Using Expert Testimony in Prosecution
Recent Publications
5 IP Rules to Know to Protect Your Business in the United States (article in French)
Coaching INPI Newsletter
Headquartered within steps of the USPTO with an affiliate office in Tokyo, Oblon is one of the largest law firms in the United States focused exclusively on intellectual property law.
1968
Norman Oblon with Stanley Fisher and Marvin Spivak launched what was to become Oblon, McClelland, Maier & Neustadt, LLP, one of the nation's leading full-service intellectual property law firms.
Outside the US, we service companies based in Japan, France, Germany, Italy, Saudi Arabia, and farther corners of the world. Our culturally aware attorneys speak many languages, including Japanese, French, German, Mandarin, Korean, Russian, Arabic, Farsi, Chinese.
Oblon's professionals provide industry-leading IP legal services to many of the world's most admired innovators and brands.
From the minute you walk through our doors, you'll become a valuable part of a team that fosters a culture of innovation, client service and collegiality.
The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) issued final rules implementing the inventor's oath or declaration provisions of the America Invents Act (AIA) on August 14, 2012.
April 28-30, 2024
November 16, 2023 - In-Person in Munich
October 27, 2023
The recent decision by the Federal Circuit in In re Merck & Cie shows what an uphill battle it can be to overcome a finding of obviousness by the PTAB. Merck argued that the PTAB’s interpretation of the prior art, van Etten et al., was simply unreasonable and, thus, the PTAB’s decision was not supported by substantial evidence.
In affirming the PTAB, the Federal Circuit noted that its reading of the prior art need not “be the only reasonable one” to be upheld. Thus, it was irrelevant and not necessary to decide whether Merck’s interpretation of the prior art was better:
We need not and do not decide whether Merck's view of what van Etten teaches is the better view. We conclude only that Merck's view is not the only reasonable view.
This case illustrates the difficulty in overcoming an obviousness rejection based on a less than optimal reading of the prior art.
One way to tip the balance back in favor of the applicant is to rely on the opinion of an expert in the relevant field which explains why the applicant’s interpretation of the prior art is reasonable and that of the PTO is not. Making such an opinion a part of the record in a declaration will not only strengthen the applicant’s position on appeal, but may also obviate the appeal altogether. Many Examiners will be persuaded by an opinion presented by an expert, while otherwise dismissing the same position as mere attorney argument.
Of course, due to the added cost, filing an expert declaration might not be appropriate for every application. In many cases, however, the cost of retaining an expert will be less than the cost of an appeal.
So, when faced with such an obviousness rejection in an important case, an applicant should consider relying on an expert declaration, before embarking on an appeal.
Some tips for an expert declaration:
Coaching INPI Newsletter