EditorsAbout the SiteComes vs. MicrosoftUsing This Web SiteSite ArchivesCredibility IndexOOXMLOpenDocumentPatentsNovellNews DigestSite NewsRSS

11.15.17

Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) Defended by Technology Giants, by Small Companies, by US Congress and by Judges, So Why Does USPTO Make It Less Accessible?

Posted in America, Law, Patents at 7:36 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

It’s not like the Patent Office desperately needs more money (there’s excess)

United States Patent and Trademark Office
Reference: United States Patent and Trademark Office at Wikipedia

Summary: In spite of the popularity of PTAB and the growing need/demand for it, the US patent system is apparently determined to help it discriminate against poor petitioners (who probably need PTAB the most)

LAST week the US government dealt with a serious issue we had been writing about for a number of months. CCIA, as it turns out, submitted a letter to the House Judiciary Subcommittee On IP [sic] and yesterday wrote this post:

Yesterday, we submitted a letter for the record to the House Judiciary Committee Subcommittee On Courts, Intellectual Property and the Internet. This letter, written in response to testimony submitted for the Subcommittee’s hearing on Sovereign Immunity and IP, provides the details of our analysis of the patents which Josh Malone and Phil Johnson identified as showing a disagreement on validity between the PTAB and federal courts. In contrast to their allegation of 200 patents, the real figure is far lower. Of the 3,056 patents reviewed by the PTAB which were also at issue in litigation in federal district courts, there are 43 cases (just over 1%) in which the PTAB and a district court have disagreed with one another.

[...]

Conclusion

The data, when correctly understood, shows that the PTAB only rarely disagrees with the federal courts when both review the validity of the same patent. The data also shows that the two venues only rarely review the validity of the same patent. We believe the Subcommittee’s work will benefit from this understanding of the extreme infrequency with which the PTAB and a district court reach different conclusions.

Additionally, based on information that William New wrote about, “US Congress Members Signal Move To Block Allergan Patent Deal With Tribe” (Mohawk).

To quote the part which is not behind paywall:

Members of a US congressional subcommittee on intellectual property held a hearing last week that appeared aimed at finding ways to stop companies from “renting” the sovereignty of Native American tribes in order to avoid a process that can lead to the invalidation of patents. Elected officials called a deal between Allergan pharmaceutical company and a northeastern tribe a “sham” and a “mockery”, and signalled the start of the legislative procedure to prevent such deals.

Notice the use of the words “sham” and “mockery”. There’s also “scam” — a popular term in various blogs and comments. A Federal judge called it a “sham”.

One might expect the USPTO to heed the warning and make PTAB even stronger, but instead, based on this post from Patently-O and another one from New’s publication, the USPTO reduces access to PTAB by means of fee hikes.

New wrote:

The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) today issued changes to some patent fees, including increases in certain areas, including the cost of using the inter partes review process. Following feedback from users, the office went with some proposed increases, while keeping others at existing levels despite proposals to increase them, it said.

In the interests of patent quality, the USPTO ought to make PTAB even more affordable, not less accessible (more expensive). Here is the full press release:

USPTO Finalizes Revised Patent Fee Schedule

WASHINGTON – The U.S. Department of Commerce’s United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) today issued a final rule, “Setting and Adjusting Patent Fees during Fiscal Year 2017” to set or adjust certain patent fees, as authorized by the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (AIA). The revised fee schedule is projected to recover the aggregate estimated cost of the USPTO’s patent operations, Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) operations, and administrative services. The additional fee collections will support the USPTO’s progress toward its strategic goals like pendency and backlog reduction, patent quality enhancements, technology modernization, staffing optimization, and financial sustainability.

In response to feedback from patent stakeholders, the USPTO altered several of the fee proposals presented in the Notice of Proposed Rule Making (NPRM). The key differences between the NPRM and the final rule are:

  • In response to stakeholder concerns, the USPTO reduced both plant and design issue fees from the levels proposed in the NPRM. Still, the large entity plant issue fee increases to $800 (+$40) and the large entity design issue fee increases to $700 (+$140). Plant and design patents do not pay maintenance fees, and the majority of plant and design applicants are eligible for small and micro entity fee reductions, which remain available.
  • Stakeholder feedback suggested that increased appeal fees could discourage patent holders’ access to increasingly important USPTO appeal services. In response, the USPTO elected to maintain the existing Notice of Appeal fee at $800 instead of increasing it to $1,000 as proposed in the NPRM. Likewise, the fee for Forwarding an Appeal to the Board increases to $2,240 (+$240) instead of $2,500 as proposed in the NPRM. The revised fees still do not fully recover costs, but taken together should allow continued progress on reducing the backlog of ex parte appeals.  Since the 2013 patent fee rulemaking, ex parte appeal fees have enabled the PTAB to hire more judges and greatly reduce the appeals backlog, from nearly 27,000 in 2012 to just over 13,000 at the end of FY 2017. Additional appeals fee revenue will support further backlog and pendency reductions.
  • Increases to the PTAB AIA trial fees are aimed at better aligning these fees with the USPTO’s costs and aiding the PTAB to continue to meet required AIA deadlines. The Office’s costs for Inter Partes Review requests are consistently outpacing the fees collected for this service.  These fee adjustments seek to more closely align fees and costs. Trial fees and associated costs still remain significantly less than court proceedings for most stakeholders.
    • Inter Partes Review Request Fee – up to 20 Claims increases to $15,500 (+$6,500)
    • Inter Partes Review Post-Institution Fee – Up to 15 Claims increases to $15,000 (+$1,000)

Other fee changes proposed in the NPRM remain the same.

For the full list of the patent fees that are changing and more information on fee setting and adjusting at the USPTO, please visit http://www.uspto.gov/about-us/performance-and-planning/fee-setting-and-adjusting.

PTAB is important and the cost of petition matters, especially to small companies which are being targeted by trolls and have limited budget. PTAB defends them from patent trolls and software patents without having to go through courts and appeals, which can add up to hundreds of thousands if not over a million dollars in fees (no matter the outcome).

IAM says that according to Google’s Suzanne Michel, “from [a] tech perspective IPRs have been very effective at reducing a lot of litigation” (direct quote from IAM but not Suzanne Michel). She is right.

United for Patent Reform‏ also quotes a report/opinion piece (HTIA’s John Thorne) which we mentioned a week ago: “PTAB and IPR have provided a relatively inexpensive & rapid way for @uspto to take a second & impartial look at the work of examiners & strike down patents that should have never issued in the first place…”

Hence our stubborn defense of PTAB.

Yesterday, IAM noted or highlighted yet another case of PTAB being used to thwart dubious patents, even if the petitioner is a large company (PTAB bashers like to obsess over such points).

The world’s largest oil and gas company Saudi Aramco has filed an inter partes review (IPR) against a Korean petrochemical business in what is a highly unusual move by one of the energy majors.

The Saudi national oil giant, which produces 12.5 million barrels per day, has brought the IPR against SK Innovation, which started life as the Korea Oil Company before morphing into a broad-based energy and chemicals business. The patent in question, number 9,023,979, relates to a method of preparing epoxide/CO2 polycarbonates and was issued in 2015.

It’s not clear what has prompted the review – there is no ongoing patent litigation between the two companies, which might mean that it is related to licensing negotiations that have broken down and Saudi Aramco has brought the IPR in order to gain some leverage in the talks.

[...]

Halliburton is among the most active of these, with 36 IPRs including 32 this year, mostly against its rival Schlumberger. Baker Hughes meanwhile has been involved in 27 IPRs either as petitioner or patent owner.

This should not be mistaken for the Supreme Court case regarding Oil States, but it certainly seems similar in certain aspects.

Share this post: These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • Reddit
  • co.mments
  • DZone
  • email
  • Google Bookmarks
  • LinkedIn
  • NewsVine
  • Print
  • Technorati
  • TwitThis
  • Facebook

If you liked this post, consider subscribing to the RSS feed or join us now at the IRC channels.

Pages that cross-reference this one

What Else is New


  1. EPO Continues to Grant Hundreds of Thousands of Illegal Software Patents and the Media Doesn't Care

    The only thing worse than the EPO intentionally ignoring courts, Parliament, the EPC and so on is how corporate media and blogs controlled by law firms simply don't care or actively cheer for that



  2. Greenwashing to Distract From the EPO Breaking the Law, Rigging Justice and Its Own Courts

    The so-called 'Haar case' ends as expected; the EPO won't even deal with the question of legality, instead throwing it aside as "inadmissible" while bombarding the media with puff pieces about being "ethical", "social" and now "green"



  3. Linux.com Has Become a Microsoft Promotion Site Under Linux Foundation-Appointed Staff

    The sole editor of Linux.com (after the layoffs of all staff) is a 'true believer' in the 'new' Microsoft and one who uses Linux.com to promote his personal site where he offers PR services



  4. Links 22/7/2019: SUSE Gets CEO From SAP, MuQSS 0.193 Scheduler, VLC Bug

    Links for the day



  5. Links 22/7/2019: Linux 5.3 RC1, GNU Hyperbole 7.0.3, DebConf19

    Links for the day



  6. Don't Kick the Puppy That is Suing Linux Using Patents While Bribing Officials, Threatening Critics and Hijacking the Linux Foundation

    Jim Zemlin is protecting the "puppy" (to use his own analogy), Microsoft, while getting paid about/almost a million dollars per year (about the same amount of money Microsoft pays his PAC)



  7. EPO Gradually Becoming the World's Most Permissive (Low Patent Quality) Patent Office by Consciously Violating the EPC

    Today's European Patent Office is making innovation a lot harder for Europeans; it limits what people can freely do, e.g. what computer code they can implement, and only lawyers are loving it



  8. Tweets Are Not Journalism But Succinct Unverified Hearsay; Time to Treat Them Accordingly

    Childish public discourse can be attributed to SMS-sized nonsense posted in a hurry by career provocateurs, not grown-ups (becoming a waste of time for actual reporters who spend hours/days correcting the record after these go 'viral'); this is killing responsible journalism, necessitating a rethink



  9. The Web is Not JavaScript

    Simple sites respect visitors; rather than and instead of exploiting them or passing burdens to user-end browsers we should focus on text and links — the very core components of hypertext as opposed to bells and whistles



  10. Links 21/7/2019: DXVK 1.3.1, GameMode, Mutter 3.33.4

    Links for the day



  11. Links 20/7/2019: Weston 7.0 Alpha, Nageru 1.9.0

    Links for the day



  12. Companies That Collapse Because the European Patent Office (EPO) Gave Them Fake Patents in a Hurry

    False hopes and false promises won’t do any favours to European Patents, whose legal certainty suffers because Campinos and Battistelli measure nothing but ‘production’ (quantity) rather than quality of patents



  13. Slack Committed a Very Major Crime That Can Cost Many Billions If Not Trillions in Damages for Years to Come

    The inevitable has happened to Slack, which no longer deserves to exist as a company; moreover, the people who ran the company must be held criminally accountable



  14. Demand for European Patents Will Continue to Decrease If a Lot of European Patents Turn Out to be Invalid, Worthless

    The EPO's abandonment of patent justice and quality (in pursuit of so-called 'production' targets) is likely to doom the Office as the whole or render it vastly less relevant to the rest of the world



  15. 35 U.S.C. § 101 Still in Tact in the United States and Software Patents Rot Away

    The United States, where the number of granted patents decreased last year, becomes more productive; there are more signs that patent maximalism (patent litigation, patent scope etc.) has receded



  16. Links 19/7/2019: Deepin 15.11 and GNU/Linux Back on GPD MicroPC

    Links for the day



  17. Violence is Not Free Speech and Laws Exist Against Violence

    Free speech is certainly under attack and the debate is being framed within the context of Nazism; but this overlooks the fact that there are actual death threats and calls for genocide in the mix



  18. Links 19/7/2019: Oracle Linux 8.0, Latte Dock 0.9 Beta and PCLinuxOS KDE Darkstar 2019.07

    Links for the day



  19. Why Does Jim Zemlin Publicly Congratulate Microsoft?

    The signs aren't particularly encouraging when one considers that the leadership of the Linux Foundation is a fan of Microsoft and sometimes connected to Microsoft



  20. 2 Days Later (Case in Progress) and Still Media Silence About G 2/19

    The very legitimacy of years' worth of rulings and the EPO's abusive attacks on judges are under the microscope; but the media isn't paying any attention, perhaps deliberately



  21. The 'Linux' Foundation is Acting Like a Microsoft ISV Now, Commitment to Linux and FOSS Deteriorates Even Further

    The Linux Foundation has just announced a new Microsoft-funded initiative that's pushing GitHub and CLAs (passing copyrights on code to corporations)



  22. Links 18/7/2019: OPNsense 19.7, Krita 4.2.3 and KDevelop 5.3.3 Released

    Links for the day



  23. Index: G 2/19 (Enlarged Board of Appeal, EPO)

    G 2/19 (Enlarged Board of Appeal, EPO)



  24. EPO Looney Tunes – Part 4: G 2/19 - Faites Vos Jeux…

    "Josefsson needs to bring in the “desired result” for his political masters in the Administrative Council if he wants to be in with a chance of reappointment."



  25. Media Not Interested in G 2/19, Which Demonstrates Patent Justice is Nowadays Impossible at the EPO

    The EPO spreads patent injustices to other countries and courts; the media is miraculously enough not interested, almost as though there's a coordinated blackout



  26. Librethreat Database Updated

    Database which keeps track of variants of attack vectors on Free/libre software now includes two more forms of threat



  27. A Look Back (and Forward) at Friendly Programming

    Historical perspective on computer languages and how to do better



  28. Red Hat's Freedom Reduced to Just Online Partner Enablement Network (OPEN) and Microsoft as a Close Partner; Canonical's Ubuntu Just an 'App' for Windows?

    Free software is being snapped up by proprietary software giants and patent bullies that treat it as little more than an 'add-on' for their proprietary offerings



  29. Linux Foundation Apparently Celebrates Sysadmin Day With a Microsoft Windows Site!

    The Linux Foundation shows ‘love’ to actual GNU/Linux (the real thing) by apparently rejecting it and badmouthing it



  30. EPO Looney Tunes – Part 3: The Legal Line-up for G 2/19

    The deck appears to have already been stacked for G 2/19, a decision on EPO judges' exile to Haar (veiled disciplinary action/collective punishment by those whom the judges are supposed to 'oversee')


RSS 64x64RSS Feed: subscribe to the RSS feed for regular updates

Home iconSite Wiki: You can improve this site by helping the extension of the site's content

Home iconSite Home: Background about the site and some key features in the front page

Chat iconIRC Channel: Come and chat with us in real time

Recent Posts