In this installment we learn from Director Kappos that the USPTO budget is not a problem whatsoever. While the Office did not achieve a permanent end to fee diversion, Congress has appropriated $2.7 billion for the USPTO for this fiscal year. The USPTO is NOT operating under a Continuing Resolution (CR) as is the case with most of the rest of the federal government. Furthermore, current projections have the USPTO collecting $2.5 billion in fees this fiscal year, so there will be a $200 million subsidizing of the USPTO by the General Treasury.

On September 17, 2011, I attended the Signing of the America Invents Act at Thomas Jefferson High School for Science and Technology. A young lady named Rebecca Hyndman, who is a senior at the high school, introduced President Obama, which took place immediately prior to his signing the Act into law. Rebecca was chosen for this honor because at the age of just 14 she acquired a patent for her own innovation. Recently, I ran into her father, Kelly Hyndman, at another IP event. While discussing the AIA signing ceremony, I asked Mr. Hyndman if he would mind my interviewing his daughter for our blog. With his blessing I conducted the following Interview.

The Obama government restructuring plan is of particular importance within the patent community because it will affect the Commerce Department as well as five smaller agencies. As soon as I heard that my Spidey-senses started tingling. Wasn’t there something in the America Invents Act that applied only so long as the United States Patent and Trademark Office remained an agency within the Department of Commerce? Sure enough, there is. The new fee setting authority vested in the USPTO is contingent upon the Patent and Trademark Office remaining within the Department of Commerce.

The beginning of Part 2 of my interview picks up where we left off, but more generally broadens out to generically ask how Kappos approaches the daunting task of getting over 6000 patent examiners on the same page to provide uniformity when by the very nature of the decisions they make they are dealing with one-of-a-kind innovations. There is always going to be subjectivity in prosecution, but the Kappos Administration seems to have gone back the philosophy of old, which is that patents should be granted on patentable inventions and it is the job of patent examiners, with the help of applicants and attorneys, to work together to find patent allowable matter in applications. But getting the message from the 10th floor of the Madison Building to trickle down to 6000+ patent examiners is something that cannot be taken for granted.

The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) announced on January 10, 2012 that it has concluded a five-year lease agreement through the U.S. General Services Administration’s (GSA) Great Lakes Region for a 31,000 square foot space to be located at 300 River Place Dr. in Detroit, Michigan 48207. The building, listed on the National Historic Registry, was the former home to Parke-Davis Laboratories as well as the Stroh’s Brewery Headquarters. Anticipated opening is July 2012.

Earlier today IBM announced that it set a new U.S. patent record in 2011, marking the 19th consecutive year that the company has led the annual list of patent recipients. Leading up to this announcement I had the opportunity to chat with Manny Schecter, who is the Chief Patent Counsel for IBM, and someone I interviewed previously. Whenever I talk with Schecter I always ask him whether it is a struggle to continue to have senior management at IBM buy into eye-popping research and development budgets. Although I am sure I always sound like a broken record I am genuinely amazed. Schecter replied, as he always does, “it is not a struggle… everyone at IBM is on board with being the industry leader.” IBM spends nearly $6 billion annually on research and development and has now spent a generation as the top patenting company in the world.

Early in my career, I encountered a series of approximately 20 patent applications that were assigned to a small number of different art units. During the time it took to bring the cases to resolution, I kept detailed notes of my experiences prosecuting each case. It eventually occurred to me that the information I’d collected might be useful to other prosecutors working with the same examiners and/or art units. I wondered whether my colleagues, by reviewing my notes and gaining insight from my experiences, might be able to accomplish resolution more effectively and efficiently. However, the subjective and anecdotal nature of my notes limited their practicality. Recognizing that fact, I began to consider strategies for facilitating ways in which practitioners could more effectively share their prosecution experiences with one another.

Director Kappos was extremely gracious with his time, speaking to me on the record for nearly 90 minutes. He answered every one of my questions without dodging, and even spent time to discuss several things I did not raise. Truthfully, I could have spoken with Director Kappos for many additional hours, but I believe you will find that neither I or he shied away from any topics. We chatted about the problems with lengthy application delays, the increasing discontent within the patent bar regarding RCE filings, the America Invents Act and the challenges he faces getting 6000+ patent examiners on the same page with policy initiatives, among many other things.

In Patent Strategy I explained that a reasonable quote for an office action response is $2,000. Certainly it can be more depending upon the technology, but if you were going to poll patent practitioners from patent attorneys to patent agents I suspect you would come out with something close to a $2,000 average. This prompted one patent examiner to comment: “You said in this article that practitioners make $2,000 per response on average. How much do examiners make per response? Probably a fourth or a third of that. I mean I try to do the best job I can but do you really expect all examiners who get paid a fourth or a third of what you make to perform at the level that you do?”

Can you imagine the security employed in transferring the trade secret from the SunTrust Bank vault to the vault at the World of Coca-Cola? The Coca-Cola formula has been notorious with rampant rumors, creating its own urban mythology with respect to both the formula and efforts to protect the secret formula. All you have to do is Google “coke formula urban myth” and you will find all kinds of claims. Thus, it seems almost a virtual certainty that a new mythology will now be created and grow. It has always seemed to me that Coca-Cola is very comfortable with the urban myths, relishing them and even using them by some accounts to feed into the power of the trade secret, not to mention using them to misdirect the public into thinking, rightly or wrongly, that Fort Knox like security has always been employed to protect the formula.

In what seems to be a continuing trend, the United Stats Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit is continuing to show increasingly little tolerance for abusive patent litigation tactics. In the most recent pronouncement along these lines the Federal Circuit, per Judge O’Malley (with Judges Newman and Prost joining), ruled the district court appropriately awarded the defendant $3,873,865.01 in attorney fees and expenses under § 285, as well as $809,788.02 in expert fees.

What if you could have a crystal ball looking inside the United States Patent and Trademark Office to easily determine an array of statistical information related to a particular Art Unit or even a specific Patent Examiner? Can you imagine the types of strategic consultations you could engage in with clients? Clients hate being surprised with additional fees and unexplained and/or unexpected delays. What if you could with a few clicks of your mouse find out all kinds of information about a Patent Examiner and/or Art Unit? The amount of cases requiring an RCE, the average number of office actions, how often appeals are successful, how long it takes on average to get a patent, among much more information? Thanks to a new system created by patent attorneys Chris Holt and Joseph Kelly — the PatentCore™ system — you can obtain actionable and immediate intelligence on any patent examiner and on any Art Unit.

Acacia has long been considered by many to be the mother of all patent trolls. But are they really a patent troll? The term “patent troll” is one that is nearly impossible to define given the reality that one man’s patent troll is another man’s innovator who just chooses to license. Increasingly, however, the true bad actors in the non-practicing entity community are engaging in what the Federal Circuit has called extortion-like behavior. Is Acacia Research one of those patent trolls that engages in mafioso tactics, or are they a godsend to inventors and small businesses who otherwise couldn’t monetize their patent portfolios?