AIPLA Meeting: David Kappos Q & A with Q. Todd Dickinson

By Renee C. Quinn
October 21, 2010

David Kappos at the AIPLA meeting

I was sitting in a ball room earlier today at the Marriott Wardman Park hotel in Washington, DC as a member of the press covering the AIPLA Annual Meeting. The Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and Director of the USPTO David Kappos spoke about the Future of America’s Innovation Economy: Progress and Challenges at the USPTO. The format of his presentation was in the form of a Question and Answer session, moderated by Q. Todd Dickinson, himself a former Director of the USPTO and the current Executive Director of the AIPLA. There were hundreds of professionals in attendance, including many patent attorneys, patent examiners and judges. There were yellow cards on our table that we were asked to fill out before lunch that would allow us to ask questions of the Director during the session.

Before Dickinson asked any questions from the audience, Kappos started by addressing the backlog issue at the USPTO. He said that people wonder a lot about the backlog issue and that this is, to him, an extraordinarily important enterprise for the whole team at the USPTO to try and  deal with — this gigantic backlog. He showed some graphs that he said he felt told the story that they are making some progress. “Are we making all of the progress we would like? No, we’ve got a lot more to do. But we are clearly making progress.” Kappos explained that they have been able to get their giant backlog down to 708,000, which represents that this is the first time the backlog has shrunk in quite a few years. “We are trying to take that number down to where we really want it, which is around 325,000 applications.”

One question in particular that stood out to me was the question about hiring at the USPTO. Director Kappos was asked to give us an idea on what the plans are for hiring examiners to the USPTO. Kappos started with “We want YOU to come work for the USPTO.” Laughter abounded. Dickinson quickly picked up on this saying: “Uncle Sam wants YOU!” More laughter all around. Kappos went on to explain that they are seeking experienced, well seasoned patent attorneys to come work for the USPTO. They want to hire another 1000 examiners. Dickinson then joked “Ah, so you weren’t kidding when you said you wanted them to work for the USPTO?”

Todd Dickinson (left) and David Kappos (right) during Q&A session at AIPLA meeting, October 21, 2010

One of the more interesting exchanges between Dickinson and Kappos was the following question and answer:

Dickinson: If you could change any one rule or patent statute at the USPTO what would it be and why?

Kappos: If I could change anything, honestly, what I would do would be to change over to first inventor to file because that is unquestionably an important best practice for our country and I feel very strongly about it and it makes me sad at times when I speak to groups and to folks who don’t understand how pro-inventor and pro-small inventor and how pro-independent inventor first inventor to file is.    It is something that will pretty significantly move us to a best practice IP System.

If Gene were here he would be agreeing with Kappos no doubt. Gene has written about first inventor to file, and after initially siding with the first to invent crowd has been persuaded that first inventor to file makes sense because it gives inventors incentive to do what they should already be doing in the first place, which is filing applications sooner rather than later. To read our coverage of the first to invent versus first to file debate see Much Ado About Nothing Over First to File and Reform Doing Away with Interference Proceedings & First to Invent.

The final question of the question and answer exchange that I found to be quite interesting was the following:

Dickinson: What one thing from this past year would you like to be remembered for in the future?

Kappos: I would like the team, again in my view this is about Team USPTO, I would like us to be remembered for the partnership that we’ve had with our labor unions, all three of our labor unions; NTEU 243, NTEU 245 and POPA.    I was enormously proud, just earlier this week over at the department of commerce, we convened in a big formal giant auditorium and the Secretary of Commerce comes in and hands out the awards for the best agency teams from the past year and the award that was given to the USPTO was given to a joint group, equally on stage.  A group of our senior managers lead by Deputy Commissioner Focarino and equal umbers of our POPA union executive committee receiving an award for the breath taking job they did on putting that new accounting system into place.  And that is so me the most important thing that we have engineered as a true partnership with our labor folks.

I will be in attendance again on Friday, so check back for more from the AIPLA Annual Meeting in Washington, DC.

The Author

Renee C. Quinn

Renee C. Quinn Working with IPWatchdog since April of 2006, Renée C Quinn is the Chief Operating Officer and Chief Financial Officer of IPWatchdog, Inc where she is responsible for overseeing all of the day-to-day financial, administrative, operational and procedural aspects of IPWatchdog, Inc.

As a key member of the executive management team, Renée is tasked with handling all aspects of operations, Finance, Human Resources, Public Relations, Marketing and Events for IPWatchdog. In addition, Renée is the producer for the IPWatchdog Weekly Webinar series and the IPWatchdog Institute Suite of courses.

Renée has written on various business, marketing, brand building and social media topics for IPWatchdog.com as well as Inventor’s Digest. She has also been a guest speaker at many events including the USPTO Women’s Symposium, several AIPF Annual Meetings, and multiple law schools across the country.

Renée acquired her Bachelor of Science degree in Psychology from the Pennsylvania State University and has Master of Business Administration, with a focus on e-commerce and Internet marketing.

Click to contact Renee via e-mail.

Warning & Disclaimer: The pages, articles and comments on IPWatchdog.com do not constitute legal advice, nor do they create any attorney-client relationship. The articles published express the personal opinion and views of the author as of the time of publication and should not be attributed to the author’s employer, clients or the sponsors of IPWatchdog.com. Read more.

Discuss this

There are currently 1 Comment comments.

  1. Robert K S October 22, 2010 4:23 pm

    First to invent is one of the best strengths of the American system and there is no good justification for doing away with it. The alternative to interference proceedings, derivation proceedings, would represent a tremendous step backward in how the system resolves conflicting priority claims, requiring inventors to prove their cases based on information held by their adversaries, rather than each side bringing forward its best evidence of priority. It deeply disappoints that Mr. Kappos honestly believes that such a switch would be the most important improvement he could see in the system. Switching to first-to-file doesn’t do anything to fix the backlog or issue good patents.