• Find the point of novelty
  • Broadcast your rights
  • Turn ideas into assets
  • Drive forward
  • Draw the future

Tag: Patent Office

CORONAVIRUS: Patent Office Form For COVID-19 Statement

Getting hotter in Phoenix

As discussed earlier, the Patent and Trademark Office is extending certain deadlines where a delay in filing a paper or paying a fee was due to the COVID-19 outbreak.  Initially, the guidance from the USPTO was to include a specific statement in a filing and make it conspicuous.

The Office has now created a fillable PDF form which contains this statement.  The form can be filled and filed directly to the PTO with its own Doc Code.  Upon filing, it should be easily identified by the Patent Office and processed accordingly.

The form is available here.  Please note: this is a patent form; it looks like the other forms used by the Patent Office.  I’m not aware of any crossover between patent and trademark forms.  It could probably be shoehorned into use as a trademark form, but only with modification, as the fields in the upper half of the form are specific to patent applications and issued patents.  However, you may still be better using the “miscellaneous statement” section of TEAS filings to make your COVID-10 statement in a trademark application or trademark registration.



Coronavirus: US Patent and Trademark Office Extends Deadlines Further

Drive Back from Solitude Ski Resort

The CARES Act gave the US Patent and Trademark Office the authority to toll, waive, adjust, or modify deadlines related to patent and trademark owners in light of the coronavirus pandemic.  At the end of March, the USPTO announced it would do just that.  As I summarized here, certain deadlines falling between March 27 and April 30 would receive 30-day extensions when accompanied by a statement regarding the effect of the pandemic on the deadline.

The Office has now modified that deadline extension.  Yesterday, the USPTO announced that deadlines falling between March 27 and May 31 will now be extended up to and including June 1, provided that the filing or fee payment is accompanied by a specific statement that the delay was due to the COVID-19 outbreak.

Please note – this is not an additional extension.  It does not grant another 10, 15, or 30 days to file.  Rather, it simply says that eligible deadlines can now be extended (under the right circumstances) up to a specific day – June 1.  If your deadline was originally due March 27, this gives you two additional months.  But, if your deadline fell on May 31, this only gives you a single extra day.  It s unclear at this time why the Office chose to create an extension running to a specific day rather than an extension of all deadlines by X number of days, as it previously had.

It is possible that this extension allowance will be modified again.



Attorney Fees not Available in Appeals from Patent Office

The Supreme Court has recently ruled, in Peter v. Nantkwest, Inc., that in appeals from proceedings at the Patent Office, the patent applicant will not be responsible for the fees of the Patent Officer’s attorneys and paralegals. This decision provides clarity in an important factor when considering how to seek review of a patent application.

A patent application is initially filed with the Patent Office. Generally, all applications are rejected, and the process of receiving and responding to rejections is called prosecution. Prosecution can take quite a bit of time, but in certain cases, an applicant can appeal an Examiner’s decision in prosecution to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. If the Board finds against the applicant, the applicant has the opportunity to request further review of the decision, either to District Court or the Federal Circuit. When this occurs, the applicant hires an attorney on its behalf, and the Patent Office is represented by in-house attorneys who argue its case against the applicant.

Recently, a district court held that an applicant, after losing its appeal, would have to pay the attorney and paralegal fees incurred by the Patent Office. This amounted to about $80,000. The applicant, not too excited, appealed that decision to the Federal Circuit and then to the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court denied the Patent Office, finding that it should follow the “American Rule,” which has litigants bearing their own costs whether they win or lose. While patent statutes do allow the Patent Office to recover some expenses – expert costs, travel costs, docketing fees, for example – that did not extend so far as to cover attorney and paralegal fees.

Of course, attorney’s fees can be substantial in an appeal, and so the potential imposition of those fees could present a chilling effect on the pursuit of a patent grant. The Supreme Court recognized this, noting that such a rule would limit access to methods of redress from unfavorable Patent Office decisions.



The Patent Office is Not (Yet) Affected by the Government Shutdown

Nearly a month into the government shutdown, the United States Patent and Trademark Office continues to run at full capacity.  The Patent Office is somewhat self-funded, in that the fees that applicants pay to file and prosecute patent applications are used to pay examiners and other staff.  However, the Patent Office is not allowed to spend all of that money willy-nilly; its budget is set by Congress, and the Office is permitted to spend up to that budget limit assuming sufficient fees are collected. 

In past years, sufficient fees have been collected, and with great foresight, the Patent Office has funded an operating reserve account with some of those fees.  While the Patent Office has a separate reserve fund which is supplied by fees paid in excess of the budget, the money into the operating reserve represent fees siphoned from the budget, perhaps the delta between the budget and the operating costs of the PTO.  And, while the reserve fund is empty, the operating reserve has about $300 million.  This is enough to keep the Patent Office running for a short time, about five weeks.

The operating reserve is not exhausted, but is being steadily consumed with this shutdown.  As it drains further, “non-essential” activities will be suspended.  Examiners will likely pause their reviews of applications.  However, the filing systems – and the staff necessary to support them – will remain online so that application filing deadlines can continue to be met.  It is not clear what will happen if the shutdown continues to the point where there aren’t even fees to keep the filing systems up….



Patent Office Announces First Bi-Coastal Biotechnology, Chemical and Pharmaceutical Partnership Meeting

Are you excited yet?  The Patent Office announced last week that it will hold its first bi-coastal partnership meeting in the areas of biotech, chemical, and pharma practice.

The official announcement reads:

This inaugural BCBCP expands USPTO’s long-standing partnership in the biotechnology industry sector to customers across the country. The next BCBCP Meeting will be held on September 17th and will be simultaneously available at locations on both the EAST (Alexandria, VA) and West (San Jose, CA) coasts. During the BCBCP, participants will be able to interact with Office personnel in person on both coasts, or alternatively, via webcast. The Biotechnology, and Chemical and Pharmaceutical Customer Partnership was developed to create a collaborative forum for USPTO customers in this industry sector to share ideas, experiences, and insights with USPTO staff. The BCBCP is intended to be informal in nature and will include participants from across the industry. Some of the topics to be discussed by USPTO staff and industry customers will include:

• Markush claim practice

• Patent application filing best practices

• RCE practice

• Overview of patent application initiatives

• Panel discussion on U.S. Supreme Court decisions

(e.g. Alice Corp., v. Cls Bank International. 134 S. Ct. 1537 (Supreme Court March 21, 2014); and Association for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc., 133 S. Ct. 2107, 186 L.Ed. 2d 124 (2013))

This will be an important meeting because it will be the first since a number of recent Supreme Court cases which have somewhat muddled the water.  Explanation and education from the Patent Office is generally a good thing in working toward clarity and transparency.

 



Sampled “Success” Rates of Patent Applications, Courtesy Patently-O

Patently-O did a brief post yesterday on a selected group of patent applications to see how the applications have proceeded through the PTO.  Of the applications filed in February 2006, 57% have matured into a patent, 28% are abandoned, and 15% remain pending.  Five and a half years is a long time to work through the Patent Office, but it may be that a large majority of that 15% are in a cramped technology field, one in which the Patent Office has a disproportionately large backlog.