Prosecution Delays and Patent Time period Adjustment on the Rise Once more
6 min read
“solely about 30% of circumstances are receiving a primary workplace motion throughout the 14 months allotted by Congress. I’ll observe right here that the PTA doesn’t ‘price’ the USPTO something when it comes to up-front cash and, might make it extra possible that the patentee can pay the difficulty and back-end upkeep charges.”
A number of issues right here.
First, let’s not be glib as to that 14 months being part of an anticipated deal (to Congress) in preserving the (US Sovereign) notion that the Quid Professional Quo is for a granted patent in change for shared (after which publicized) inventor disclosure. Decidedly, the US does not share any ROW view that the QPQ change is publication for a mere likelihood at patent rights. There may be NO sense of “we get to take the quo and share what you might have along with your quid being you’re permitted to use for a patent.”
Such often is the deal different Sovereigns have put on the market, however that’s decidedly NOT the US deal.
That 14 month mark was supposed to offer the applicant ample time to evaluate a primary (and full) examination consequence, with which to guage going forward with the patent course of or abandoning (with abandonment eradicating the ‘existence’ of the applicant’s disclosure from written historical past).
Second, wanting on the state of affairs as “not costing the USPTO any cash” is greater than crass in evaluating what Congress anticipated. It’s a not-so-subtle manner of reneging on the deal that underpins the US patent system. “Value” is probably not in {dollars}, however make no mistake that “price” is certainly concerned.
Third, There may be no indications in any sense of information on the document to assist the assertion that NOT residing as much as the deal “might make it extra possible that the patentee can pay the difficulty and back-end upkeep charges.”
That assertion is past ludicrous.
-
4.1
“… (with abandonment eradicating the ‘existence’ of the applicant’s disclosure from written historical past).”
What?
4.1.1
Come now Malcolm, you’re properly sufficiently old to keep in mind that purposes submitted to the Workplace which are deserted previous to publication are handled as having by no means existed (for prior artwork functions).
Have you ever forgotten the phrase “provisional rejection?”
4.1.1.1
I’m conscious that underneath Rule 138 you’ll be able to expressly abandon to keep away from publication. However I can’t consider a single software that I’ve obtained a primary OA on the deserves inside 14 months of submitting the place the OA triggered me to advise a consumer to expressly abandon the applying to keep away from publication. I imply it’s an possibility, however not likely an possibility. (Responding despite the fact that you misidentified me. No level in making an attempt to disabuse you of your personal certainties.)
4.1.1.1.1
Properly thanks for clarifying (even with snark) that you’re not Malcolm.
It’s solely just like the fifteenth prevalence because you posted underneath this moniker.
As as to whether or not a (any) consumer would expressly abandon with receipt of motion at 14 months is sort of completely different than understanding the authorized mechanism (and underlying rationale) for doing so, eh?
4.1.1.1.1.1
I’m properly conscious of the authorized mechanism for doing so. I’ve by no means had to make use of it. I doubt many others have both.
4.1.1.1.1.1.1
Your publish at 4.1 will lead others to the other conclusion with reference to that “properly conscious of authorized.”
3
It’s superb how they will ignore Congress when it advantages them.
3.1
Sure (sadly), the Government Department disregarding its major responsibility of implementing the regulation (and skim that as additionally together with selective — and political based mostly — implementing) is one in every of our best shortcomings of this contemporary period.
And it definitely doesn’t assist that Mainstream Media is complicit on this.
2
One technique to get the PTO to take PTA severely can be to offer it to patentees upfront. So, for instance, if you happen to get 3 years of PTA, your first upkeep payment wouldn’t be due for six years.
2.1
Bravo.
Malcolm (as Breeze) truly has a worthwhile suggestion. All of us ought to applaud small steps equivalent to this.
2.2
tbh, I believe my shoppers can be higher off with deferred examination (i.e., the power to defer examination charges).
As a lawyer, OTOH, I’m outraged by these delays in my capacity to gather charges.
1
“I’ll observe right here that the PTA doesn’t ‘price’ the USPTO something when it comes to up-front cash and, might make it extra possible that the patentee can pay the difficulty and back-end upkeep charges.”
What’s the level of this assertion? If it’s to counsel the PTO is detached to PTA, I’d disagree. Whereas the PTO as an entity isn’t penalized by PTA, people in PTO administration have bonus alternatives tied to PTA.
1.1
Ben, would you please clarify extra about how the PTO administration bonus alternatives are tied to the PTA. That’s positively a problem I had not heard about up to now. Thanks.
1.1.1
I discover it unhappy that any such factor must be requested for, and isn’t overtly out there to the general public.
1.1.2
I actually don’t know the small print of their bonus construction, sorry.
1.1.2.1
You “actually don’t know” however are completely keen to claim particulars that you just “actually don’t know”…
It’s simply so troublesome to imagine that you’re an examiner….