smith America Invents Act

This publication sets forth the changes the changes to the examination guidelines under the First-Inventor-to-File standard.  The publication is also meant to clarify and respond to questions provided during the public comment period regarding whether there is a requirement that the mode of disclosure by an inventor or joint inventor be the same as the mode of disclosure of an intervening disclosure.

·       In Soverain Software LLC v. Newegg Inc. the Federal Circuit vacated in part and reversed in part an Eastern District of Texas decision finding Newegg Inc. liable for infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 5,715,314, 5,909,492, and 7,272,639, all relating to electronic commerce.  The Federal Circuit offered clarifying insight on the obviousness doctrine.  The background facts are as follows:  Soverain Software purchased three software patents through bankruptcy proceedings and then proceeded to sue seven different entities for infringing the patents.  Six of the defendants settled and entered paid up license agreements with Soverain.  The seventh defendant, Newegg, refused to settle and argued that the asserted patents are all invalid and even if valid, Newegg’s system is different and non-infringing.  At trial, the district court refused to permit Newegg to present its obviousness argument to the jury and ruled that the patents were valid as a matter of law.  The jury found that Newegg had infringed two of the patents but not the third; the district court, however, entered judgment as a matter of law that Newegg infringed the third patent.  Newegg appealed and the Federal Circuit found all three patents obvious.  The federal circuit had three major discussion points:  (1) each element of the disputed claims was found in the prior art, (2) combining those elements would be obvious to one of skill in the art, and (3) licenses entered in settlement to a lawsuit do not constitute evidence of commercial success. 

·       In Rexnord Industries, LLC v. Kappos the Federal Circuit reversed a BPAI decision holding claims for a mechanical conveyor belt patentable.  The patent in question was asserted by Habasit Belting, Inc. against Rexnord Industries in an infringement suit in Delaware district court.  Rexnord filed a request for inter partes reexamination.  The examiner in the reexamination found all of the claims to be unpatentable for anticipation or obviousness. Habasit appealed the examiner’s findings, and the BPAI reversed, concluding that the claims of the patent were not anticipated by any of the references cited in the reexamination, and were unobvious over the cited references.  Rexnord appealed the BPAI decision to the Federal Circuit, arguing that the BPAI erroneously refused to review all of the arguments that Rexnord had presented as grounds for unpatentability.  The PTO countered that the BPAI only needed to consider the issue raised by Habasit on appeal, and had no obligation to consider other grounds that had been presented during reexamination, relying on a BPAI rule that “bars the presentation of new arguments outside appellant’s opening brief.”  The Federal Circuit noted that Rexnord was not the appellant before the BPAI since Habasit appealed the examiner’s decision, and concluded that the alternative bases for obviousness raised in the reexamination were properly raised on appeal to the Federal Circuit because they were fully raised in the reexamination and were not an issue for patentability until after the Board reversed the examiner.  The court then found the claims obvious on these additional grounds.

·       In Hall v. Bed Bath & Beyond, the Federal Circuit affirmed a Southern District of New Your district court’s dismissal of counts against Bed Bath & Beyond (BB&B) executives and counterclaims filed by BB&B, but concluded that the district court’s dismissal of Hall’s design patent infringement, unfair competition, and misappropriation claims for failure to state a claim on which relief can be granted under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).  BB&B argued in its motion to dismiss, and the district court agreed, that the complaint was insufficient because if failed to include any claim construction, but the Federal Circuit held the complaint met the requirements for pleading design patent infringement previously set out by the court in Phonometrics, Inc. v. Hospitality Franchise Systems, Inc.  Specifically, the court found the complaint (i) alleged ownership of the patent, (ii) named each defendant, (iii) cited the patent that was allegedly infringed, (iv) stated the means by which the defendant allegedly infringed, and (v) pointed to the sections of the patent law invoked, and in doing so met its burden to withstand a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), Twombly and Iqbal. 

·         In Wax v. Amazon Techs., the Federal Circuit upheld the TTAB’s denial of registration of the mark AMAZON VENTURES.  Applicant filed and intent-to-use application to register the mark for “investment management, raising venture capital for others, . . . and capital investment consultation.”  Amazon Technologies, Inc.—online retailer and owner of several AMAZON.COM marks—opposed the registration.  The TTAB concluded that Amazon Technologies, Inc. had priority in the AMAZON.COM marks, and that there was a likelihood of confusion between Amazon Technologies’ marks and those of the applicant.  The Applicant challenged the TTAB’s findings that (1) Amazon Technologies’ marks are famous, (2) the similarity of Amazon Technologies’ mark to AMAZON VENTURES, and (3) the similarity of the parties' services and channels of trade.  The Federal Circuit confirmed the TTAB’s findings, based in part on the wide latitude of protection afforded to Amazon Technologies’ on account of its fame within the buying public.  

·         The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed a district court’s judgment and damages for Hallmark Cards, Inc. against a former employee for breach of contract and misappropriation of trade secrets.  The district court entered the jury’s award of damages in the amount of $860,000.  The Eight Circuit affirmed $735,000 of the damages as they related to breach of contract and disclosure of trade secrets, but overturned $125,000 the former employee earned in compensation from a competitor. 

Recently, the Federal Circuit issued its opinion in CW Zumbiel v. Kappos.  The Federal Circuit affirmed the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences’ (“BPAI”) finding that multiple claims in U.S. Patent No. 6,715,639 (“the ’639 patent”) were obvious and therefore invalid.  The ’639 patent is directed to a “carton with an improved dispenser.”  The carton is for holding cans or bottles and the improved dispenser is a flap that permits dispensing of the cans or bottles without compromising the structure of the carton so that the remaining cans or bottles are secure within the container.  The ’639 patent issued to Graphic Packaging International, Inc. (“Graphic”).  Upon issuance CW Zumbiel Co., Inc. (“Zumbiel”) challenged the validity of the ’639 patent by instituting an inter partes reexamination.  During the inter partes reexamination, the Examiner rejected multiple claims for obviousness, while maintaining the patentability of other claims.  Graphic appealed the Examiner’s rejections to the BPAI, which subsequently affirmed the patentability of some claims and the rejection of the other claims based on obviousness over Ellis, U.S. Patent No. 3,178242, in view of German Gebrauchsmuster No. G85 14718.4.  Zumbiel appealed the BPAI’s finding that some claims were patentable and Graphic cross-appealed the finding that other claims were obvious.

One limitation that was found obvious was the “finger-flap,” which opens across the top panel of the carton.  Graphic argued that the limitation would not be obvious over the combination of references because they open in different ways—Ellis is laid on its side and opens on the back while the German patent opens from the top.  The Federal Circuit affirmed the BPAI’s finding of obviousness quoting the BPAI, which stated, “‘providing the finger opening on the top wall of the carton would be a predictable variation that enhances user convenience, as evidenced by German ’718, and is within the skill of a person of ordinary skill in the art.’”

Another limitation that was found obvious was the “fold-line” limitation, which provides a fold-line so that the flap can be folded back to cover the opening.  Graphic argued that the German reference did not teach such a flap, but rather was directed to a container allowing simultaneous removal and replacement of bottles through an opening that could either be a perforated line or a fold line.  The Federal Circuit affirmed the BPAI’s finding that the fold-line limitation was obvious over the cited references as the combination teaches that a tear-line can be replaced by a fold-line, which would be obvious to one of skill in the art. 

Zumbiel disputed the BPAI’s determination that claim 2 was not obvious.  Claim 2 was directed to the placement of the finger-flap between the first and second cans.  Zumbiel argued that the placement would have been obvious in light of the combination of references.  The Federal Circuit, however, affirmed the BPAI’s finding that the prior art reference at issue—Palmer, U.S. Patent No. 2,718,301—only taught where to place a handle formed by the perforated tear-line on the container, not where to place perforation for an opening.  Moreover, the Federal Circuit noted that one of the references actually taught away from the placement of the tear-line in claim 2.  Therefore, the combination of references could not render claim 2 obvious.

Ultimately the Federal Circuit affirmed the BPAI’s findings in whole.  The opinion demonstrates examples teaching away, predictable variations in light of the knowledge of one skilled in the art of the invention, and a proper combination of references.

Dissent

Judge Prost dissented in part arguing that claim 2 should have been found obvious based in light of the KSR decision and the applicability of common sense in the obviousness determination.  The dissent, quite candidly, sets out the invention of the ’639 invention, its common sense understanding, and the teachings of the prior art that had existed for “almost fifty years.”  Judge Prost took issue with the finding that placement of the tear-line was unobvious:

The secret lies in the proper positioning of the tear line.  That is, according to the Board, ordinary box makers would not have put the tear line between the first two cans in the top row.  Where else could have they put it? There are just four other options: (1) above the first can, (2) above the second can, (3) in front of the first can, (4) behind the second can.  The first two alternatives are just offensive to common sense: With the cans right below, there would be no room to push the flap through (the flap is positioned at the center of the tear line). The third and fourth options are not quite as illogical, but even without expertise in box making, one may intuit that they make awkward designs (the third opens too little, the fourth too much).  More importantly, however, whether some of the alternatives would work just as well or not, the patentee’s choice of tear-line-placement involves no more than the exercise of common sense . . . .

As such, Judge Prost concludes that the invention of claim 2 would have been obvious, particularly when viewed in light of the prior art.

The full text of the Federal Circuit opinion is available here.  

·         The Supreme Court handed down its decision in Already, LLC v. Nike, Inc.  The Court held that Nike’s covenant not to sue Alreadyfor alleged infringement of Nike’s AIR FORCE 1 trademark—entered into after Nike had filed suit and Already had filed a counterclaim challenging the mark’s validity—rendered both Nike’s claims and Already’s counterclaims moot.  The Court held that because Already failed to show that it engages in or has sufficiently concrete plans to engage in activities that would arguably infringe Nike’s trademark yet not be covered by the covenant not to sue, its claims could not survive Nike’s motion to dismiss. 

In a press release, the USPTO stated it has sufficient available funds not tied to the current fiscal year that it will be able to remain open for six days following any shutdown of government functions.  Based on the current appropriations, that would put the USPTO open until April 18, assuming a shutdown begins April 11.  After that time, limited functions should still be available, including accepting new electronically-filed applications and other IT functions.  It is not clear what, if any, other services will continue to be available after that time.

To read the full press release, click here.

In a Federal Register notice today, the USPTO has published interim guidance regarding how examiners are to assess whether an application's patent claims fall within the scope of patentable subject matter defined in § 101 in light of the Supreme Court's decision in Bilski.  Many patent attorneys were concerned when the initial memo to examiners was released, suggesting the machine-or-transformation test was a burden-shifting mechanism and leaving it to an applicant who did not meet the test to prove the claims fell within § 101.  The new guidance should allay these concerns somewhat, and comments are sought on both the guidelines and to provide examples of claims that are perceived to fall both within and without § 101.

The notice provides a background of the Bilski decision, particularly in the context of abstract ideas, given that was the basis for the Court finding Bilski's claims unpatentable.  It then provides details on how examiners are to evaluate claims for § 101 compliance and provides factors to be considered.  Of particular note is the following passage:

Section 101 is merely a coarse filter and thus a determination of eligibility under § 101 is only a threshold question for patentability.  Sections 102, 103, and 112 are typically the primary tools for evaluating patentability unless the claim is truly abstract . . . .

The guidelines also provide how the examiner can make a § 101 rejection such that it can be responded to: 

If a claim is rejected under § 101 on the basis that it is drawn to an abstract idea, the applicant then has the opportunity to explain why the claimed method is not drawn to an abstract idea. Specifically identifying the factors used in the analysis will allow the applicant to make specific arguments in response to the rejection if the applicant believes that the conclusion that the claim is directed to an abstract idea is in error.

The Notice lists various factors that an examiner can use to assist in the determination.  On the whole, this approach should assist both applicants and examiners in addressing § 101 issues in a productive manner, although there will in most cases be room for argument regarding the relative weighing of the factors.

Click below for a listing of the factors identified in the notice as relevant to the § 101 analysis.

[More]

In a press release today, the USPTO has proposed a tiered examination system where applicants could choose to pay a higher fee in exchange for quicker examination of an application or could opt for a delay of up to 30 months before docketing for examination.  This is the latest in Director Kappos' attempts to control application pendency at the Office.

The "prioritized examination" track would be much like the current accelerated examination system in that final action on the application would be targeted to be within one year of filing.  However, applicants would not have to provide the onerous examination support document with the application.

Similarly, the slow track would permit applicants to elect a delay of up to 30 months before the application is placed in the examination queue.  There is no indication in the press release as to whether applications filed under this track would receive a break on the filing fee.  However, this track would seem to be a favorable choice for companies that would prefer their patents to issue later (and therefore, with patent term adjustment, expire later).  

There will be a Federal Register notice with additional details tomorrow [UPDATE (6/4):  click here for the Federal Register Notice], and a public hearing is set for July 20 at the USPTO. 

To read the full press release, click here.