The Patent and Trademark Office on July 9, 2010, published its Draft 2010-2015 Strategic Plan for public comment, (link to it here) which must be submitted by August 2, 2010. The Plan is designed to strengthen the capacity of the USPTO, improve the quality of patents and trademarks issued and shorten the time it takes to get a patent. The plan as fully implemented will enhance and accelerate the innovation and job growth needed to transform the U.S. economy, foster competitiveness and drive the creation and growth of U.S. businesses.
Wednesday, July 14, 2010
Monday, June 28, 2010
US Supreme Court Decides in Bilski - Business Methods Still Patentable Subject Matter
The US Supreme Court today decided in Bilski et al. v. Kappos, that business method patents are eligible subject matter under Section 101 of the Patent Statute 35 USC.
Oral arguments were presented on this case in November of last year and the decision has been eagerly awaited by the Patent Bar and by many in the public.
The Court rejected the Federal Circuit's an exclusive machine or transformation test, but instead affirmed the Federal Circuit's decision based on the subject matter being an abstract idea. The claimed subject matter involved a procedure for instructing buyers and sellers how to protect against the risk of price fluctuations in a discrete segment of economy.
The majority of the Court supported the following language:
"Today, the Court once again declines to impose limitations on the Patent Act that are inconsistent with the Act’s text. The patent application here can be rejected under our precedents on the unpatentability of abstract ideas. The Court, therefore, need not define further what constitutes a patentable “process,” beyond pointing to the definition of that term provided in §100(b) and looking to the guideposts in Benson, Flook, and Diehr.
"And nothing in today’s opinion should be read as endorsing interpretations of §101 that the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has used in the past. See, e.g., State Street, 149 F. 3d, at 1373; AT&T Corp., 172 F. 3d, at 1357. It may be that the Court of Appeals thought it needed to make the machine-or-transformation test exclusive precisely because its case law had not adequately identified less extreme means of restricting business method patents, including (but not limited to) application of our opinions in Benson, Flook, and Diehr. In disapproving an exclusive machine-or-transformation test, we by no means foreclose the Federal Circuit’s development of other limiting criteria that further the purposes of the Patent Act and are not inconsistent with its text."
This case brings us back to the analysis provided in Benson, Flook and Diehr and it will be interesting to see how the invitation from the Supreme Court to the Federal Circuit to develop "limiting criteria" to evaluate patentable subject matter is treated in future Federal Circuit cases.
A copy of the Bilski opinion is located here.
Oral arguments were presented on this case in November of last year and the decision has been eagerly awaited by the Patent Bar and by many in the public.
The Court rejected the Federal Circuit's an exclusive machine or transformation test, but instead affirmed the Federal Circuit's decision based on the subject matter being an abstract idea. The claimed subject matter involved a procedure for instructing buyers and sellers how to protect against the risk of price fluctuations in a discrete segment of economy.
The majority of the Court supported the following language:
"Today, the Court once again declines to impose limitations on the Patent Act that are inconsistent with the Act’s text. The patent application here can be rejected under our precedents on the unpatentability of abstract ideas. The Court, therefore, need not define further what constitutes a patentable “process,” beyond pointing to the definition of that term provided in §100(b) and looking to the guideposts in Benson, Flook, and Diehr.
"And nothing in today’s opinion should be read as endorsing interpretations of §101 that the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has used in the past. See, e.g., State Street, 149 F. 3d, at 1373; AT&T Corp., 172 F. 3d, at 1357. It may be that the Court of Appeals thought it needed to make the machine-or-transformation test exclusive precisely because its case law had not adequately identified less extreme means of restricting business method patents, including (but not limited to) application of our opinions in Benson, Flook, and Diehr. In disapproving an exclusive machine-or-transformation test, we by no means foreclose the Federal Circuit’s development of other limiting criteria that further the purposes of the Patent Act and are not inconsistent with its text."
This case brings us back to the analysis provided in Benson, Flook and Diehr and it will be interesting to see how the invitation from the Supreme Court to the Federal Circuit to develop "limiting criteria" to evaluate patentable subject matter is treated in future Federal Circuit cases.
A copy of the Bilski opinion is located here.
Wednesday, June 9, 2010
Inventive Eats: Incredible Food Innovations Now on Display at the USPTO
The US Patent and Trademark Office ("USPTO") opened a new exhibit yesterday at the Inventor's Hall of Fame, at the Madison Building in Alexandria, Virginia. The exhibit is the first major exhibit installation to come to the Hall of Fame since it was relocated to Alexandria from Akron, Ohio in 2009.
The exhibit shows how our breakfast cereals, sandwiches, dinner entrees, and more have been transformed by significant events, discoveries and inventions. It features the important role many of the National Inventors Hall of Fame inductees have played in the array of appetizing innovations that have made the food we eat safer, healthier and more economical.
The exhibit includes:
A full-size Mr. Peanut® character costume from the 1960s, used for Planters marketing, and additional Mr. Peanut artifacts
The exhibit shows how our breakfast cereals, sandwiches, dinner entrees, and more have been transformed by significant events, discoveries and inventions. It features the important role many of the National Inventors Hall of Fame inductees have played in the array of appetizing innovations that have made the food we eat safer, healthier and more economical.
The exhibit includes:
A full-size Mr. Peanut® character costume from the 1960s, used for Planters marketing, and additional Mr. Peanut artifacts
- A 1950s fully stocked walk-in kitchen
- 19th century patent models, including models of a refrigerator, an egg beater, a flour sifter, and the original Mason jar
- Displays of other well-known trademark food characters, such as the Pillsbury Doughboy® and the Green Giant®
- A Tappan vintage microwave from 1955, the first for home use
- A 19th century patented beehive
USPTO Teams up With Google to Provide Free Patent Information
The United States and Trademark Office ("USPTO") announced last week that it has entered into a no-cost, two-year agreement with Google to make bulk electronic patent and trademark public data available to the public in bulk form. Under this agreement, the USPTO is providing Google with existing bulk, electronic files, which Google will host without modification for the public free of charge. This bulk data can be accessed at http://www.google.com/googlebooks/uspto.html.
This arrangement is to serve as a bridge as the USPTO develops an acquisition strategy which will allow the USPTO to enter into a contract with a contractor to retrieve and distribute USPTO patent and trademark bulk public data. The contractor will be capable of acquiring this bulk data and providing it to the public.
Until now, USPTO’s public data in bulk form has been provided solely as a fee-based service. The USPTO estimates that nearly ten terabytes of information will be made available. Examples of the type of data that will be available through Google include:
* Patent grants and published applications
* Trademark applications
* Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB) proceedings
* Patent classification information
* Patent maintenance fee events
* Patent and Trademark assignments
Patent searching data, however, is still difficult and inefficient to search on the USPTO website and a new searching engine is not a part of the Google deal. For patent searching purposes, for example to determine patentability, right to use, validity or infringement, a search is most efficiently and effectively performed at the USPTO Public Search facility in Alexandria, Virginia. Contact our office for more information about searching, applications, or enforcement assistance.
This arrangement is to serve as a bridge as the USPTO develops an acquisition strategy which will allow the USPTO to enter into a contract with a contractor to retrieve and distribute USPTO patent and trademark bulk public data. The contractor will be capable of acquiring this bulk data and providing it to the public.
Until now, USPTO’s public data in bulk form has been provided solely as a fee-based service. The USPTO estimates that nearly ten terabytes of information will be made available. Examples of the type of data that will be available through Google include:
* Patent grants and published applications
* Trademark applications
* Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB) proceedings
* Patent classification information
* Patent maintenance fee events
* Patent and Trademark assignments
Patent searching data, however, is still difficult and inefficient to search on the USPTO website and a new searching engine is not a part of the Google deal. For patent searching purposes, for example to determine patentability, right to use, validity or infringement, a search is most efficiently and effectively performed at the USPTO Public Search facility in Alexandria, Virginia. Contact our office for more information about searching, applications, or enforcement assistance.
Wednesday, June 2, 2010
USPTO Expands Green Technology Pilot Program to More Classes of Inventions
The United States Patent and Trademark Office ("USPTO") has announced that it is revising its Green Technology Pilot Program to allow more categories of technology to be eligible for expedited processing under the program. Eligibility for the pilot program, which was designed to promote the development of green technologies, had previously been limited to applications within a select number of U.S. classifications. Inventions are classified at the USPTO according to what is known as the Manual of Classification. The USPTO has now removed that requirement. By allowing more inventions related to green technologies to be accorded special status and receive expedited examination, the Green Technology Pilot Program will accelerate the development and deployment of green technology, create more green jobs and promote U.S. competitiveness in this vital sector.
Under the Green Technology Pilot Program, pending patent applications in green technologies are eligible to be accorded special status and given expedited examination. Patent applications are normally taken up for examination in the order that they are filed. Under the pilot program, for the first 3,000 applications related to green technologies in which a grantable petition is filed, the agency will examine the applications on an expedited basis.
When the Green Technology Pilot Program was announced in December 2009, the program was limited to inventions in certain classifications in order to assist the USPTO in balancing the additional workload and to gauge the resources needed for the program. The USPTO has determined that the classification requirement is unnecessary because the workload has been balanced with other mechanisms, and the requirement was causing the denial of petitions for a number of green technology applications that would have otherwise qualified for the program.
To date, more than 950 requests have been filed by applicants who wish for their application to be eligible for the Green Technology Pilot Program. Only 342 of those have been granted, primarily because many of the inventions weren’t in classifications that were eligible. The lifting of the classification requirements is expected to allow many more applications to be eligible for the program.
The full announcement is available here.
Under the Green Technology Pilot Program, pending patent applications in green technologies are eligible to be accorded special status and given expedited examination. Patent applications are normally taken up for examination in the order that they are filed. Under the pilot program, for the first 3,000 applications related to green technologies in which a grantable petition is filed, the agency will examine the applications on an expedited basis.
When the Green Technology Pilot Program was announced in December 2009, the program was limited to inventions in certain classifications in order to assist the USPTO in balancing the additional workload and to gauge the resources needed for the program. The USPTO has determined that the classification requirement is unnecessary because the workload has been balanced with other mechanisms, and the requirement was causing the denial of petitions for a number of green technology applications that would have otherwise qualified for the program.
To date, more than 950 requests have been filed by applicants who wish for their application to be eligible for the Green Technology Pilot Program. Only 342 of those have been granted, primarily because many of the inventions weren’t in classifications that were eligible. The lifting of the classification requirements is expected to allow many more applications to be eligible for the program.
The full announcement is available here.
Tuesday, May 25, 2010
Patent Law Hits Primetime Drama with Kathy Bates on Harry's Law
Kathy Bates will play a former patent attorney in the upcoming prime time TV show, Harry's Law. She will play a cranky former patent attorney who changes direction to practice criminal defense. Here is a clip:
Monday, May 24, 2010
US Patent Application Pendency by Technical Area
The following table shows the average First Office Action Pendency and Total Average Pendency for pending patent applications to date for Fiscal year 2009, broken down by technology center.
According to data published by the USPTO in the Performance and Accountability Report Fiscal Year 2009Management's Discussion and Analysis the 2009 pendency goals at the US Patent and Trademark Office ("USPTO") are:
First Official Action: 27.5 months.
Overall Disposal (Issued or abandoned): 37.9 months.
Steps that are being taken to reduce the patent pendency include:
Hiring additional examiners, which is largely dependent upon the passage of a Congressional Bill into law that would give the USPTO the authority to set fees, but not allow Congress to "siphon off" fees collected by the USPTO.
First action interview program to provide interviews early in the prosecution to identify patentable subject matter early to result in an early disposition of the application.
Changing the patent examiner count system to discourage Continued Prosecution Applications.
With over 800,000 patent applications pending, and another 70,000 filed each year, it is time to get the gears of the USPTO up to speed again, for the benefit of Inventors, Entrepreneurs, Businesses of all sizes and the American Public.
| Pendency Statistics by Technology Center (in months) | Average First Action Pendency | Total Average Pendency |
|---|---|---|
| Total Pendency | 25.8 | 34.6 |
| Tech Center 1600 - Biotechnology & Organic Chemistry | 22.5 | 35.1 |
| Tech Center 1700 - Chemical & Materials Engineering | 25.9 | 37.4 |
| Tech Center 2100 - Computer Architecture, Software & Information Security | 29.4 | 40.7 |
| Tech Center 2400 - Networks, Multiplexing, Cable & Security | 28.6 | 47.7 |
| Tech Center 2600 - Communications | 33.0 | 42.7 |
| Tech Center 2800 - Semiconductor, Electrical, Optical Systems & Components | 20.8 | 29.7 |
| Tech Center 3600 - Transportation, Construction, Agriculture, & Electronic Commerce | 24.4 | 35.1 |
| Tech Center 3700 - Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing & Products | 26.5 | 35.5 |
According to data published by the USPTO in the Performance and Accountability Report Fiscal Year 2009Management's Discussion and Analysis the 2009 pendency goals at the US Patent and Trademark Office ("USPTO") are:
First Official Action: 27.5 months.
Overall Disposal (Issued or abandoned): 37.9 months.
Steps that are being taken to reduce the patent pendency include:
Hiring additional examiners, which is largely dependent upon the passage of a Congressional Bill into law that would give the USPTO the authority to set fees, but not allow Congress to "siphon off" fees collected by the USPTO.
First action interview program to provide interviews early in the prosecution to identify patentable subject matter early to result in an early disposition of the application.
Changing the patent examiner count system to discourage Continued Prosecution Applications.
With over 800,000 patent applications pending, and another 70,000 filed each year, it is time to get the gears of the USPTO up to speed again, for the benefit of Inventors, Entrepreneurs, Businesses of all sizes and the American Public.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
