Posts Tagged: "patent pendency"

Director Kappos was also asked whether there were any plans to allow the community to access the patent search platform that is available to patent examiners. Kappos explained that it was simply not possible for the Patent Office to provide access to its systems to a greater extent than already allowed because the IT systems are “too fragile.” In fact, the state of disrepair that the computer systems at the USPTO are in is almost unfathomable. Particularly when the USPTO is collecting $1 million every day that it is unable to use. So they get the work, but not the fees. A recipe for the backlog and pendency going in the wrong direction.

Hopefully the seemingly modest successes of team Kappos in fiscal 2010 will be viewed for what they are, which is rather extraordinary, by our leaders in Washington, DC. With all the odds against them, having to fight daily for adequate funding, fewer patent examiners and a Congress that STILL siphons money paid by innovators away from the Patent Office, team Kappos was still able to increase allowances by 5.3% and dent the backlog. Can you imagine what they could do with adequate funding?

In this second installment of my interview with current AIPLA Executive Director and former USPTO Director, Q. Todd Dickinson, we start out discussing pendency at the Patent Office. Dickinson tells me about the incentives he used to keep patent examiners as they matured into the level of experience where they are ready to really roll up their sleeves and become the work-horses that Office needs. We talk about the AIPLA position on the proposed Three Track Proposal now pending at the USPTO. We then moved into a very interesting discussion of patent reform, and a bombshell is dropped, at least in my opinion. I was surprised to hear Dickinson say that he does not think patent reform is dead for THIS legislative cycle. He says: “The clock’s running and, the plays have to be run a little faster,” but that he “can see a path forward once the Congress returns.” He goes on to point out that the American Inventors Protection Act was attached to an appropriations bill. Looking at what Congress has on its plate upon returning it looks like there are a lot of appropriations bills. Curious indeed!

Those who don’t believe innovation leads to job creation have their heads firmly implanted in the sand and simply must choose to ignore history, which proves otherwise. It is flat out irresponsible to suggest that speeding up the process at the USPTO would be anything other than one darn good idea, and practically essential to the resurgence of the US economy. The authors and the Wall Street Journal should be ashamed of themselves. We all should expect more from one of the Nation’s papers of record.

The Visualization Center shows graphics that look much like a speedometer, which is where the Patents Dashboard moniker comes from, but the data is also available for those who want to see the numbers and figures used to create the easy to understand graphics. It is not pretty to see that the average pendency to a case where a Board decision is necessary is 76.1 months, and the average pendency of a case where one or more RCEs are filed is 60.7 months. This is unacceptable and hopefully leaders in Congress are paying attention! They have been mislead for many years. So the numbers are in some cases going to be terrifying, but ignoring the truth simply will not lead to the change and efficiencies needed.

On July 19, 2010, I was granted back stage pass of sorts, for a behind-the-scenes look at the United States Patent and Trademark Office. I had, initially requested an interview with Director David Kappos and was given an affirmative response, but then I floated the idea of a three-part series to commemorate the first anniversary of David Kappos leaving the private sector to take the helm at the USPTO. Rather than just do an interview, I suggested something different. I thought it might be particularly interesting to profile a day in the life of David Kappos, much like the President allows certain journalists to do by giving them access to the White House for a day, with an associated tour and interview. Peter Pappas, the Chief Communications Officer and Senior Advisor to Kappos, liked the idea and agreed to work with me to get it scheduled.

Earlier today the Wall Street Journal gave front page space to a story relating to the United States Patent and Trademark Office. Widely regarded as one of the “papers of record” in the United States, one might expect that the Wall Street Journal had brought its considerable clout to an important issue plaguing our time, such as an horribly under funded Patent Office that is holding innovation hostage, costing America perhaps millions of jobs. NO! Don’t get me wrong, every tabloid should have front page news story about pot, medical marijuana and have an image of a VW bus over the tag “the Canny Bus,” as the Journal did earlier today. Call me crazy, but I expected more from the Wall Street Journal.

In this interview we talk about how two Presidents that are extremely different on so many fronts, Presidents Reagan and Obama, are pursuing quite similar strategies regarding the Patent Office. We also talk about the importance of good working relations between patent examiners and the patent bar, the enormous backlog of applications at the Patent Office, the Patent Office process for handling decisions and issuing guidance in situations such as the recent Supreme Court decision in Bilski v. Kappos and what it is like to be Commissioner for Patents and the Director of the Patent and Trademark Office.

The United States Patent and Trademark Office is seeking public comment on a major new patent examination initiative that would provide applicants greater control over the speed with which their applications are examined and promote greater efficiency in the patent examination process. This newly proposed Three-Track program aims to provide applicants with the ability to go faster or slower through the patent process, which will in turn hopefully reduce the pendency of those patent applications that are the most time sensitive. Under Track I applications will be expedited, under Track III they can be slowed at the applicants request.

Coming on the heels of the BP disaster in the Gulf of Mexico the expansion of the green tech initiative at the PTO seems to be in line with the overall direction of the Obama Administration, which today shifted away from a true “all of the above” energy solution and is tending away from domestic oil exploration and drilling in favor of green technologies, including increasing the fuel efficiency of automobiles even further. The USPTO is front and center in a coordinate effort by the federal government to pursue green technologies as part of a unified energy plan. The latest USPTO green initiative will lead to faster patents and a coherent national policy built on the back of American inventors and entrepreneurs.

On May 19, 2010, USPTO Director David Kappos and China’s State Intellectual Property Office (SIPO) Commissioner Tian Lipu signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) on comprehensive bilateral cooperation on patents. The signing took place during a signing ceremony held at the USPTO campus in Alexandria, Virginia. Second, in a separate and seemingly unrelated item, the USPTO also announced today that it would eliminate the fee for the petition to participate in Patent Prosecution Highway (PPH) programs. The elimination of the PPH petition fee is expected to encourage greater PPH participation by patent applicants. The good news is that yet more is being done to address the backlog and pendency. But I am still hoping for a plan aimed straight at independent inventors and start-up businesses here in the U.S.

The reality is that unless and until Congress steps up to the plate and does something, which seems extraordinarily unlikely, the Patent Office will be left to attempt to piecemeal together solutions. So while no one solution can or will solve all of the problems plaguing the patent system, if cascading solutions are employed at least some applicants can be helped and at least some applications can be accelerated. Of course, the name of the game today is job creation, so I propose a creative way to accelerate patent applications out of order upon proper showing that jobs will be created, and focus my suggestions on those companies that are most likely to create jobs; namely those 5 years or younger and with 99 or fewer employees.

This unique initiative seeks to reduce the backlog of patent applications by getting rid of those that are no longer important to applicants or are of marginal value. In exchange for giving up on certain applications and abandoning them another application will be advanced out of order to the front of the examination queue. Over and over again the message directly from Kappos and his top Lieutenants is that the backlog is costing America high paying jobs. This initiative picks up on the recently released PTO study that concluded that high-tech jobs are high paying jobs, innovators rely on patents and an overwhelming majority of Venture Capitalists say that they want to see issued patents before they invest in start-up companies. The expanded Exchange Program is yet another attempt to help give the Patent Office the tools necessary to unleash commercially viable innovation into the marketplace so that funding can be obtained, jobs created and innovation can play its role in economic recovery.

If we can spend trillions in a failed effort couldn’t we spend a billion or two in an effort that is virtually guaranteed to succeed? I say for every $1 trillion wasted we should spend at least $1 billion on things that will work. By my estimates that means $4 billion more for the Patent Office. Not being a greedy guy I am happy to take that in four equal installments of $1 billion over a 4 year period. For those who are math adverse, that would mean the USPTO budget for FY 2011, 2012, 2013 and 2014 would be whatever they collect plus $1 billion, which for FY 2011 would likely be in the neighborhood of about $3.2 billion.

Louis Foreman sent the letter reproduced below to Senator Patrick Leahy (D-VT), who is Chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee. As his letter explains, Foreman supports patent reform because “leaving the current system alone is not an opinion, nor does it benefit anyone.” Foreman believes the patent reform pending is a “significant improvement” because, among other things, it will lower fees for micro-entities and lead to because it will “ultimately result in a stronger patent making it easier for independent inventors and small businesses to attract start-up capital.