President Donald Trump’s newest executive order is the simplistic “two-for-one rule” that simple states: every time an agency “publicly proposes … or otherwise promulgates a new regulation, it shall identify at least two existing regulations to be repealed.” Trump did not yet indicate which two of his prior executive orders will go to allow for this one. Thank you very much … [Read the order it: twoforoneorder]
The policy applies immediately at the agency level, including the USPTO. (The military is excluded from the requirements).
An element that is unclear from the order is the granularity of the term “regulation” or “rule” – the definition provides that the terms are defined as “an agency statement of general or particular applicability and future effect designed to implement, interpret, or prescribe law or policy or to describe the procedure or practice requirements of an agency.” Presumably, this would apply to any new rule of practice, new fee, or new PTAB requirement. It is less clear how to what extent this will apply to an amendment to an existing regulation or fee increase.
In addition to the 2-for-1 approach, agencies are also required to ensure that the total regulatory cost of new FY2017 regulations is zero “unless otherwise required by law” or given permission from the White House.
A note on agency regulatory cost. In general, cost calculations are done separately from benefit calculations. In its 2014 report, the Obama OMB “estimated the total cost of federal regulations to range between $68.5 and $101.8 billion and the total benefits to be between $261.7 billion and $1,042.1 billion.” The Congressional Research Service also explains that “estimates of the cost of regulation should be viewed with a great deal of caution” because they are usually wrong.
Question for patent prosecutors: What PTO regulations should be eliminated?
That’s a no-brainer: When it comes to patent-eligibility, the USPTO should do away with the awkward Alice “abstract idea” test and copy the EPO’s “any hardware” test! I’ve ranted about that here: link to youtu.be
Under Alice, even hardware can be “abstract.”
Ouch! I wonder what an abstract electronic circuit looks like?
Just like a non-abstract one (in real life); however, this is the US Supreme Court we are talking about, and they feel that whatever they say, simply must be so….
That’s easy. Rule 1.56 should be repealed, or at least highly restricted. The duty of disclosure is burdensome, not only on applicants and practitioner, but also on examiners who must wade through submitted documents to determine what documents are actually relevant to the examination. Those examiners are often buried in prior art references many of which are duplicative n there teachings or simply not that relevant. This is because, due to the added risk of committing inequitable conduct by neglecting to submit a reference that turns out to be relevant. Very few other patent offices have a regulation similar to rule 56. The most notable example, the EPO, has a much more sensible rule–all foreign search reports for corresponding cases must be submitted. And in the case of search reports prepared by the USPTO, the EPO has an agreement with the USPTO that allows them to retrieved automatically, eliminating the burden on the applicant.
In addition to identifying large parts of 1.97 and 1.98 for repeal, how about repealing the rule that only someone of record (and not just acting in a representative capacity) can sign a Terminal Disclaimer?
Ya mean you want competitor A to be able to sign a TD on competitor B’s Patent?
I first thought this was just a joke (Trump satire) by Dennis when I first read this. I’m still in shock that this is real.
So let’s take an example. Let’s say that the USPTO decides to do away with the duty of disclosure to align with the majority of other countries and reduce patent prosecution costs (obviously this would increase enforcement costs for both parties but Trump seems to play chess looking only one move ahead). But now the USPTO has to find two other regulations to repeal?? What two rules in the CFR can easily be repealed?! This is just going to cause a freeze in new rulemaking, nixing new rules that may actually help reduce red tape and compliance costs.
No.
The E.O. requires IDing to regs for repeal if you wanna ADD a regulation. If you repeal one, you don’t have to repeal two others. If you did, they repealing one would lead to elimination of all regs.
errrr two, not to
And basic decency and sanity requires you to take this executive order and shove it up the orange m@ niac’s behind.
?
But it defeats the purpose of making less red tape for companies. Just by adding one regulation and removing two does not mean red tape will be reduced. That would actually take an analysis of the rules and careful consideration of which regulations should be removed.
The executive order sounds great to people who know nothing about regulation, but the PTO regulations are a case in point: what get removed and why? And if something does get removed, would it actually benefit business? Probably not.
Like most of what’s happening right now, this executive order simply makes no sense.
No argument from me there.
Er… your example is “One down… how many more down”
The order is characterized as “One up Two Down”
“Question for patent prosecutors: What PTO regulations should be eliminated? ”
37 CFR 1.97
…or at least it should be re-written to forbid informing the Office of any Patent document (Patent, application or the like) published by any patent office, including and especially any document of any kind cited in the prosecution of a related application.
I understand the need to inform the Office of material information only the inventor or a small group around the inventor is aware of, but the whole system is predicated on the ability of the Office to find the relevant published information on its own. If the Office has that ability, then filing IDSs is just busy work. If the Office doesn’t have that ability, we’ve got bigger problems.
+1
+2
Also, assuming this is kept, then provide a check box for a continuation/divisional where the references in the parent will not only be cited in the continuation/divisional but will also APPEAR ON THE FRONT PAGE of the patent for the continuation/divisional. I can’t tell you how many hours we waste creating new IDSs for continuations/divisionals, when the PTO has all the same material.
I can’t tell you how many hours we waste creating new IDSs for continuations/divisionals, when the PTO has all the same material.
“Waste” is the operative word, for sure, at least if you don’t have a system that automates this. What benefit does this provide to the client?
Does the Office need to translate the document too?
If they want to read it, just like now. Applicant’s provide a translation if they have one. If they don’t, they don’t.
You may not like the President, but your references to the 25th amendment are inappropriate.
If you want to refer to Article II, Section 4, by all means engage in such inane rhetoric, but to refer to the line of succession (as a thinly veiled implication of his death) is beyond the pale and plain gross.
Dennis -you gotta get this creep under control.
This was to MM – I guess that post was rightly deleted.
No. That post is at 10.0
At least one of the (oft repeated) references is still there at 10.
Ah yes, I recall the days of DISQUS, wherein ALL of a persons posts could be collectively viewed (which would highlight exactly where the blight in this “ecosystem” is at)…
That is, unless (and until) the highest level of “secrecy” was selected. Hint: only a very select few (and not incoincidentally, all having the same anti-patent viewpoints) ever opted for that highest level.
It does not take a Flash of Genius to figure out the obvious connections.
If you want to refer to Article II, Section 4, by all means engage in such inane rhetoric, but to refer to the line of succession (as a thinly veiled implication of his death) is beyond the pale and plain gross.
Or, we could presume that he was talking about Section 4 of the 25th Amendment, which has nothing to do with anyone’s death. This simple-minded executive order lends at least a little support to the idea of exploring whether or not this provision might come into play.
Oh lookie! It’s a new s0ckpuppet!
your references to the 25th amendment are inappropriate.
It’s totally appropriate.
to refer to the line of succession (as a thinly veiled implication of his death)
That’s not what I’m doing. For the record, if Trump were to fall over dead tomorrow I’d be incredibly happy and so would many many many millions of other people around the world. I’d probably have a party and I might even pop the champagne that I set aside for the day that Duck Cheney kicks it.
I don’t need to “thinly veil” anything, by the way.
pale and plain gross.
Grosser than grabbing a woman by the crotch because you think you can get away with it and then bragging it about it? No, I don’t think so. Grosser than feeding l i e s to white supremacists for years about President Obama being born in Kenya? No, I don’t think so. Not at all.
I’m talking about section 4 of the 25th amendment, by the way. That’s the part that talks about the President being unable to perform his duties because, e.g., he’s men t@lly ill. You see, hose of us who weren’t born yesterday remember when we had an old President in the White House whose brain was turning into swiss cheese. This was kept hidden from the public by the concerted efforts of the President’s staff and the media. We don’t want that to happen again.
The evidence that Emperor Tangerine is men t@lly ill and unable to perform his duties is piling higher with each passing day. He’s a clinical narcissist who is being used as a blunt instrument by white supremacists whose main objective is to destroy the Federal government.
Also, a little news flash: I’m not going anywhere and you’re not going to stop hearing about the end of this maniac’s Presidency until it’s over. So get used to it.
“Also, a little news flash: I’m not going anywhere and you’re not going to stop hearing about the end of this maniac’s Presidency until it’s over. So get used to it.”
Prof. Crouch: time to change that by-line.
“anon”, can you remind everyone why you believe that Dennis gives a flying eff about what you think?
Give us all a little peek into the workings of your narcissistic brain. We’ve got our b@rf bags handy. Go for it.
It is NOT a matter of what I think, Malcolm (nice projection of your own self-centeredness), but rather, it is merely having the by-line accurately reflect what the editor of this vehicle allows and does not allow.
Hey, if he is unwilling to maintain the “ecosystem,” then he will surely get what he has gotten these nigh eleven years past.
Maybe you could take matters into your own hands. And leave.
Another odd edit….
Like most patent maximalists, “anon” has a really really really really hard time getting over himself.
Fun to watch, though.
“ has a really really really really hard time getting over himself.”
Absolutely stultifying.
“He’s a clinical narcissist”
Clinical narcissism is not a disqualifying mental disorder. Try again.
What’s next? Are you going to ban all trans people from holding higher office? Don’t be a trans/able phobiaist MM.
Agreed. A temporary “ban” pending a review of extreme vetting of his posts might just do the trick.
I take it Ned that you are not enjoying that SAME swagger that you advised others to just enjoy…?
Regulations A and B shall be repealed and replaced by Regulation ABC.
Done.
Yep. The order is meaningless, as Crouch suggested with order’s lack of explanation about what a “rule” is.
But as red meat for Trump supporters, the order is staple food.
I wonder when the resident Constitution humpers are going to tell us when the 25th Amendment applies to our men t@lly incompetent “leader.”
Just kidding. We all know that the Constitution exists only to protect their pocketbooks from taxes, patent invalidation and other forms of “stealing.”
?
?
Loser.
Clear now?
Loser.
Clear now?
Not at all.
Tell everyone who the winners are, Tourbillion.
Go ahead! You’re a very serious person.
“Tell everyone who the winners are, Tourbillion.”
The dread whyte mails and the women that be lovin’ on them?
Every time Trump“publicly proposes … or otherwise promulgates a new Executive Order, it shall identify at least two existing Trump Executive Orders to be repealed.”
Lol – love it, however, beware of the possibilities as expressed below, such as post 1 by Anon2.
How about every time Trump “publicly proposes … or otherwise promulgates a new Executive Order, it shall identify at least two existing Executive Orders to be repealed.”
Why limit it to Trump Executive Orders?
Nothing is less likely to cause offence than a rational and civil acceptance of a disagreement of ideas and philosophy. That said, the sheer fact of such a disagreement might cause such offense by its mere knocking on the door of a closed mind, but I do not and cannot believe that is the case here.
Your fussing is unwarranted here.
Sorry, this was meant in reply to anon at 1.2.1.1.
Anon2,
I would agree whole heartedly that you personally would have no such offense, but my comment was not directed to you. It rather to the C3ns0r who recently wiped out an equally agreeable comment as if that comment were the plague (at the same time permitting some much more severe blight to run rampant).
I too would find it difficult to fathom that such occurs, and yet, the posts have been removed.
My reply is blocked, but the short of it is that you were not the targeted recipient and there is absolutely zero animus to your posts.
I agree fully that it takes some serious closed mindedness, but alas, that is how it is.
there is absolutely zero animus to your posts.
Awwww, so cute.
Your feelings are noted.
I previously spoke of the Dow Chemical plant that pulled out of California because it could not get its permits approved. link to google.com. Dow pulled out because it could not satisfy the requirements for air pollution.
But, I suspect, Dow eventually built that plant, but not in the US.
The reason disk drives are no longer made in the US has primarily to do with environmental regulations. Even without doing any investigation, I would think that this is the same reason that most high technology manufacturing has left our shores.
People need to understand just how much damage to the US economy is caused by excessive regulations. True, we need to stop pollution, but slow walking permits to delay and to drive up costs is not necessarily conducive to prosperity. We need simple rules, clear standards, etc., the compliance with which is relatively simple and straightforward, and which are not excessive in terms of benefit vs. cost. Industry needs to know whether they can build a plant with reasonable certainty and at what cost.
Or maybe there is a spot for that nanny-ish “One World Order” so that the environmental protections are enforced world-wide and that Corporations cannot play the game of pitting one sovereign against another in such a environment harming manner (you should apprise yourself of the level of environmental devastation that has been committed in China – or the level of continued devastation that certain “clean air” accords would allow to contine [just so that ‘they’ can ‘catch up’]).
Being as it is though, I would simply prefer that our sovereign recognize the fact that certain juristic persons (trans-nationals) have a reduced allegiance to the sovereign, and should have their “voices” reduced accordingly.
Our sovereign SHOULD put our sovereign interests first (as should every sovereign – to mirror Adam Smith’s Invisible Hand at the sovereign level).
Everyone loses when the trans-national with allegiance to NO country gets too much say. Quite naturally, they optimize “the game” for their own bottom lines.
anon, the reason the Senate rejected the climate change protocol or treaty back in the Clinton administration is that big countries like China carved out exemptions for themselves because they said it would retard their economic growth.
Indeed, we cannot approach some, if not most, environmental regulations only as California, or as the US, as companies can simply go elsewhere. Nor can we grant countries exceptions because they need to grow. Obtaining truly neutral international treaties in this regard is probably not going to be possible.
What we can do is limit air pollution of cars sold in the US. Companies cannot avoid that by moving elsewhere.
…the natural extension of that would be to require ALL products sold in the US to be tied to the SAME laws as apply to those items manufactured here (and not just environmental, but labor and other laws as well).
You want US customers? Then the elimination of any (and I do mean any) “foreign advantage” needs to be neutralized.
We both know that such will not happen as long as Citizens United style of “voice” for Transnationals give them far too much powerful influence over our representatives.
the elimination of any (and I do mean any) “foreign advantage” needs to be neutralized
What?
What what?…?
It was a double-negative of sorts.
lol – gotcha (damm typos)
Dennis, on PTO Regulations:
New one: require all reexamination orders or PGR institutions be personally approved by the Director and repeal all prior regulations regarding ordering reexaminations or instituting PGR’s. Then have the Director summarily deny all such petitions and order a refund of the filing fees.
Gee, I wonder what’s coming up next from Puppetb0y Pumpkin? Some “executive order” telling restaurants owned by “sincere religious people” that they can refuse to serve people on the basis of “gayness”?
Oh, what fun it is being ruled by an incredibly unpopular s0 ci0 path incompetent who, after stealing an election, is transparently being used as a “blunt instrument” by white supremacists trying to cause as much chaos and harm to as many people as possible. How is it going to end?
Gee, it’s so hard to predict! Just the first day of week two, all you deep serious people.
Off topic
I would say that after the regulation raising excess claim fees for large entities gets passed, we get the rid of (1) the regulation that prevents the public from challenging granted patents in IPRs on the basis of eligibility and (2) the regulation that prevents the public from seeing Gil Hyatt’s junky submarine patents.
Those aren’t regulations (those are from Congress).
Just FYI
Regulations are regulations, some lawyers say.
And they’re all bad if they get in the way of stuffing money in your pocket, as fast as possible, at least according to the s00per awesome Republican Party of America. So let’s get rid of these pesky laws and regulations and let the invisible hand decide for once! What could go wrong? Some poor people die maybe. So what? Poor people are lazy people. They got it coming and they probably stole more than their fair share of “wealth” from deserving non-lazy people already. Freedom!
You are listening to the wrong lawyers (either that, or you have some fundamental aversion to the way things really are – especially if someone outside of your silo mentions the way that things really are).