{"id":11109,"date":"2020-05-20T10:18:03","date_gmt":"2020-05-20T16:18:03","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.717madisonplace.com\/?p=11109"},"modified":"2020-05-20T12:13:52","modified_gmt":"2020-05-20T18:13:52","slug":"acquiescence","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.717madisonplace.com\/?p=11109","title":{"rendered":"Acquiescence"},"content":{"rendered":"\n<p>The recent opinion in <a href=\"http:\/\/www.cafc.uscourts.gov\/sites\/default\/files\/opinions-orders\/19-1684.Opinion.5-18-2020_1589464.pdf\"><em>Sandbox Logistics, LLC et al. v. Proppant Express Investments LLC  et al.<\/em>, 2019-1684 (Fed. Cir. May 18, 2020)<\/a> is a good reminder about acquiescence during prosecution.  Here is a quote from that opinion:<\/p>\n\n\n\n<blockquote class=\"wp-block-quote is-layout-flow wp-block-quote-is-layout-flow\"><p>Sandbox did not challenge the Examiner\u2019s understanding; instead, in response, SandBox amended the claims of the \u2019518 patent to recite a \u201cbottom[,]\u201d J.A. 575, with SandBox explaining that although the claims \u201cwere rejected on the basis [that] they lack essential elements[,]\u201d the claims were \u201cbeing amended to include a bottom, and that the hatch is positioned closely adjacent to the bottom[,]\u201d J.A. 580. The Examiner allowed the \u2019518 patent, based at least in part on his understanding that the claims of the \u2019518 patent were amended to include a \u201cbottom wall on which the hatch is mounted.\u201d J.A. 1007;&nbsp;<em>see&nbsp;<\/em>J.A. 1025 (Notice of Allowability) (the Examiner explaining that the prior art \u201cfails to teach or suggest . . . a bottom[] and a hatch closely adjacent to the bottom\u201d). SandBox\u2019s failure to challenge the Examiner\u2019s understanding amounts to a disclaimer.&nbsp;<em>See Biogen Idec, Inc. v. GlaxoSmithKline LLC<\/em>, 713 F.3d 1090, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (\u201cIf an applicant chooses, she can challenge an examiner\u2019s characterization in order to avoid any chance for disclaimer, but the applicants in this case did not directly challenge the examiner\u2019s characterization.\u201d);&nbsp;<em>TorPharm, Inc. v. Ranbaxy Pharm., Inc.<\/em>, 336 F.3d 1322, 1330 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (\u201c[I]n ascertaining the scope of an issued patent, the public is entitled to equate an inventor\u2019s acquiescence to the examiner\u2019s narrow view of patentable subject matter with abandonment of the rest. Such acquiescence may be found where the patentee narrows his or her claims by amendment[.]\u201d (internal citation omitted)). Thus, the prosecution history confirms that \u201cbottom\u201d refers to a \u201cbottom wall.\u201d<\/p><cite>Sandbox Logistics, LLC et al. v. Proppant Express Investments LLC et al., 2019-1684 (Fed. Cir. May 18, 2020)(slip opinion at 11-12).<\/cite><\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n<p>I think one area where many in-house patent programs could be improved is at the payment of the issue fee phase.  Namely, a paper can be submitted, in conjunction with each issue fee payment, that indicates non-acquiescence in (at least) the examiner&#8217;s reasons for allowance and instead cites the scope of the claims as a whole as the applicant&#8217;s view as to why the claims are allowable.  The time\/cost to do so is not that significant.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>The recent opinion in Sandbox Logistics, LLC et al. v. Proppant Express Investments LLC et al., 2019-1684 (Fed. Cir. May 18, 2020) is a good reminder about acquiescence during prosecution. Here is a quote from that opinion: Sandbox did not challenge the Examiner\u2019s understanding; instead, in response, SandBox amended the claims of the \u2019518 patent [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.717madisonplace.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/11109"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.717madisonplace.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.717madisonplace.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.717madisonplace.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.717madisonplace.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=11109"}],"version-history":[{"count":3,"href":"https:\/\/www.717madisonplace.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/11109\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":11112,"href":"https:\/\/www.717madisonplace.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/11109\/revisions\/11112"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.717madisonplace.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=11109"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.717madisonplace.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=11109"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.717madisonplace.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=11109"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}