US courts formerly tossed around the derogatory term “paper patents” in reference to inventions that were thought experiment scribbled down on paper and never actually reduced to practice. Ordinarily, paper patents were given more narrow construction than their more well rounded cousins. But, at least they were still on-paper.
The USPTO has announced its intent to stop printing patent documents on paper as a matter of course. Rather, the patent grant will remain in electronic storage. Paper versions will still be printable on-demand — informally from the website or formally with a fee.
The USPTO is finally moving away from printing of patent documents. That move is important because it has the potential of allowing the patent system to more fully take advantage of "born digital" documents.
— Dennis Crouch (@patentlyo) December 16, 2021
This is a good move.
Read more and provide comments here:
- https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2021/12/15/2021-27117/electronic-patent-issuance
- Dir. Blog
Update: Others have noted that USPTO computer servers went down for several hours on the day of this announcement.
Nice, from “paper patents” to “non-transitory computer-readable medium patents”. NTCRM patents are the future.
LOL.
Hand-waving without PTO-issued paper patents in hand . . . is merely hand-waving.
Reason enough to stick with good ol’ paper.
Does anyone remember the old Saturday Night Live sketch where people in the future are talking about the seemingly inexhaustible supply of paper made from Soylent White?
In rushes Charlton Heston (actually, Phil Hartman) screaming “Soylent White is made out of people! It’s made out of people!”
So yes, as the man said, this is a good move.
Soylent Green is set in 2022. Just sayin’.
Dennis, this leads to wondering how many published patent suit opinions in more recent years contain a “paper patent” argument [for more more narrow claim construction (or whatever)]? Or, that contain a “pioneer patent” argument [for broader claims (or whatever)]? Both expressions should make for the kind of interesting computer searches and reports that you are good at. [My bet is that both have become rare.]
Will Juries be less impressed by patents without the Government gold seal and without the red ribbon which was already eliminated since patent number 10 million? Or, will clever attorneys be able to paste their own versions of both onto a paper copy of the electronic patent to still wave to the jury?
It would not be a clever attorney to even attempt such an artifice, now would it?
Or do you think that the ‘other attorney’ would be exceptionally non-clever to just let such trickery slide?
Is this because the AIA made patents worth “less than the paper they are printed on’?
The AIA made patents worth what they’ve always been worth, just with an extra dose of honesty. If you are carrying a patent around in your pocket that gets knocked out in an IPR, you have been using a lie to extract money you didn’t deserve (this is, of course, the general “you,” not the specific you).
You have that arse backwards, and it is a shame that you would impugn (even the Royal You) the patentee.
Blaming the patentee is just not the way to go.
I agree that I was a little harsh in my rhetoric. In a lot of cases, there are many factors that contribute to this issue, one of which can be the patentee. The USPTO and the attorneys also contribute to the issue. My ire is really only aimed at a distinct subset of patentees.
Your ire remains misplaced.
You want someone to blame? Blame the examiners.
Re: “The AIA made patents worth what they’ve always been worth, just with an extra dose of honesty. If you are carrying a patent around in your pocket that gets knocked out in an IPR, you have been using a lie to extract money you didn’t deserve (this is, of course, the general “you,” not the specific you).”
How about a more “specific you” rather than a “general you”? Specifically, PAE patent purchasers and their attorneys [now making up a substantial percentage of all patent suit filers], who did not invent, develop, file on, or prosecute the patent, or any product, and file patent suits without even a minimal pre-suit validity investigation?
Just as off, given the foundational aspect of US Patent law that the property known as a patent was always intended to be fully alienable.
Put your pom poms away.
IPR’s are killing good patents by applying conclusory hindsight bias. Most patents invalidated by the PTAB easily pass muster in a real court. There is nothing honest about the PTAB, it is a sham.
“Easily pass muster in a real court” relies on a whole heavenly host of legal fictions.
Now if only we could convince the U.S. treasury to stop minting pennies and nickels…
Add in dimes, quarters and even singles fives and tens at the current (politically induced) inflation rates.
So why did they spend the money on the cover redesign in 2018?
Are you competing with Paul for the “Most Inane Post” award?
Do you really think that the Office back in 2018 had even thought of going purely paperless?
Comments are closed.