000042118 000__ 02861cam\a22002535i\4500
000042118 001__ 42118
000042118 003__ SzGeWIPO
000042118 005__ 20240708145901.0
000042118 008__ 200625s2020\\\\sz\\\\\\r\\\\\000\0\eng\d
000042118 040__ $$aSzGeWIPO$$beng$$erda
000042118 041__ $$aeng
000042118 1001_ $$aReilly, Greg
000042118 24503 $$aThe Complicated Relationship of Patent Examination and Invalidation
000042118 264_1 $$a[Washington, DC] :$$b[Washington College of Law],$$c2020.
000042118 300__ $$a68 pages
000042118 336__ $$atext$$btxt$$2rdacontent
000042118 337__ $$aunmediated$$bn$$2rdamedia
000042118 338__ $$avolume$$bnc$$2rdacarrier
000042118 520__ $$aThe conventional view is that the Patent Office examines patent applications before issuance to assure compliance with the statutory criteria of patentability. Ex post invalidation in district court litigation or Patent Office cancellation proceedings then reviews the Patent Office’s work to correct errors that result from the Patent Office’s shortcomings, bias, or “rational ignorance” that limits resources spent on examination because of the irrelevance of most patents. Scholars, the Federal Circuit, and the Supreme Court have all endorsed this conventional view. However, it is wrong — or at least overly simplistic. The American patent system is only partially a system of ex ante patent examination. In other respects, it functions as a registration system where significant aspects of patentability determinations are left entirely to ex post patent invalidation in litigation and administrative proceedings. Even if the Patent Office was allocated greater resources and its examiners performed their assigned tasks perfectly, full evaluation of patentability would be impossible due to structural features of examination that exclude certain categories of prior art, prevent evaluation of the full extent of the patent owner’s exclusive rights, and allow only a snapshot evaluation of a patentability question that changes over time. Given that parts of the patentability evaluation are structurally impossible in examination, the role of ex post invalidation is more nuanced than traditionally described. In some instances, it performs a review function to correct errors in the Patent Office’s examination. In other instances, however, it serves an examination function to provide a first-instance evaluation of the aspects of patentability which are structurally unsuited for ex ante examination. Yet, the design of the patent system does not reflect the structural limits of examination or varied roles of ex post invalidation. A proper understanding of patent examination and invalidation sheds light on current debates over the presumption of validity, administrative patent cancellation, and the role of ex ante examination.
000042118 525__ $$aPublished in : American University Law Review 1095, 2020
000042118 605_0 $$aPatent
000042118 650__ $$aUSPTO
000042118 650_0 $$aPatent Office
000042118 650_0 $$aPatent and Trademark Office
000042118 650_0 $$aPatent Examination
000042118 650_0 $$aInvalidity
000042118 650_0 $$aPresumption of Validity
000042118 85641 $$uhttps://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3594840$$yView this resource
000042118 904__ $$aJournal article
000042118 980__ $$aBIB