Posts in USPTO

George Reardon was a registered patent agent (Registration No. 53,505). He was also the President and Executive Director of the National Association of Patent Practitioners (NAPP). He was alleged to have misappropriated at least $116,894.80 in NAPP funds and provided false annual financial reports to NAPP. Reardon did not admit to any wrongdoing or violation of the Disciplinary Rules of the USPTO, but he did choose to file an affidavit of resignation during the pendency of an investigation into the alleged misappropriation of funds. As a result, the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) accepted Reardon’s resignation and ordered his exclusion from practice before the Office.

The Kappos era at the USPTO also largely coincides with the time frame where I started to write daily (sometimes more). I attend public events at the USPTO and have interviewed Director Kappos several times and most of his top lieutenants. I have gotten to know Director Kappos and have seen first hand what his leadership has meant to not only the USPTO, but to the larger patent system in general. He has been a friend to the patent system and in my opinion is leaving the Patent Office far better than he found it. He will be sorely missed when he leaves at the end of the month, although he will leave with an excellent management team in place to carry forward the work for which he has laid the foundation.

The USPTO suspension was applied nunc pro tunc. Discipline imposed nunc pro tunc is appropriate only if the practitioner: (1) promptly notified the OED Director of his or her suspension or disciplinary disqualification in another jurisdiction; (2) establishes by clear and convincing evidence that the practitioner voluntarily ceased all activities related to practice before the Office; and (3) complied with all provisions of 37 CFR § 11.58. That was found to be the case effective October 17, 2011, thus the six (6) month suspension started effective that date.

What follows is discussion of the two disciplinary proceedings undertaken by the USPTO during the month of October 2012. First up is a situation where the USPTO went after an attorney in California who engaged in representation of trademark clients. Richard Gibson was not a patent practitioner, yet OED went after him for violation of various ethical rules, which is something recently new for the USPTO to do. The second case is a case where a patent practitioner was caught up in a sting operation. The sting was searching for adults soliciting sex from minors in Seattle, Washington.

if you ask me the Kappos legacy is not going to be the America Invents Act. The Kappos legacy will be that he managed to put the USPTO back on track. The agency is open for business and is issuing patents. It is odd to say it, but the USPTO had become so dysfunctional over the years that the allowance rate had slipped to never before seen lows. The feeling was that the USPTO was the “No Patent for You Office,” which did nothing to help foster the growth of innovation, and more importantly jobs.

The final rules on patent fees will publish in the Federal Register on Friday, January 18, 2013. Fees are going up for most, but not as much as feared. It will be more expensive to file a utility patent application, except for micro-entity applicants (see Utility Filing Fees Table), but it will be less to pay the issue fee once you get a Notice of Allowance (see Issue Fee Table). It will cost 29% more to file the first RCE for large and small entities (see First RCE Fees Table), and 83% more for subsequent RCE filings for large and small entities (see Subsequent RCE Fees Table). The ex parte reexaminations fees are much lower, down 32% and 66% respectively for large and small entities (see Reexam Fees Table), but are still much higher compared to where they were prior to them being raised over 600% recently. Of course, cutting ex parte reexamination fees means the overall cost is still roughly 250% higher for small entities and 500% higher for large entities than this time last year.

The U.S. Department of Commerce’s United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) and the Smithsonian Institution have signed a Memorandum of Agreement for the USPTO to support the Smithsonian’s development of an “Innovation Pavilion” that will showcase educational programs and exhibitions about American innovation. The pavilion will be housed at the Arts and Industries (A&I) Building in Washington, DC, after the historic building’s re-opening in 2014. It will serve as a forum for public discussions, symposiums, workshops, and recognition ceremonies related to American innovation, highlighting the vital role patents play in supporting that innovation. Also, the USPTO and the Smithsonian will partner in hosting an Innovation Expo on June 20-22, 2013, at the USPTO headquarters in Alexandria, Virginia.

The USPTO Roundtable on genetic testing exposed claims that have driven the debate so far to a rare scrutiny.  Perhaps the bonfires being prepared for the accused are premature. One critic condemned universities issuing exclusive licenses as culprits responsible for preventing physician-run laboratories “that are begging to do the test” from offering competing testing services. The underlying notion appears that exclusive licensees who spend millions on test development and clinical validation actually provide shoddy lab work in practice, and that physician-run laboratories could do a better job. If so, no supporting evidence was given.

Do patent applicants appealing a rejection of their claims from the Patent Trial and Appeals Board have a chance of success at the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit? What about patentees appealing to the CAFC from rejections in reexamination proceedings? The candid answer is not much of a chance. Of course, every case is different and needs to be considered on its own merits. Yet, the standards for review of Board decisions, followed by the CAFC, significantly favor affirmance of those decisions.

The unfortunate thing is that all of these individuals were getting this question incorrect and anyone who relied on this information moving forward would get the question incorrect. The MPEP section that points to one answer as correct cites an old version of the Rule. The Rule was modified in a Federal Register Notice, which is a testable document and supersedes the MPEP. The new language of the Rule has not yet made it into the MPEP section. The moral of the story is that you have to be very careful when you rely on these forum sites and take advice from someone who is either studying or just passed the exam. They may be giving you good information, but they may be leading you astray.

The U.S. Department of Commerce’s United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) today opened a new Patent and Trademark Resource Center (PTRC) in Smithtown, New York, at the Smithtown Library to better serve the intellectual property (IP) needs of the public.

David Gaudio was not a registered patent practitioner, but this was not a case where OED went after someone who was only engaged in trademark representation via a reciprocal discipline proceeding. The Law Office of David P. Gaudio, P.C. formed The Inventors Network, Inc. Gaudio was alleged to have engaged in the unauthorized practice of patent law. Gaudio knew that the representation of inventors without being a registered patent practitioner violated USPTO regulations. This case seems significant because it could well signal new USPTO interest in preventing those who are not registered practitioners from preying on unsuspecting inventors.

If I were a patent examiner that hadn’t issued patents for years I wouldn’t want anyone to know that either. Similarly, if I were a Supervisory Patent Examiner (SPE) in an Art Unit that routinely only issued patents after a long drawn out appeal process that resulted in the Board overturning the rejections I wouldn’t want the public to know about that either. Sadly, this type of gaming exists at the Patent Office. There are examiners who only rarely issue patents and Art Units that openly tell patent attorneys that they don’t issue patents unless ordered to do so by the Board. Knowing that this happens, which is supported by hard data, makes it impossible to tolerate the anti-patent zealots who routinely opine about just how easy it is to get a software or business method patent issued. Really? You have to be kidding!

The Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences did something fascinating in Ex Parte Yudoovsky. The Board sua sponte declined to consider an unauthorized new ground of rejection—even though the appellant never filed a petition. In other words, the Board refused to consider a new ground of rejection, because the Examiner failed to designate the ground as “new.”

Vice-Chief Judge Moore: “The statute requires that each of the judges have scientific ability.  It doesn’t actually require particularized training in any one individual specific area.  Permit me to key off of what the Chief said earlier — we do use that to advantage in some instances.  For example, imagine a software controlled electro-mechanical device which is useful in a biotechnology operation.  I could throw four different judges with four different specialties – biotech, electrical, mechanical, and software – on that so that that panel as a whole could understand it better and help each other through the process.  And that is a huge advantage.  We have at least one team here at the Board that’s truly multidisciplinary.  They handle all types of cases from all types of disciplines without regard as to their own personal technical training aspects.”