The second or subsequent action on patentability in an inter partes reexamination proceeding is called the Action Closing Prosecution (ACP). The patent owner may respond with argument and/or an evidentiary showing and/or amendments. Alternatively, the patent owner may choose not to respond. If the patent owner does file a response, then the third party requester may thereafter file written comments directed only to the patent owner’s submission. Entry of the patent owner response is not a matter of right. Neither party may appeal at this point in the proceeding [MPEP 2671.02].
Terms and Concepts
- Action Closing Prosecution (ACP)
- Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
- Certificate of Reexamination
- Claim Construction
- Cumulative Effect
- Damages
- Decision Makers
- Director-Initiated Ex Parte
- District Court Litigation
- Duty of Disclosure
- Ex Parte Reexamination
- Extensions of Time
- Inequitable Conduct
- Inter Partes Reexamination
- KSR v. Teleflex (KSR)
- Mergers of Proceedings
- Multiple Proceedings
- Notice of Intent (NIRC)
- Order Granting or Denying
- Page Limits
- Parallel Universe
- Pendency
- Pending Reexamination
- Protective Orders
- Real Party in Interest
- Reexamination
- Request for Reexamination
- Request Requirements
- Right of Appeal Notice (RAN)
- Risks for Accused Infringers
- Scope of Proceedings
- Settlement
- Standard of Review
- Stays
- Substantial New Question (SNQ)
- Validity Challenges
- Willfulness
