Copyright

When is PPH or PCT-PPH Possibly a Good or Bad Idea?

When is PPH or PCT-PPH Possibly a Good Idea?

There are certain situations where it may be advantageous to use the PPH or PCT-PPH programs, recognizing that this is a case-by-case basis analysis that requires careful consideration of a number of factors under competent guidance from experienced counsel.

In particular, there are circumstances where a “fast-pass” treatment of an application could be strategically useful, even for an arguably narrow claim(s).   For example, if your client’s commercial product or their competitor’s product falls within the scope of such claims, even a narrow one, requesting the PPH or PCT-PPH program may provide an expedited enforcement strategy.  Continuations and/or divisional(s) can be filed off of the narrowly scoped PPH or PCT-PPH applications to possibly obtain broader claim scope.   These continuations and divisionals would of course be treated as regularly filed applications.   Clearly, the use of PPH must be integrated with a carefully planned continuation strategy, one that uses PPH for the immediate attainment of narrow claims and continuations for possibly attaining expanded claim scope.

So, during the prosecution of family related case, carefully review any claim in the ISR/WO IPER, IPEA that does not have an “X” or “Y” indicator for consideration.   Likewise, review office actions for indications of allowable subject matter.   Consider, in combination with the above, using PPH in an OSF (e.g., Japan and Canada) where prosecution normally is much slower compared with the OFF (e.g., United States).   This may be the biggest benefit in using the PPH or PCT-PPH for U.S. innovators as there is the possibility of greatly expedited out-of-turn advancement in these countries.   For example, in Japan prosecution can begin months upon acceptance into their PPH program, whereas it normally would take years to see a first action.   It may be possible to obtain “fast-pass” treatment in both Japan and Canada from the allowed U.S. case, for example.   So, together with the timing of receiving an indication from the USPTO or a Written Opinion of an allowable claim, Japan and Canada are perhaps the most attractive non-U.S. patent offices for this program for applicants with allowed U.S. claims and pending, not-yet-examined corresponding applications in these countries.

One reason to expedite prosecution is if the art field is one that rapidly changes and as a result, the intrinsic value of a patent is considerably shorter than the 20 years from filing date.   Thus, using PPH should be considered for time sensitive technologies (business methods and software/computer).   Korea as the International Searching Authority will search these classes possibly indicating allowable subject matter in the Written Opinion.   Also, the PPH programs may be strategically useful if the particular circumstances would benefit from an expedited issuance of a patent, such as a licensing scenario.

When is PPH or PCT-PPH Probably Not a Good Idea?

There are certain situations where it may not be advisable to use the PPH or PCT-PPH programs, recognizing that this is a case-by-case basis analysis that requires careful consideration of a number of factors under guidance from experienced counsel.

As mentioned previously, the “sufficiently corresponds” rule requiring that the claims allowed in the OFF verses claims presented in the OSF may not provide sufficient justification to use the program in most cases.  Likewise, before considering “fast-pass” treatment in the U.S. using a Written Opinion from an International Searching Authority (ISA), check whether there are any “Box VIII issues,” and if so, whether they potentially could create estoppel.

Fundamental differences in patent law between countries need careful consideration before using PPH.   For example, if you amend claims in your U.S. case for reasons under 102(e) you can inadvertently and unnecessarily narrow the claim scope otherwise obtainable for the EP PPH case.   Also, the treatment of means-plus-function claim scope between the U.S. and non-U.S. countries may exclude these claims from consideration in the PPH program.

Expediting your non-U.S. case may also trigger the new divisional rules recently implemented in the EPO, which could affect budgets based on conventional prosecution time scales.   Realize also that the first application (in the OFF), or a continuation thereof may likely be pending while the OSF application prosecution begins, raising the possibility of creating argument estoppel in the OSF.   Likewise, due diligence in reporting to the U.S. (as the OFF) of the prosecution in the OSF should be observed to avoid possible inequitable conduct issues.

Finally, there is no precedent in our Federal Circuit for the many issues that could arise under the PPH.   For many of us, not wanting to be the “test case” for U.S. precedent may be enough to simply “pass on these ‘fast-pass’ programs,” at least for now.

Chris Knors

About Chris Knors

Dr. Knors' practice is focused in technologies that involve chemistry, polymers and materials, such as pharmaceuticals, medical devices, glucose monitoring, eye care, herbicides, fungicides, pesticides, functional coatings, semiconductor manufacturing processes, glasses and fibers, lubricants, rechargeable batteries, metallurgy, ballistic materials and nanomaterials. Dr. Knors provides counseling with regard to patent portfolio management and strategy with issues that include licensing, collaborations and technology acquisitions, patent validity, infringement, reexamination, and design around strategies. Dr. Knors has performed intellectual property due diligence investigations on behalf of clients seeking to acquire or market medical devices and early and late stage pharmaceutical product candidates, and assisted clients in technology transfer in the agrochemical, medical device and pharmaceutical fields.

Discussion

No comments yet.

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Welcome to the MVA IP Law Blog!

Moore & Van Allen’s IP Law Blog covers hot topics in U.S. and international intellectual property law and provides insight into critical litigation, legislative, regulatory and policy developments. In today’s highly competitive and rapidly developing business climate, technological advancements and the protection of intellectual property rights are paramount concerns common to companies, universities, and individuals operating in nearly every industry.

Connect to Recent Authors

  • Matt Witsil:  View Matt Witsil's Bio View Matt Witsil's LinkedIn profile
  • Emmett Weindruch: View Emmett Weindruch's Bio View Emmett Weindruch's LinkedIn profile
  • Todd Taylor:  View Todd Taylor's Bio View Todd Taylor's LinkedIn profile
  • John Slaughter:  View John Slaughter's Bio View John Slaughter's LinkedIn profile
  • Nick Russell:  View Nick Russell's Bio
  • Ellen Rubel:  View Ellen Rubel's Bio View Ellen Rubel's LinkedIn profile
  • Esther Queen:  View Esther Queen's Bio View Esther Queen's LinkedIn profile
  • Steve Phillips:  View Steve Phillip's Bio View Steve Phillip's LinkedIn profile
  • Chuck Moore:  View Chuck Moore's Bio View Chuck Moore's LinkedIn profile
  • Mark Wilson:  View Mark Wilson's Bio View Mark Wilson's LinkedIn profile
  • Chris Knors:  View Chris Knors' Bio View Chris Knors' LinkedIn profile
  • Jeff Gray:  View Jeff Gray's Bio View Jeff Gray's LinkedIn profile
  • Andy Gerschutz:  View Andy Gerschutz's Bio View Andy Gerschutz's LinkedIn profile
  • Jim Edwards:  View Jim Edwards' Bio View Jim Edwards' LinkedIn profile

  • Subscribe to Blog via Email

    Follow MVA

    Facebooktwitterlinkedinrss

    Blog Topics

    Archives


    Our IP Practice

    Moore & Van Allen is located in the Research Triangle and Charlotte, North Carolina – two emerging hubs in the areas of biotech and energy. Moore & Van Allen’s intellectual property lawyers are highly-skilled and innovative in their approach to assisting clients in using patents, trademarks, copyrights, trade secrets and technology to achieve their business objectives.

    Our “business focused” team combines legal know-how with the technical proficiency and industry experience necessary to navigate our clients through matters in areas as diverse as nuclear power, navigation systems, microprocessor design, pollution control, pharmaceuticals, semi-conductor manufacturing, food processing, telecommunications, internet applications, computer software, business methods and consumer products.

    We offer a full range of patent, trademark, and copyright services, and our team is equipped with IP litigators with substantial state, federal, and international experience. To benefit and best serve our clients, we leverage our ongoing working relationships with highly qualified intellectual property practitioners and agents in virtually every country in the world. Read More About Our Practice and Meet the MVA IP Team.

    Disclaimer

    No Attorney-Client Relationship Created by Use of this Website: Neither your receipt of information from this website, nor your use of this website to contact Moore & Van Allen or one of its attorneys creates an attorney-client relationship between you and Moore & Van Allen. As a matter of policy, Moore & Van Allen does not accept a new client without first investigating for possible conflicts of interests and obtaining a signed engagement letter. (Moore & Van Allen may, for example, already represent another party involved in your matter.) Accordingly, you should not use this website to provide confidential information about a legal matter of yours to Moore & Van Allen.


    No Legal Advice Intended: This website includes information about legal issues and legal developments. Such materials are for informational purposes only and may not reflect the most current legal developments. These informational materials are not intended, and should not be taken, as legal advice on any particular set of facts or circumstances. You should contact an attorney for advice on specific legal problems. (Read All)