The following four question survey should take less than 1 minute to complete.
Thanks! Dennis Crouch, dcrouch@gmail.com
Create your free online surveys with SurveyMonkey, the world’s leading questionnaire tool.
The following four question survey should take less than 1 minute to complete.
Thanks! Dennis Crouch, dcrouch@gmail.com
Create your free online surveys with SurveyMonkey, the world’s leading questionnaire tool.
When do we get to see the survey results?
“Actually, abolishing entire areas of subject matter would reduce the backlog quite effectively.”
So would simply closing the doors, or instituting a registration system, so would rubber stamping everything reject-reject-reject.
On second thought, scratch that last one, that was what was tried under Dudas and that’s the reason we have the backlogs (dxmm pesky applicants and their right to continue fighting for what they think they deserve).
Nathanael, it would also work if courts would stay actions pending a re-examination if the asserted patent has yet to be examined. Doesn't the new statute actually require a court stay a case pending inter partes review?
Actually, abolishing entire areas of subject matter would reduce the backlog quite effectively.
And it just so happens that the backlog is specifically being generated by a flood of patents on software and business methods, which are invalid on subject matter grounds.
Not a coincidence. Allowing patents on invalid subject matter makes it much easier to file patents, so you get a flood of them. The invalid subject matter areas are also areas where the cost of making an “invention” is essentially nil.
Ned, that would only work if:
(1) The presumption of validity for patents is abolished (I think this requires Congressional legislation)
(2) Patent holders are required to pay costs and punitive damages to their targets if they sue, or threaten a lawsuit, over a patent which is later declared invalid
Apart from that, I guess it would work, it would be a bit like copyright filings.
this is just a simple math problem, without hiring more exmainers or asking them to work longer, the backlog generally will not change, paying expedition fee will only get some patents processed faster, but at the same time, others will definitely have to wait longer to get to the examiner’ docket….so in the end, this only change the order how examiner process the cases, with no effect on backlog….
the number of cases they can process each year will not change,pto cannot ganrantee one examiner can handle 200 cases each year after the fee increase if they can only handle 100 initially…….
“You assume facts and positions not in discussion.”
Na ya jackarse, he just knows me. And he also has a brain, which from your most recent comment we can see that you do not.
Your nearsightness is just as amusing. You live in a world of make believe without thought of cost efficiency or pragmatism.
Another a $5.00 for $1,000,000,000.00 trade I would take all day long.
Your shortsightedness is amusing. You live in a world of instant gratification without thought for the future.
Dummkopf right back at you,
You assume facts and positions not in discussion.
Registration does not get rid of claims or any type of notice that accompanies claims.
Metes and bounds and all that are still very much present in a registration system.
In fact, “as filed” and no new matter rules would actually warrant an increase in attention to claim writing by the savvy innovaters, who would realize that there will be no “trial run” of fixing little things during an examination and that the as filed product better be ready from the start for litigation enforcement.
None of this though touches upon “notice” in the way that you are thinking 6’s comment makes it’s rather vapid point. Actual notice is about informing and informing takes place at publication.
“should not…”
Yes they should.
Congrats on making a $5.00 point and giving me my $1,000,000,000.00 point.
I’ll take that trade all day long.
“I really hope EXAMINERS are not glorified spell checkers.”
Me too.
“We can hire a few people to do such tasks at a miniscule fraction of the multi-BILLION dollar InNOvation sucking federal agency in place now.”
Maybe you can. Besides those applications filed pro se, should not these “few people” who are filing such applications already being doing such tasks? As the vast majority of applications aren’t issued first action, there is compelling evidence that these tasks aren’t being performed.
Does the “quality work” that you spoke of include the errors I mentioned previously?
Dummkopf, 6 was talking about the notice function of claims. Metes and bounds and all that.
Neither do you.
Remember, we are talking about unenforced patents.
All one needs with unenforced patents to achieve notice is publication. Period. End of Story.
You really do not get 6’s point.
I really hope EXAMINERS are not glorified spell checkers.
We can hire a few people to do such tasks at a miniscule fraction of the multi-BILLION dollar InNOvation sucking federal agency in place now.
Publication is easily achieved independently of examination.
It is not a “good point.” It is a meaningless point.
“As for patent examiners, well, no great loss at all.”
Yes, the vast majority of patents are issued first action. There is no need to remove spelling mistakes found in the claims, claims that depend from the wrong claims, claims that read on the prior art disclosed in the background section, word for word duplicate claims, word for word duplicate claim sets….All patent applications are filed perfectly. Let the Applicant correct those things at trial 🙂
Good point on public notice. Without an examination, courts could deny injunctions and damages without actual notice.
A point that missing in the survey is the following:
There should be a hard deadline for bringing a patent in order for grant, thus reducing insecurity.
There should be an even earlier deadline for claiming previously unclaimed subject matter. (e.g. 3 years from priority for previously unclaimed subject matter and 7 years for bringing an application in order for grant).
This would be a true driver for innovation, because competitors know what a patent will cover. Also it will be more in line whith the “public disclosure” argument that is used to legitimate the whole patent business at all.
The _maintenance_ fees would then have to be adjusted such that examiners can touch the applications in time.
This fosters innovation even more, because the material deemed less valuable by the applicant becomes available for others earlier.
“Allow the public to oppose patents on substantive matters in post-grant proceedings.”
As long as the patentee is paying then that sounds like a good idea. Oh, what’s that? You don’t think the patentee should pay?
“If a patent is never enforced, why waste everyone’s money?”
Public notice?
“Applicants should have recourse to full ex parte examination only upon payment of a stiff fee.”
Duly noted, and that suggestion is top notch regardless of the failings of the rest of your “suggestion”.
“a serious problem in America as the demand for patent attorneys and patent examiners would precipitously drop.”
I disagree. Partially. Anything happening down the road in litigation would still need the quality work provided by patent attorneys.
As for patent examiners, well, no great loss at all.
Who would have a pile of patents of dubious validity? IBM? What difference is it to IBM that the patents do not have a precise scope predefined? They know that the pile, vast and incomprehensible like the Midas vault of gold, is chock full of valuable inventions that others will pay to license. Why should they be required to pay top dollar for an expensive and totally unnecessary prosecution of all those patents in the first place? (Actually, I think they want to spend as little as possible on prosecution. Ask anybody outside who has ever worked for IBM.)
When viewing the likes of IBM's portfolio as a potential licensee, are you really going to inspect the claims of its myriad patents for validity? You have to be joking. No one in their right might would even consider such a project.
Patents become important when they are enforced or need to be enforced. That is when the big bucks should be spent to define the scope of protection.
Obviously, if my proposal were given serious consideration, there would be a serious problem in America as the demand for patent attorneys and patent examiners would precipitously drop. Now that is the real reason my proposal has no chance whatsoever.
No, it’s great for deferring costs for small inventors working to get their company off the ground.
A 2-3 year delay to first action is just fine by most. And if they need it right away, accelerated exam is available. It’s great because it makes the backlog into a positive instead of a negative and everyone can get what they want/need from the system.
This is dumb because then you have a PILE of patents that you have no idea as to their validity. Registration systems may be fine for 3rd world countries, but not for the #1 market size wise in the world.
Corporations are people, my friend.
you pay you get examined, if you do not pay, your file is at the bottom, this is robbery…..
Lower fees dramatically and examine only for formalities. Allow the public to oppose patents on substantive matters in post-grant proceedings. Now that those post grant proceedings are here, let’s use them.
If a patent is never enforced, why waste everyone’s money? Too many patents simply add to already huge piles of largely ignored patent detritus.
Applicants should have recourse to full ex parte examination only upon payment of a stiff fee.
I’d be curious to know (1) how many such requests have been made and granted in the past ten years and (2) which assignee has made the most such requests.
“the USPTO should allow Applicant’s the ability to pay an extra fee to have their application examined later in time”
Isn’t this already the case under MPEP 709 Suspension of Action, 37 CFR 1.103 Suspension of action by the Office, (d) Deferral of examination:
“On request of the applicant, the Office may grant a deferral of examination under the conditions specified in this paragraph for a period not extending beyond three years from the earliest filing date for which a benefit is claimed under title 35, United States Code. A request for deferral of examination under this paragraph must include the publication fee set forth in § 1.18(d) and the processing fee set forth in § 1.17(i)…”
The USPTO has it all backwards. Prioritzed examination should be the default; the USPTO should allow Applicant’s the ability to pay an extra fee to have their application examined later in time. After all, why not have Applicant’s pay for the benefit they are getting by by a delayed examination?
Comments are closed.