Posts Tagged: "patent office"

On July 9, 2012, the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) announced that they are extending the First Action Interview (FAI) Pilot Program. The extension of the program will be in conjunction with a comprehensive review of the program to determine whether any adjustments should be made to the program. Further inquiry will be made into whether the program should be extended further or made permanent. During its review, the Office will consider feedback from both internal and external stakeholders. Accordingly, in addition to announcing the extension of the program, the Office is requesting comments on the program.

This case intrigued me from the start because it seemed rather odd that there should be a nonprecedential opinion in an appeal to the Federal Circuit necessitated by a completely adjudicated inter partes reexamination at the United States Patent and Trademark Office. Moreover, the original panel concluded that the combination of known elements resulted in a predictable result. The problem with that reasoning, however, is that not all of the elements were found within the prior art. In fact, the Board found that there are no fewer than three (3) meaningful structural differences between the invention as claimed and the prior art.

David Kappos today announced plans to open regional USPTO offices in or around Dallas, Texas, Denver, Colorado, and Silicon Valley, California. These offices are in addition to the already-announced first USPTO satellite office to open on July 13 in Detroit, Michigan. The four offices will function as hubs of innovation and creativity, helping protect and foster American innovation in the global marketplace, helping businesses cut through red tape, and creating new economic opportunities in each of the local communities.

It almost boggles the mind, but this Federal Register Notice explains that the USPTO is undertaking a study to determine the feasibility of requiring economically significant patents to be kept under lock and key. Yes, pursuant to a request from our brilliant members of Congress the USPTO is going to study whether economically significant patents should be placed under a secrecy order, thereby scuttling any opportunity for the innovation to be patented until such time as it is no longer economically significant.

The one thing that will be markedly different from federal court practice, however, is that for the most part only registered Patent Attorneys or Patent Agents will be able to appear before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. The Patent Office considered broadly permitting practitioners not registered to practice by the Office to represent parties at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Notwithstanding, the Patent Office decided against allowing non-registered practitioners from representing parties at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board the proposed rules set forth in February 2012. The USPTO explained this was because they believed that making the practice open to non-registered attorneys would present burdens on the Office in administering the trials and in completing the trial within the established timeframe and Office rules.

Earlier today David Kappos, the Director of the USPTO, testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee at the Senate’s first oversight hearing of the America Invents Act. Among other things, Director Kappos noted that the USPTO continues to move forward on AIA implementation, saying that the much anticipated new rules packages to implement the next round of AIA changes will be released on or before August 16, 2012. Kappos also revealed that the USPTO received over 600 comments relative to the location of the additional Satellite Patent Offices called for in the AIA. Kappos told the Senators that he expects to complete that review process and announce the next Satellite location something this summer. Kappos also discussed patent harmonization, Track One, the Patent Prosecution Highway, the new pro bono program and more.

If you have not tried to use the After Final Pilot you should really give it a try. At our firm we have found examiners quite willing to work with us After Final under the Pilot Program and have had successful results. While not appropriate to do everything you really may want to do After Final, many times you can make at least some substantive changes that would have normally required the filing of an RCE or Continuation. I personally think the Pilot has already proven to be a success and hope that the USPTO will continue to extend the deadline until this can ultimately be made permanent.

When determining whether to accept a particular course one particularly important consideration is whether the course has been accepted for college-level credit for a Category A degree at an accredited U.S. college or university. We know that the USPTO will accept courses taken at Community Colleges if those courses would count toward a degree listed on Category A. Indeed, some who are short credits will take them at Community Colleges and then be admitted to take the exam. The same rationale seems to apply when OED is evaluating online courses. So before you take a class at a Community College or online make sure that the credits for the course could be used by someone pursuing a Category A degree. If the answer is that the course would count toward the credit requirements for a Category A degree you should be fine.

With a view to the future, the Heads of Office had an initial exchange of views on the “Cloud Patent Examination Solution (CPES)” and “Global Dossier” concept, which are aimed at simplifying procedures for patent applicants and improving the efficiency of the offices when dealing with the same patent application. Simultaneously, they welcome the establishment of an expert panel to continue to discuss patent harmonisation, noting the importance to maintain the momentum. They reaffirmed agreement made last year in Tokyo to accelerate the Common Hybrid Classification Project under a revised mandate which takes into account the launching of a new classification scheme developed by USPTO and EPO (CPC) from January 1st 2013.

The amend to the rules of practice in patent cases is for the purpose of implementing the micro entity provision of the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (AIA). If an applicant qualifies as a micro entity, then the applicant is eligible to pay reduced patent fees once the USPTO exercises its fee setting authority under the AIA. The fee setting provision in the AIA sets the micro entity discount at 75% of the fees set or adjusted for filing, searching, examining, issuing, appealing, and maintaining patent applications and patents.

The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) today announced that the University of New Hampshire School of Law Library, which was designated as the Concord Patent and Trademark Resource Center (PTRC.) on January 30, 2012, is now open to serve the intellectual property (IP) needs of the public.

The U.S. Commerce Department’s United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) will host its second Clean Technology Partnership Meeting on Tuesday, June 12, 2012, to bring clean technology stakeholders together to share ideas, experiences and insights and provide a forum for discussion on how the USPTO can improve and expand on its clean technology programs.

In the QPIDS pilot, IDS submissions will be considered by the examiner before determining whether prosecution should be reopened. Prosecution will only be reopened where the examiner determines that reopening prosecution is necessary to address an item of information in the IDS. When the items of information in the IDS do not require prosecution to be reopened, the application will return to issue, thereby eliminating the delays and costs associated with RCE practice.

Information on the world’s specialized intellectual property courts can now be found in one place. The Study on Specialized Intellectual Property Courts, a joint effort published by the International Intellectual Property Institute (IIPI) and United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), is the first study to catalog the world’s specialized intellectual property court regimes. Not surprisingly, the study concludes that governments around the world should adopt some form of specialized IPR court to handle intellectual property cases. Specialized IPR courts were found to enhance efficiency, lead to more timely resolution and foster more consistent rulings and outcomes. Such courts are also an important signal to individuals and industry that a country takes intellectual property enforcement seriously, which we in the industry know is a precursor to economic development and outside investment.

The biggest myth about patent appeals is that that the examiner usually wins. The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“Board”) posts that it reverses examiners only one out of every three decisions —33%. That number is accurate, and reflects the percentage of reversals among Board decisions. But another number is more helpful — 75%. That is the rough percentage of reversals among all appeals—not just Board decisions. The difference arises because not all appeals result in a Board decision. In fact, the vast majority of appeals (80%) never reach the Board. The Board’s 33% number has nothing to say about this invisible sea of patent appeals.