Posts Tagged: "patent office"

Top 50 Law Firms with the most first action allowances according to PatentCore data. But where are these first action allowances coming from? All over the Patent Office really. They occur with plants (1661), organic compounds (1621, 1625, 1626), batteries (1725), active solid state devices (2818), electrical generators or motors (2834), optical systems and elements (2873), optics measuring and testing (2877), vehicle fenders (3612), data processing (3661), aeronautics and astronautics (3662), internal combustion engines (3748), valves (3751, 3753) and elsewhere throughout the USPTO.

So who is the villain in all of these wars responsible for again giving patents a bad rap? Well, the villain in not the ITC, USPTO or any U.S. government agency. Nor it is any country’s protectionist trade regime, or an “irreparably broken” U.S. or global patent system. No, the real villains here may very well be a handful of companies that willingly contributed patented technologies to various SSOs, championing their adoption and encouraging their use in a host of consumer electronics, and now claim (years later) that the very producers they encouraged to implement these standards should be barred from making, using or importing their products into the U.S. market.

While there is no doubt that the rejuvenation of the Patent Office during the Obama Administration is directly related to the capable and steady leadership of Director Kappos, I equally have no doubt that Pappas has played a major role in reshaping the public image of the USPTO. During the Bush Administration there was a feeling that the patent bar was the enemy, not to be trusted. The flow of information from the USPTO to the industry and public was largely non-existent. That has all changed and Pappas has been at the center of coordinating the USPTO with other government agencies and in coordinating the message so that the industry and public can know and understand what the USPTO is doing and why.

Indeed, competing globally is a prerequisite to success for most companies in what is an ever increasingly global marketplace. To compete globally American firms engage in licensing, franchising, or exporting. For many small companies it is patent protection that provides the only means to obtain an advantage over established industry leaders. Patent protection prevents established industry leaders from simply copying new innovations, and aids small businesses and start-ups in attracting investor capital needed to grow, build market share, and create jobs. Unfortunately, small companies face significant financial challenges in acquiring, maintaining, and enforcing patents outside the United States. What they need is a strategy to lay the foundation for foreign rights, building off a credible and appropriate U.S. patent filing.

On Thursday, March 1, 2012, at 2:00pm ET, the United States Patent and Trademark Office held a ceremony in the North Auditorium of the Madison Building on the campus of the USPTO. The ceremony was for the purpose of swearing in 9 new Administrative Patent Judges, with the oath of office being administered by Chief Judge Paul Michel (ret.) of the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.

In celebration of its mission to recognize and foster invention, the National Inventors Hall of Fame has announced its 2012 Inductees. The inventors to be honored this year created remarkable innovations that include the now ubiquitous laser printer commonly found in the workplace, the thin-film head technology that has contributed to the success of the disk drive industry, and the first statin which pioneered the class of drugs targeted at lowering cholesterol.

These proposed fees will undoubtedly be commented on, and the early criticism, which seems quite valid, asks how the addition of a single additional claim to be reviewed can add such large amounts to the cost. For example, if you file a petition for post-grant review and want 30 claims reviewed the fee will be $53,700. If you want 31 claims reviewed the fee will be $71,600, so that extra claim reviewed will cost you $17,900. Of course paying that $17,900 entitles you to bring challenges to 9 other claims, which would be free once you paid for the 31st claim. Essentially, with rigid segmentation of fees it is difficult, if not impossible, to see a cost of recover implementation at work. It would be far more in keeping with the statutory authority to have additional claim fees akin to what happens during prosecution when you go beyond three independent claims or 20 total claims.

hange does not come easily. At a minimum, the PTO must stop encouraging and rewarding examiners for actions that defeat the objectives of the office. As long as examiners are credited and rewarded for acting upon every application that they can force an applicant to file, examiners can be expected to seek the credit and reward, and the backlog will be with us. As long as examiner performance is based upon the conventional (N + D)/2, the incentives will foster counter-productive behavior in the examining corps and the Office will not make meaningful strides toward accomplishing its mission. Examiners will do what they are rewarded for doing – generating as many N’s and D’s as possible without regard to whether anything is really being accomplished.

After my presentation, as you might expect, I was approached by a number of patent attorneys. Story after story it was the same thing I have heard from so many others — depressing tales of not being able to get a patent. One particularly egregious thing I heard was from a patent attorney who told me about a conversation he recently had with a SPE from one of the business method art units. I don’t know which Art Unit, and frankly I didn’t ask, although it is probably easy enough to narrow down the Art Unit. This patent attorney told me that the SPE said: “we just don’t issue patents unless the Board orders us to.” If that is in fact what was said and is in fact what is happening then there is a systematic denial of due process at the United States Patent and Trademark Office, and that is wholly unacceptable.

Let’s first consider one of the “bread and butter” components of patent prosecution, the utility application filing fee. Actually, this basic fee comprises three components: the filing fee, the search fee, and the examination fee. In the proposed fee changes, this utility application filing fee will increase from $1250.00 to $1840.00 (or from $625.00 to $920.00 for those qualifying as “small entities,” which get a 50% reduction in this fee). The biggest portion of this increase is reflected in the examination component, which has increased from $250.00 to $780.00 (or from $125.00 to $390.00 for those qualifying as “small entities”). Excess claim fees (total claims in excess of 20 and independent claims in excess of 3) have also gone up significantly, from $60.00 to $100.00, and from $250.00 to $460.00, respectively. (I’ll let you do the math for those qualifying as “small entities.”)

In this final installment of my interview with Peggy Focarino, Commissioner for Patents, we discuss the examiner count system, production and Art Units and Patent Examiners that do not issue patents. What can the Office do about rogue Examiners and rogue Art Units? Does the Patent Office even understand this is a problem? Focarino was enormously candid, and it is clear to me that senior management at the USPTO know they have a problem and are working to create fixes.

In this installment we discuss a day in the life of the Commissioner for Patents, negotiating with the Examiner’s Union relative to the updated examiner count system and implementation of the America Invents Act. Stay tuned for part 3, the interview finale, which will publish on Friday, February 17, 2012. In part 3 we discuss the fact that certain examiners and certain Art Units seem to simply not issue patents. We also discuss the process for determining where the Patent Office will locate satellite Offices.

When I interviewed USPTO Director David Kappos in December I asked him about Focarino and the first words out of his mouth were: “What a wonderful leader.” While that is lofty praise, it is consistent with what I have heard many times over the years.  Indeed, I have only heard positive things about Focarino, and everyone expresses that she is not only a very nice person but a knowledgeable and respected leader within the Office.  She is also someone that I personally respect and like.

It does seems clear that the allowance rate for large corporations is much higher than the average allowance rate for all patent applications. But does that suggest some nefarious bias? Not so fast my friends! At the end of the day it seems to me that the way patent applications are prepared and strategic decisions made during prosecution of the patent application explain why larger corporations have a much higher allowance rate than the average.

The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) has proposed a consolidated set of rules related to trial practice before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. The proposed rules implement the provisions of the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act relating to inter partes review, post-grant review, the transitional program for covered business method patents, and derivation proceedings.