Towards a Better Patent System, Part Two: USPTO Fees

“Since it is the practice of some large companies to abandon applications or issued patents – sometimes in large numbers – before the first maintenance fee comes due, under the current fee schedule, the costs of examining these patents will be unfairly shifted to other patentees.”

USPTO fees - https://depositphotos.com/59573067/stock-photo-fees-word-in-3d-letters.htmlIn my previous article, I made a modest proposal for improving one aspect of patent examination by requiring applicants to identify support in the specification for new and amended claims. That suggestion was premised on my firm conviction – based on 34 years at the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) in roles ranging from examiner to Commissioner for Patents – that we must improve the quality of examination if we want the United States to remain on a par with patent offices in other leading jurisdictions such as Europe, Japan and China. I believe that the best, and perhaps only, way to do this is to move toward viewing examination less as an adversarial process and as more of a shared responsibility in which applicants work in partnership with examiners to improve examination.

Continuing with that theme, I would suggest that the current fee-adjustment process presents another opportunity for applicants and the Office to work together to improve examination and strengthen our nation’s patent system. I recognize that the USPTO has already initiated a process to increase fees, some significantly, by January 2025. Although I don’t necessarily love some of the specific proposed fee increases, I’m more concerned with the increases that should have been proposed but weren’t.

Higher Up-Front Fees are Fair

While the Office has data indicating that it will need more funds by 2025 to conduct its business, there are ways to increase funding fairly that would also place the Office on more secure financial footing going forward. One of the significant challenges the Office faces relates to how heavily examination services are subsidized using maintenance fees. Under the current fee schedule, the combined filing, search, and examination fee for large entities totals less than $2,000, but the cumulative operating costs per patent are around $6,000. It is not until the payment of the second maintenance fee, after seven years, that the Office reaches the break-even point. This means that an application that is abandoned just before issuance results in a net loss to the Office of around $4,000, and an issued patent that is abandoned prior to payment of the first maintenance fee results in a net loss of around $3,000.

Since it is the practice of some large companies to abandon applications or issued patents – sometimes in large numbers – before the first maintenance fee comes due, under the current fee schedule, the costs of examining these patents will be unfairly shifted to other patentees. This suggests that applicants, and especially large, sophisticated applicants, should be charged higher fees up front to ensure they pay their fair share and to prevent them from gaming the system. And, more generally, applicants should be paying more in order to fund better examination that will produce higher quality patents that their owners can have confidence will hold up in litigation. Although the Office is proposing some increases in early fees, in my view, they are not enough either to address the problems and potential abuses enabled by subsidizing examination with maintenance fees or to significantly increase the quality and accuracy of examination.

Incentivize Improved Applications

I also believe the Office should consider fee changes that would provide incentives for applicants to do things that would help improve examination. For example, they should consider a fee decrease for searched applications that provide information disclosure statements that help the examiner guide her search. Similarly, the Office could consider a fee reduction for patent prosecution highway treatment and for applications that have a search report on a related case in Global Dossier, both of which require less examiner time. The Office could save time in those circumstances, and if they are interested in encouraging behaviors, these are the types of actions that the Office should support with fee reductions.

Share Data

Finally, I think the Office needs to lead a conversation about the cost of drafting and prosecuting an application. Since the quality of the application affects the examination, the Office should collect and publish information regarding the costs of drafting and prosecuting a quality application in different art areas. Such information might help companies understand what they need to pay for these services and reduce the number of low-quality applications that are the result of low-ball drafting and prosecuting charges. Counterintuitively, I believe that higher application fees might actually help drive large applicants to do a better job of drafting up front instead of filing sub-standard applications and then abandoning them or relying on continuations.

Stay tuned. My next article in this series will have even more proposals to consider.

 

Share

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.

Join the Discussion

23 comments so far.

  • [Avatar for BeenDoingThisAWhile]
    BeenDoingThisAWhile
    June 4, 2023 11:57 am

    While I don’t agree with the argument for front-loading fees to ease the burden placed on “the little guy” due to “the big” guys avoiding paying their fair share by abandoning “prematurely,” and while I do agree that PTO SERIOUSLY needs to raise its standards for examiners’ logical/reasoning/debate/argument/writing skills (i.e., everything other than mere technical background) — absolutely test them! Make them apprentices for two years before the test so they can LEARN what they are supposed to be doing — all this clamoring for AI-based examination strikes me as silly pipe dream — as if AI is the magic-bullet cure-all for all that ails us.

    Now back to my breakfast (ok, fine, it’s lunchtime already; I slept in…..)

  • [Avatar for George]
    George
    June 3, 2023 02:27 pm

    @ David Lewis

    On second thought maybe you’re partly right about what Robert is proposing. He’s sure not proposing greatly lessening fees, or having the government once again funding the PTO. I’m for both of those things.

    The U.S. government should never have gotten out of the IP ‘policing’ business (we now see why with Trademark scams). The PTO should be more like the FBI, CIA, IRS, DHS and JD ‘combined’, with American IP protected like it was ‘gold’ or the national MINT (which in a way, it is). It’s not even run like the Post Office now. Not much respect for IP at all in America anymore. Certainly not if you’re a ‘little guy’, trying to spread the wealth that ‘used to’ derive from inventions and new startups. Congress doesn’t seem to care about that anymore.

    For most Americans there is no ‘innovation economy’. That’s just for the already rich and powerful now! Just like it used to be in England, before we left!

    IP is power, and ‘ordinary people’ can’t be allowed to have that anymore! Tesla, Bell and Edison wouldn’t stand a chance in America anymore! That’s just a fact. It’s also why Elon Musk had such a hard time in the beginning too (but not anymore, now that’s he’s one of the new KINGS).

  • [Avatar for George]
    George
    June 3, 2023 02:11 pm

    “Stay tuned. My next article in this series will have even more proposals to consider.”

    It’s called ‘AI’, Robert! LOL! Just get ready to accept it. IBM will! Google will! Microsoft will! Others will too. China will CERTAINLY embrace it … and so we better be first!

    Humans can’t do this anymore (and already couldn’t 30 years ago). Can humans look at a ‘millions’ of documents from around the world, in less than the allotted (and absurd) 3 hours? Can they even read and ‘fully understand’ a SINGLE specification (which most don’t even bother doing anymore)? And the same goes for judges and juries. Where’s the fair and truly ‘objective’ and ‘logical’ comparison between inventions? Does anyone even care anymore? Aren’t they all just throwing darts at a wall now (with ‘granted/denied’ and ‘valid/invalid’, written on it)?

    Just give me a computer’s ‘analysis’ – any day! Humans can’t be trusted with this anymore (actually humans can’t be trusted with ‘much of anything’ anymore, including justice). Fortunately, we still have good engineers in this world to help keep us safe! If the USPTO, Congress or lawyers were in charge of nuclear reactors, we’d have ‘meltdowns’ every week! Then they’d just ARGUE who’s fault that was FOR YEARS (at a cost of billions)! LOL!

  • [Avatar for George]
    George
    June 3, 2023 01:36 pm

    @ ExaminerAnon

    “So you want people to undertake hundreds of hours of studying for a job with a starting salary of $78k/yr? The USPTO would collapse in ten years from the inability to hire anyone.”

    No, what I want NOW, is to replace most of these ‘humans’ with AI that don’t have to be compensated in any form except with some electricity, that can work 24/7 without stress or burnout, including on weekends and holidays. In other words, I now want ‘examination of patents’ to go the way of coal mining! it’s just not healthy for humans anymore!!! It places WAY too many demands and stress on them! Computers will have no problem with that, and best of all, won’t care WHO you are, or how much money you have! The don’t need money, or raises!

  • [Avatar for George]
    George
    June 3, 2023 01:28 pm

    @ Ronnie L Burson

    100% correct Ronnie.

  • [Avatar for George]
    George
    June 3, 2023 01:27 pm

    @David Lewis

    Exactly, but actually, the author seems to be arguing the opposite to me. He’s saying if fees go up, there will be more abandonments and disincentives to file patents (even by companies and even for significant inventions), so the PTO will then get LESS MONEY than it does now, so then it will have to KEEP RAISING fees, in order to take in the same amount of money (to pay the same number of employees). It’s just simple logic and economics (when it comes to any ‘business’, which the PTO is now).

    The USPTO is run like a business now – it’s not paid anything by the government anymore. It has to be self-financed. In fact, I’m alleging they’ve gone ‘rogue’ now, and don’t really care what Congress or the public thinks. We as a society don’t get to ‘vote’ on ANYTHING they decide! They might decide it’s not even worth examining applications from individual inventors anymore (since it’s not cost effective) and then it would probably take Congress a couple of years to even realize what was going one and decide to reverse the decision!

    When it comes to the PTO, I have absolutely no faith in them or Congress to do the right things anymore. They don’t even understand what’s going on there. I don’t even think they knew about the ‘super-secret’ 1995-2015 ‘SAWS’ program! Does anyone know if Congress approved that? If not, it was clearly unconstitutional and needs to be investigated by Congress and maybe the FBI too!

  • [Avatar for George]
    George
    June 3, 2023 01:08 pm

    @Anonymous

    It USED TO be government funded, but then Republicans and the large corporations didn’t want that anymore!!! Remember ‘small government’? Now you want BIGGER government, because that would suit you – in THIS case???! LOL!!!

    Also, all those issues you mention are SEPARATE ONES. We should be able to walk and chew gum at the same time (fiscally too)! It used to be about what was fair and less so about money. Unfortunately, now it’s ALL about what ‘selfish interests’ like you want! It’s what the ‘robber barons’ want (you know, people like Trump and Musk and other billionaires want that maybe you’ve even supported). It’s not what I want, that’s for sure. I want EVERYTHING in America to be as fair, just and egalitarian as is possible. That was the original intent in founding this country. We didn’t want anymore to do with KINGS – whether they were the individual kind, or now the corporate kind (i.e. monopolies).

    The Founders wouldn’t have wanted being ‘owned’ by rich corporations, anymore than by any kings! They wanted to ‘spread the wealth’ produced by Americans, not have it horded by just a few. Why do you think the income gap is so large now and only growing faster and faster? Why is the Middle Class disappearing? The Founders wouldn’t have allowed that for one minute! We’ve forgotten ‘everything’ about what made America truly great, wrong now. We’ve turned it upside down. Democracy and ‘fairness’ is fading away.

    P.S. The USPTO could easily be government funded if we just raised taxes on the ‘filthy rich’, which Republicans also don’t want to do. Again, it used to be government funded, before Congress (and the corporations ‘bribing’ them) decided it would be better to run it like a money-making business, rather than a public service! At least it would be better for THEM!

  • [Avatar for George]
    George
    June 3, 2023 12:46 pm

    @F22Strike

    Congress needs to just REPEAL the AIA! It’s all wrong for America. It’s the ‘European’ patent system.

    It was one of the biggest mistakes Congress ever made (at the behest and ‘bribing’ of large corporations & monopolies)! Our old system was far better and far more equitable than what we have now.

    But what we really need is a ’21st century’ patent system. One where you could get a patent in a week, for less than $500 and with a money-back guarantee if the quality is not good or the patent is later found to be invalid.

    We also need to have included with each patent, either ‘litigation insurance’, or government provided and paid-for ‘enforcement’ of patents (at a much lower cost than private litigation is now). The annual fee for such insurance would then be ‘constant’ and replace maintenance fees (and could also be less expensive than obsolete maintenance fees). After all ‘maintenance fees’ are now totally antiquated.If the government did this, it would also GREATLY ‘discourage deliberate infringement’ of patents and possibly even eliminate the so-called patent troll problem, as well.

    Finally, a 21st century patent system should make heavy use of computers and AI to take over the role of fallible and/or incompetent ‘humans’, TRYING to examine applications that is no longer possible for humans to do in a reasonable amount of time (which they can’t anymore). Since AI could do this all in minutes (or at most hours, NOT YEARS) and computers can do this 24/7, including weekends and holidays and only need electricity to function, it’s really a ‘no-brainer’ (at least a ‘computer’ one). There would never be any backlogs again!

    Most inventors could then get a patent in as little as a week, and if not, they could be ‘clearly instructed’ as to what was wrong with their application and what they could ‘and should do’ to amend their applications, so that patent allowance would be more likely (yes, they could be ‘guided’ and helped toward getting a patent – ‘if possible and merited’).

    Inventions and patents would no longer be seen as a game of whack-a-mole by the PTO and computers wouldn’t care WHO would be awarded a patent, or how much money they had. A homeless person would then be treated EXACTLY THE SAME as an ‘Apple’ or ‘IBM’, because computers aren’t judgmental and have no ‘ulterior motives’. That’s because they don’t have ‘fragile egos’ and could care less about money, which unfortunately humans are OBSESSED with!

    Computers could also ensure that inventors get the ‘broadest’ protections possible, NOT the ‘narrowest’ ones (which is now the ‘secret practice’ of the PTO). Yes, the PTO now has a NEW ‘super-secret’ policy (in place of the prior SAWS program) which prevents examiners from issuing ANY broad claims or patents – even IF they meet all statutory requirements and overcome ALL conceivable objections, even over the course of many years (which in our case is over 13 years now on THREE inventions, that have ‘always passed’ multiple rounds of examination). We now just prefer to call their ‘super-secret policy’ . . . ‘RICO fraud’, which is what it actually has become now (so stay tuned).

    Overheard, USPTO (Nazis lol): “NO BROAD PATENTS FOR YOU (or anyone)!!! . . . NOW JUST GIVE UP, GO AWAY AND DON’T COME BACK!!!”

    Computers would never say this (because they’d be programmed not to)! Just one more reason to prefer them over ‘humans’! Imagine a USPTO with perhaps less than 500 employees! The union sure wouldn’t like that, but most inventors would, especially if computers could HELP THEM get a patent in as little as one week, maybe for a couple of hundred dollars! I’m all for that! How about you, American inventors? Time for some ‘justice’ and ‘equity’ again. Time to level the playing field again! Time to kick the ‘Kings of IP’ out of America again! It’s what the Founders wanted! It’s what they made very clear in the Constitution, which is simply being ignored by Congress & the PTO.

  • [Avatar for Harry C Hunter Jr]
    Harry C Hunter Jr
    June 2, 2023 06:11 pm

    Would any part of your proposal minimize frivolous trademarks of common terms that should never even make it to an examiner?

  • [Avatar for Anonymous]
    Anonymous
    June 2, 2023 04:55 pm

    If we can afford $100 billion for Ukraine, we can fully fund the PTO.
    If we can bus and fly millions of illegals around the country and put them up in hotels, we can fully fund the PTO.
    Our priorities are wrong. Waste and abuse abounds.

  • [Avatar for David Lewis]
    David Lewis
    June 2, 2023 04:06 pm

    I agree with George when it comes to fees. Nominal fees encourage participation of the little guy in the patent system. Nominal fees are fair. Raising upfront fees, as proposed by the author, further skews the patent system to favor those with money/big business and are unfair. One should not be able to buy justice, but that is essentially what the author is proposing.
    Without a patent system, typically the world never sees the innovations of the little guy. Even when they have a good idea, they can’t compete with big business, and it seems to me that the above proposal takes us further down the path of trashing out patent system.

  • [Avatar for Ronnie L Burson]
    Ronnie L Burson
    June 2, 2023 01:01 pm

    The current system is corrupt and is lending a hand to large institutions to steal use then delay any recourse for patentees.These companies basically take a patent use it and litigate but they also grab market share and wait for the parentee to go out of business or give up.Look the number of times large tech giants run to court and ask for an IPR. NOT FAIR.

  • [Avatar for Julie Burke]
    Julie Burke
    June 2, 2023 10:58 am

    Two fun facts about the Patent Office Professional Association (POPA) union:

    First, it is an unusual organization for not being affiliated with any of the other federal government unions.

    Second, it is unusual for POPA to include hundreds of former USPTO managers who oversee the quality or validity of the patent examiner’s rejections and allowances. These Quality Assurance Specialists, petition examiners, re-exam specialists, PTAB patent attorneys, OPLA attorneys, etc were removed from management positions and placed into the POPA union in 2010. As the NLRB said in 2010, these managers may have a right to be in some union, but they should not be placed the same union that represents the front line workers whose work is being reviewed for quality/validity.

  • [Avatar for Anon]
    Anon
    June 2, 2023 09:09 am

    To your question of study for salary, YES

    https://www.ilrg.com/employment/salaries

  • [Avatar for ExaminerAnon]
    ExaminerAnon
    June 1, 2023 09:45 pm

    “Third, all newly hired patent examiners must take and pass the same patent bar exam that attorneys and agents must pass. Current patent examiners would be grandfathered.“

    So you want people to undertake hundreds of hours of studying for a job with a starting salary of $78k/yr? The USPTO would collapse in ten years from the inability to hire anyone. Also, the USPTO used to have examiners take a similar exam at GS-12. Since going remote has changed things it hasn’t been reintroduced, but the vast majority of examiners have already taken an exam, so I’m not sure why you think this would be valuable.

    Your other comment about not needing a union because we don’t work in a coal mine is also laughable.

  • [Avatar for Anon]
    Anon
    June 1, 2023 06:55 pm

    George,

    Your rant-in-reply is even more disassociated than normal.

    You appear to applaud a direct contradiction as the author is advocating for increased (upfront) costs.

    Were you simply intending to disagree with me because you saw the moniker “Anon?”

  • [Avatar for F22strike]
    F22strike
    June 1, 2023 04:38 pm

    When the inevitable decline in U.S. patent application filings and maintenance of U.S. patents becomes significant, the USPTO will continue to raise prosecution, maintenance, and IPR fees to make up for the decline in revenues. This will only accelerate the decline.

    In what world is it fair and reasonable to: 1) charge significant patent application filing fees, prosecution fees, and maintenance fees; 2) subsequently cancel the patent claims in an IPR proceeding; and 3) refuse to refund any of the fees? After all, hasn’t the USPTO effectively admitted that it was at fault for issuing the supposedly defective patent in the first place? Sadly a class action lawsuit that was filed to recover such USPTO fees was unsuccessful.

    Congress needs to reign in serial IPRs. Congress needs to overrule the horrible anti-patent decisions of the SCOTUS. Congress needs to reform the USPTO. For starters, let me repeat a proposal that I first made 15 – 20 years ago which never gained any traction.

    First, move the USPTO to the middle of the US – Kansas or Indiana, for example. This would allow easier physical access to the USPTO by many inventors and their patent attorneys. It would also reduce housing costs for patent examiners. Such a move would also get the USPTO out of the DC swamp.

    Second, eliminate the union of patent examiners. These are college educated workers that sit at a computer, not coal miners. They often work from home.

    Third, all newly hired patent examiners must take and pass the same patent bar exam that attorneys and agents must pass. Current patent examiners would be grandfathered.

  • [Avatar for Breeze]
    Breeze
    June 1, 2023 03:49 pm

    “For example, they should consider a fee decrease for searched applications that provide information disclosure statements that help the examiner guide her search.”

    The studies show that examiners ignore the prior art cited in IDS’s.

    “Similarly, the Office could consider a fee reduction for patent prosecution highway treatment and for applications that have a search report on a related case in Global Dossier, both of which require less examiner time. ”

    U.S. examiners are not even required to give full faith and credit to the PCT searches the PTO has contractors do as the ISA. So we should pay them more to ignore the prior art in the corresponding foreign applications? Doesn’t make much sense to me.

    “Finally, I think the Office needs to lead a conversation about the cost of drafting and prosecuting an application. Since the quality of the application affects the examination, the Office should collect and publish information regarding the costs of drafting and prosecuting a quality application in different art areas. Such information might help companies understand what they need to pay for these services and reduce the number of low-quality applications that are the result of low-ball drafting and prosecuting charges.”

    Large filers already know what they and others are paying. There’s no need, or legal justification, for the PTO to “collect” this information. It’s also confidential client information.

    “Counterintuitively, I believe that higher application fees might actually help drive large applicants to do a better job of drafting up front instead of filing sub-standard applications and then abandoning them or relying on continuations.”

    Sub-standard applications (whatever those are) should be the easiest and least expensive for the PTO to examine and dispose of. Given that the PTO is apparently currently incapable of doing that it hardly seems fair to expect applicants to pay the PTO even more money.

    It’s very clear that you don’t actually do any prep and pros. It would be better if you left it to those of us who do. It would also be better if the purveyor of this site stopped providing you a forum for all of these terrible suggestions.

  • [Avatar for George]
    George
    June 1, 2023 03:07 pm

    @Anon

    You clearly don’t understand how logic (or economics) works! A logical argument can be ‘proven’. It’s not just ‘vacuous rhetoric’. Robert’s arguments are well founded, even if not yet provable. Economics is a little messier than pure logic or mathematics (because ‘illogical humans’ are involved), but it has a foundation in both. That’s why there’s a Nobel Prize in economics (but not invention). Not sure why. Maybe because economics is considered so important to everything ‘humans’ care about.

    Robert wins this debate on points. Fewer & fewer innovators will go with patents if costs keep going up (or even stay where they are now). Patents have become completely unaffordable, unenforceable and for many ‘unjustifiable’. Better to just ‘be first’ out of the gate & take your chances! Works for Elon Musk and many other ‘rich’ entrepreneurs (like Jeff Bezos, et al.).

    Also much cheaper trademarks might be enough to protect your ‘products’ (rather than ‘just patents’)! People prefer an ‘original’ trademarked thing (everything else being equal). Dyson still sells a huge amount of vacuums, despite being the most expense ones out there and no one knowing (or caring) about their patents. Same for Teslas (for now). Remember Tesla doesn’t care about patents. Musk just states that he won’t sue anyone, unless they sue him first! Seems to work as a policy and doesn’t hurt his sales at all.

  • [Avatar for Anon]
    Anon
    June 1, 2023 02:47 pm

    George,

    Whether or not fees in general are going up (or not) has nothing to do with the provided point of logical fallacy employed by the author of the article.

    Your comment is a non sequitur.

  • [Avatar for George]
    George
    June 1, 2023 02:31 pm

    @Anon

    Fees are going UP (never down) all the time!!! LOL! Why do you think that is? It’s because the USPTO keeps wanting ‘more money’ (with no end). Our government (in its stupidity) isn’t willing to give the PTO anything. It used to, but not anymore! The USPTO is run like a ‘business’ now, not a service to the public and inventors. They have NO INCENTIVE to reduce costs (especially with ‘willing payers’ like you).

    It’s not that hard to understand. It’s called ‘business economics’, not ‘public interest’ economics. Less than 1% of Americans can now participate in the innovation economy, because it’s basically become a huge (government run) scam!

    This was NOT what the Founders and Drafters of the Constitution intended. They want EVERYTHING to be fair and equitable for ALL Americans (except unfortunately Blacks and other minorities). They definitely didn’t want patents & IP to become a ‘Sport of Kings’ again. Remember, they didn’t like ‘Kings’! Now we have them in the form of big corporations & monopolies! The USPTO only really cares about THEM (not you). They pay in full and also file a LOT more patents ‘every year’! They are the PTO’s BEST and most loyal ‘customers’ (at least up till now). They also PAID FOR and WROTE the AIA, remember? They are the ‘rulers’ of the PTO now! Even Congress has little say over what the PTO does now (or doesn’t care either). Ordinary people have NO SAY over what they do (despite their ‘window dressing’ and PR efforts). There is no ‘voting’ on what they want to do, including fee increases, and most people don’t care about IP anyway.

    I WON’T pay more – period! There are other options for protecting IP (especially software). Elon Musk doesn’t even bother with patents (except maybe for some defensive ones). He thinks patents are now an expensive and time consuming ‘farce’ too! They basically make no sense anymore and can almost never be defended or (successfully) asserted. So what good are they in the 21st century? Especially the century of AI?!

  • [Avatar for George]
    George
    June 1, 2023 01:56 pm

    Agree!!!

    Indeed I believe fees should mostly be covered by the government (like they used to be), since inventions are clearly of great benefit to the U.S. economy (this is a ‘no-brainer’).

    Furthermore, low income U.S. inventors shouldn’t have to pay ANY fees. If anything they should be ‘supported’ and ‘subsidized’ by the government (if they show ‘significant talent’ as inventors), until they no longer need such support (another ‘no-brainer’).

    We must have at least 1000 (independent) inventors in the U.S. that deserve our support, as a country! It’s just STUPID not to do this! It’s in all our interests to do that!

    If we ‘bury’ inventors under the financial burdens and inequities involved in even ‘trying’ to protect their contributions to society (for possibly 100’s of years), we also help to bury innovation in this country. In particular the costs of petitions and litigation is now completely outrageous and only available to the 1%, not the 100% that the Founders obviously intended.

    I don’t think China will follow us in this regard! Indeed, China could now easily overtake us in innovation (particularly since they’re not ‘in love’ with lawyers or lengthy legal processes).

    China is also likely to adopt AI for ‘examining’ patents (in days not YEARS). So we may lose that race too! Imagine if you can get a patent in China, in a few days, for maybe $250 and that patent would not be likely to be questioned as being invalid! That’s because computers rarely make serious mistakes and don’t care WHO’s patent application they are looking at!

    Computers also can’t be corrupted, don’t have secret agenda’s (or ‘secret policies’, like SAWS) and don’t have ‘egos’ to hurt! Those last benefits are reason enough for me to wholeheartedly support ‘AI examination’ and also AI ‘adjudication’ of most IP disputes (also in days, not YEARS) . . . except maybe for the issue of ‘human’ damages.

  • [Avatar for Anon]
    Anon
    June 1, 2023 01:07 pm

    Serious logical fallacy with the notion that others are charged more due to some abandoning prior to maintenance fee periods.

    No one has their (prior) fee levels raised for this.