Posts in USPTO

Novartis filed law suits that challenged the determinations by the USPTO of how much time to add to the patent term under 35 U.S.C. § 154(b) with respect to 18 different patents. The district court dismissed 15 of the claims as untimely asserted, and the Federal Circuit affirmed that ruling. With respect to the substantive ruling on the other three patents (U.S. Patent Nos. 7,807,155; 7,968,518; and 7,973,031), the Federal Circuit in a panel decision by Judge Taranto (joined by Judges Newman and Dyk) concluded that the USPTO was partly correct and partly incorrect in its interpretation of § 154(b)(1)(B). As a result, the Federal Circuit determined that Novartis was entitled to most, but not all, of the patent term adjustment it seeks.

Paying for tuition is an excellent way to keep dedicated, talented employees while they continue to obtain training that will help them fulfill their duties at the USPTO. But a question of fairness jumps to mind. What about all the employees who paid for their own education during the time when the tuition reimbursement program was shelved? It seems a little unfair, and unwise, to pay for the tuition of new students but to do nothing about those employees who continue to work for the Office and who paid for their own courses and degrees. This is particularly true where other agencies do provide loan repayment to keep employees.

The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) is seeking public input to determine the optimal first action and total pendency target levels for patents… The Patent Office believes that by reviewing the optimal pendency levels the Office will be in a better position to plan for patent examination staffing levels and other agency resource requirements. Furthermore, revised or reaffirmed target goals for pendency will inform patent fee levels and revenue estimates during the biennial patent fee review.

In recent weeks news has come out that Phil Johnson’s nomination as Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office is dead. It seems to be dead due to the protest of at least one Senator on the Senate Judiciary Committee, not because the onerous vetting process produced any red flags or because the White House has lost interest. The Senator allegedly unhappy is Senator Chuck Schumer (D-NY)… [N]ominees [are put] through an extraordinary vetting process that reportedly can take between 5 to 9 months to complete even in the best case scenario. Let’s say that the White House has decided to move past Johnson and will not look back. They must first identify a willing candidate; someone who can pass through the gauntlet that is the vetting process, has the requisite experience and who is willing to take a substantial pay cut. Such an individually would likely having to unwind investments and holdings, or at least put them into some blind trust. Even if the White House can this week identify that person who accepts the invitation to take the position and who is willing to subject themselves to scrutiny that would make an IRS inquiry look like a day in the park, that means we are looking at at least January 2015 before confirmation.

News of the death of Johnson’s nomination is both a shocking surprise and yet all too predictable in a town that increasingly makes little logical sense . . . From what my sources are telling me, Johnson’s nomination is dead at the moment, but there have been no bridges burned. However, absent the White House reconsidering and moving forward with a Johnson nomination he will not be the next Director of the USPTO. From what I have pieced together so far all of this seems to translate as follows: Johnson has opposition on the Senate Judiciary Committee not inside the White House. Given that Johnson, like the overwhelming majority of the industry, was against expanding covered business method (CBM) review it is easy to speculate where that opposition is coming from, but more on that in the coming days and weeks.

The USPTO charged that Hicks violated 37 C.F.R. 10.20 et seq.[1] Ultimately, Hicks acknowledged that he violated 37 C.F.R. 10.23(b)(5), which prohibited “conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice.” *** Thus, Hicks likely stands for the proposition that a practitioner must inform OED if they know that another practitioner has made a false, misleading or improper statement to a tribunal, or as Hicks did, cites a non-precedential opinion to a tribunal.

Lee will tell Congress that the USPTO is on pace during FY 2014 to receive nearly 600,000 patent applications, which represents an increase of more than 5% as compared to FY 2013. The PTO backlog of unexamined patent applications is less than 620,000 which is down from more than 750,000 in 2009 (a 17.3 percent decrease)… On a cynical note, I will observe that reducing the backlog will become much easier for the USPTO, as will meeting pendency goals, based upon the United States Supreme Court’s breathtaking decision in Alice v. CLS Bank. While not a subject of this hearing, as more and more becomes per se unpatentable as the result of 35 U.S.C. 101, the USPTO should easily be able to meet these goals, particularly in light of the reality that over 50% of patents issued by the USPTO related to software innovations.

Dave Kappos did more for PTO-academic relations than any other Commissioner or Director in the history of the Office. This is a true statement, but hardly does credit to his real contributions in this area. That’s for the simple reason that very few former leaders of the Patent Office had much if anything to do with academics. The bar was so low in fact that had Dave been merely cordial and refrained from open derision of academics and their research, he might well have set a new standard with only that. He did much more, of course. Director Kappos actively sought out academic researchers. He brought them into formal roles in the PTO.

Over the last several days I have heard of an alarming trend from the United States Patent and Trademark Office — Patent Examiners are canceling Notices of Allowance and yanking previously granted claims back into prosecution while citing the United States Supreme Court’s ruling in Alice v. CLS Bank. In some instances granted claims are being pulled back into prosecution only to be rejected as lacking patent eligible subject matter even after the issue fee has been paid. This is an alarming trend that seems to be building steam as virtually everyone who operates in this space is now seeing this happen and/or they are seeing supplemental office actions issued where the pending office action never rejected claims based on patent eligibility grounds.

He says he has seen the below form paragraph twice within a week. Most alarming, in one case the form paragraph came in the form of a supplemental office action, but the original office action, which was outstanding, didn’t have any patent eligibility rejections under 35 U.S.C. 101… Clearly this form paragraph does not come from the initial guidance the USPTO sent to examiners. In that initial guidance Deputy Commissioner for Patent Examination Policy, Andrew Hirshfeld, told patent examiners that “the basic inquiries to determine subject matter eligibility remain the same as explained in MPEP 2106(I).” Therefore, USPTO told patent examiners that while the framework of the analysis had changed the substance of the analysis had not changed.

Johnson has detractors, which is almost incomprehensible, but there are those who are unhappy. . . Johnson’s detractors are also pointing to the fact that he was not in support of the most recent round of patent “reform,” but truthfully very few within the industry were in favor of the latest patent legislation, which is why it went down to a rather ignominious defeat. There were some within the tech sector who were pushing hard for the latest failed patent reform, such as Google, but after being in harmony with Google for many years Apple and Microsoft finally broke off and similarly did not support the failed patent legislation. Therefore, anyone who says that “tech is upset because Johnson didn’t support patent reform” is simply not being completely truthful. There were many within the tech sector who rely on patents to make their research and development worthwhile who were in agreement with Johnson. Furthermore, there is absolutely no doubt that the pharmaceutical industry will find Johnson acceptable, and the pharmaceutical industry is one of the most important of all U.S. industries.

If there was a major message to take away from Michelle K. Lee’s speech at Stanford Law School on Friday, June 27, it was that the patent system needs change to properly address the needs of an ever-growing list of stakeholders in the patent process, including the general public… Lee argues that, currently, the benefits of maintaining our country’s patent system outweigh the costs, but the dialogue which needs to effect positive change requires a critical view of the role of patents in regards to innovation. In this respect, Lee is quick to point out that patents aren’t the only drivers of innovation. The first-mover advantage of bringing a product to market before others can be its own incentive to innovate, she said, and open source models are chosen by some organizations that develop technology. Copyrights, trademarks and trade secrets are other options through which innovation can be protected.

Acting U.S. Deputy Secretary of Commerce Bruce Andrews and Deputy Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and Deputy Director of the USPTO Michelle K. Lee, along with several elected officials, today participated in a ribbon-cutting ceremony to officially open the permanent location for the USPTO Rocky Mountain Regional Office in Denver, Colorado. Located in the Byron G. Rogers Federal Building in Denver’s central business district, the new office will help the region’s entrepreneurs advance cutting-edge ideas to the marketplace, grow their businesses, and more efficiently navigate the world’s strongest intellectual property system.

At least initially, the USPTO instructions to examiners seems extremely patentee friendly, which I must say comes as a surprise given the largely anti-patent rhetoric that has come from the White House over the last 16 months. Indeed, the USPTO has told examiners that the reason Alice’s claims were determined to be patent ineligible was because “the generically-recited computers in the claims add nothing of substance to the underlying abstract idea.” Hirshfeld also told examiners: “[T]he basic inquiries to determine subject matter eligibility remain the same as explained in MPEP 2106(I).” Therefore, nothing has changed as far as the USPTO is concerned.

The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) will host its next Software Partnership Meeting on Tuesday, July 22, 2014, at the USPTO headquarters in Alexandria, Virginia, from 1:00 pm – 4:30 pm.