Posts in USPTO

Under the Paris Route PPH pilot program, an Office of Second Filing (OSF) may utilize the search and examination results of a national application filed in the Office of First Filing (OFF) in a corresponding application filed under the Paris Convention in the OSF. The PCT-PPH pilot program will use positive international written opinions and international preliminary examination reports developed within the framework of the Patent Cooperation Treaty.

Commissioner for Patents at the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) Robert L. Stoll has announced his intention to retire from the agency effective December 31, 2011. Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and Director of the USPTO David Kappos has announced that he will nominate current Deputy Commissioner for Patents Margaret “Peggy” Focarino to the position of Commissioner for Patents once Commissioner Stoll’s resignation becomes effective.

Breakthroughs in science and engineering create foundations for new industries, new companies, and new jobs. This is undeniably true. The question is how do we unleash this engine of growth? I am in favor of streamlining the technology transfer process, but I believe that it needs to begin from within. Universities have to revise the view of their appropriate role. Universities are not supposed to be in the business of technology transfer to make money, but rather to facilitate the development of exciting new innovations while training the next generation of engineers and scientists. By developing exciting new innovations and then placing them into the private sector the University plays a vital role in the innovation economy. Under-funding and over-working technology transfer departments is counter-productive.

The fiscal year 2011 results are now in and the backlog of untouched patent applications as of the end of FY 2011 was 669,625, so there is plenty of work to be done and hiring more patent examiners has to be a part of the solution. But did you know that Albert Einstein was a patent examiner? How about Thomas Jefferson? Jefferson is largely regarded as the first U.S. patent examiner. Thomas Jefferson (then Secretary of State), along with Secretary of War Henry Knox, and Attorney General Edmund Randolph, made up the first patent examination panel for the United States of America. Einstein, on the other hand, worked for the Swedish Patent Office. It was while working for the Patent Office that Einstein came up with his theory of relativity.

Whenever I write about USPTO conferences, symposia and events for independent inventors I say: “Simply stated, if you are a serious inventor you need to go to this Conference.” I really do believe that is true. You will be amazed at how much useful information you can obtain, and meeting up close and personal with successful inventors and government Officials is both educational and inspiring. It is sometimes easy to feel all alone as an independent inventor, facing a huge faceless bureaucracy as you attempt to do something that few of your friends and family really understand. These events that cater to the independent inventor help you realize you are not alone and while the USPTO is a government agency — even a bureaucracy — there are dedicated people up and down the chain of command who really care about innovation and want to help independent inventors. So be prepared to learn and be prepared to be inspired. Also come armed with ideas and suggestions. USPTO officials genuinely seem to want to hear what independent inventors are thinking and what they would find useful in the future.

Since 1993, the United States Patent & Trademark Office (USPTO) has pursued an “aggressive campaign” to free itself from oversight by and accountability to the courts. [1] At the same time, the USPTO has been just as aggressive in ignoring the provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) and related administrative laws that place responsibilities on the USPTO vis-à-vis the public. Fortunately, most administrative laws provide the public a remedy exercisable against agency overreaching: when an agency skirts its obligations, the agency loses its powers of enforcement vis-à-vis the public. Unfortunately, in July 2011 the Federal Circuit in In re Lovin [2] (opinion authored by Judge Dyk) allowed the USPTO to avoid obligations that the USPTO owes the public under the APA, while giving the USPTO judicial deference on issues where the APA grants none. A petition for rehearing of the Lovin case would give the en banc Federal Circuit the opportunity to ”right this wrong,” and to give the public the remedy that Congress intended, and to reinforce that the Administrative Procedure Act gives agencies both rights and obligations.

The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) released two Federal Register Notices on October 7, 2011, seeking written comments and announcing two public hearings for two studies the agency is required to conduct under the America Invents Act. Specifically, Congress is requiring the USPTO to study and report on the availability of prior user rights in foreign countries as well as options to aid small businesses and independent inventors in securing patent protection for their inventions. The USPTO reports for both studies are due in mid-January 2012.

Dudas started off discussing USPTO funding by explaining that while he was at the agency, while he was preparing to testify before Congress at one particular moment, he discussed with his senior staff the problem. “Why can’t I just tell them that the PTO funding is like a ponzi-scheme,” Dudas recounted. He would go on to say that everyone to a person told him “you can’t say that!” So Dudas settled on saying it this way: “the funding of the USPTO is similar to the way Congress funds Social Security.” That seemed to please his advisors and apparently didn’t ruffle any feathers on Capitol Hill. Of course, those on the Hill probably had no idea what Dudas was saying, after all many leaders (including Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid) are in denial with respect to Social Security and actually claim that there isn’t a crisis and those claiming Social Security is going broke are perpetuating a myth because they don’t like government.

If (B) gives a blanket exclusion to subject matter, which cannot be used as prior art after a disclosure by an inventor, that would lead to nearly ridiculous results. Imagine for example that an inventor discloses a specific embodiment of a coffee cup and then subsequently another who did not derive independently comes up with and discloses a coffee cup with a lid. If (B) does more than relate to a personal grace-period the subsequent disclosure could not be used against the first to publish inventor as prior art because it relates to the same “subject matter.” That would mean that the inventor could incorporate the cup and the lid into his/her patent application and obtain claims. You might be tempted to say that is impossible, but if the cup with the lid is not prior art then under what rationale could an examiner issue a good rejection? This would lead to results that turn the patent system upside down, and was clear evidence to me that those arguing that 102(b)(1)(B) excluded out subsequent independently disclosed inventions was fanciful at best.

I like writing about esoteric patent law topics and the question of “intervening rights” in reexaminations/reissues is one of the more esoteric. See my 1998 JPTOS article entitledIntervening Rights: A Potential Hidden Trap for Reexamined Patent. The case of Marine Polymer Technologies, Inc. v. HemCon, Inc. is one of those rare instances in this esoteric area of patent law where the Federal Circuit announced a new “wrinkle” on when “intervening rights” apply in reexamination. Unfortunately, the rule announced by the majority in Marine Polymer Technologies (“intervening rights” apply to unamended claims based on statements made during reexamination) is squarely in conflict with the express language of 35 U.S.C. § 307(b), as Judge Lourie’s dissent vigorously (and more importantly, correctly) points out.

The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) will host the 2011 National Trademark Expo on Friday, October 14th, and Saturday, October 15th, at the USPTO’s headquarters in Alexandria, Virginia. The free two-day event is designed to educate the public about the value of trademarks in the global marketplace. If you have young children and are looking for something exceptionally fun, and free, I highly recommend the Trademark Expo. While there are seminars aimed at adults, which are quite good, children will have a blast because costumed characters will be walking about and mugging for photos with children, families and adults too!

There have been a number of inquiries from the public regarding the fees due when payments are made by postal mail just prior to the effective date of the 15 percent surcharge (September 26, 2011). The fee due is the fee in effect on the date the document is timely filed. At this time the USPTO may not offer the micro entity discount (75%) on any fees. As provided for in the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (Public Law 112-29) these fees will be adjusted under the fee setting authority provided for in Section 10 of the AIA.

It isn’t exactly a newflash to announce that Washington, D.C. is dsyfunctional, anyone paying attention over the past few years has long since come to that conclusion. Thus, it is hardly breaking news to report that Congress is on the verge of passing a Continuing Resolution rather than actually doing their job and passing a budget for fiscal year 2012. Why do today what is required of you to fulfill the responsibilities of your job when you can just kick the can down the road? Of course, by so doing Congress will embark upon a path that will divert some $600 million from the USPTO during FY 2012.

As global demand for energy continues to grow and the price of oil and gasoline continue to rise we must pursue solutions for cleaner, renewable energy. The technology that will ultimately support an alternative energy driven economy is not where we want it to be, if we do not aggressively pursue such technologies and build on early stage successes we will never get to the finish line. Complaining about the fact that the finish line is so far away and the technology incapable of providing a solution today is exceptionally myopic. Nothing worth doing is ever easy and without taking critical first steps the final celebratory steps are simply impossible to take.

On September 16, 2011, President Obama signed the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act and, with his signature, which will marshal in major changes to the U.S. patent system. Many provisions of the Act take effect a year or more after this date including, e.g., procedures for post-grant review proceedings before the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (after September 16, 2012) and a change to a first inventor to file system (after March 16, 2013). However, a number of changes will take effect on September 16, 2011, or soon thereafter. The immediate and nearly immediate changes are outlined here in this article.