Reference: United States Patent and Trademark Office at Wikipedia
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.
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.
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.
USPTO Finalizes Revised Patent Fee ScheduleWASHINGTON – 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 Reformââ¬Â 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. ⬆
Recent Techrights' Posts
- António Campinos is Still 'The Fucking President' (in His Own Words) After a Fake 'Election' in 2022 (He Bribed All the Voters to Keep His Seat)
- António Campinos and the Administrative Council, whose delegates he clearly bribed with EPO budget in exchange for votes
- Adrian von Bidder, homeworking & Debian unexplained deaths
- Reprinted with permission from Daniel Pocock
- Sainsbury’s Epic Downtime Seems to be Microsoft's Fault and Might Even Constitute a Data Breach (Legal Liability)
- one of Britain's largest groceries (and beyond) chains
- Matthias Kirschner, FSFE analogous to identity fraud
- Reprinted with permission from Daniel Pocock
- Suicide Cluster Cover-up tactics & Debian exposed
- Reprinted with permission from Daniel Pocock
- Gemini Links 19/03/2024: A Society That Lost Focus and Abandoning Social Control Media
- Links for the day
- Matthias Kirschner, FSFE: Plagiarism & Child labour in YH4F
- Reprinted with permission from Daniel Pocock
- Linux Foundation Boasting About Being Connected to Bill Gates
- Examples of boasting about the association
- Alexandre Oliva's Article on Monstering Cults
- "I'm told an earlier draft version of this post got published elsewhere. Please consider this IMHO improved version instead."
- [Meme] 'Russian' Elections in Munich (Bavaria, Germany)
- fake elections
- Sainsbury's to Techrights: Yes, Our Web Site Broke Down, But We Cannot Say Which Part or Why
- Windows TCO?
- Plagiarism: Axel Beckert (ETH Zurich) & Debian Developer list hacking
- Reprinted with permission from Daniel Pocock
- Links 18/03/2024: Putin Cements Power
- Links for the day
- Flashback 2003: Debian has always had a toxic culture
- Reprinted with permission from Daniel Pocock
- [Meme] You Know You're Winning the Argument When...
- EPO management starts cursing at everybody (which is what's happening)
- Catspaw With Attitude
- The posts "they" complain about merely point out the facts about this harassment and doxing
- 'Clown Computing' Businesses Are Waning and the Same Will Happen to 'G.A.I.' Businesses (the 'Hey Hi' Fame)
- decrease in "HEY HI" (AI) hype
- Free Software Needs Watchdogs, Too
- Gentle lapdogs prevent self-regulation and transparency
- Gemini Links 18/03/2024: LLM Inference and Can We Survive Technology?
- Links for the day
- Over at Tux Machines...
- GNU/Linux news for the past day
- IRC Proceedings: Sunday, March 17, 2024
- IRC logs for Sunday, March 17, 2024
- Links 17/03/2024: Microsoft Windows Shoves Ads Into Third-Party Software, More Countries Explore TikTok Ban
- Links for the day
- Molly Russell suicide & Debian Frans Pop, Lucy Wayland, social media deaths
- Reprinted with permission from Daniel Pocock
- Our Plans for Spring
- Later this year we turn 18 and a few months from now our IRC community turns 16
- Open Invention Network (OIN) Fails to Explain If Linux is Safe From Microsoft's Software Patent Royalties (Charges)
- Keith Bergelt has not replied to queries on this very important matter
- RedHat.com, Brought to You by Microsoft Staff
- This is totally normal, right?
- USPTO Corruption: People Who Don't Use Microsoft Will Be Penalised ~$400 for Each Patent Filing
- Not joking!
- The Hobbyists of Mozilla, Where the CEO is a Bigger Liability Than All Liabilities Combined
- the hobbyist in chief earns much more than colleagues, to say the least; the number quadrupled in a matter of years
- Jim Zemlin Says Linux Foundation Should Combat Fraud Together With the Gates Foundation. Maybe They Should Start With Jim's Wife.
- There's a class action lawsuit for securities fraud
- Not About Linux at All!
- nobody bothers with the site anymore; it's marketing, and now even Linux
- Links 17/03/2024: Abuses Against Human Rights, Tesla Settlement (and Crash)
- Links for the day
- Over at Tux Machines...
- GNU/Linux news for the past day
- IRC Proceedings: Saturday, March 16, 2024
- IRC logs for Saturday, March 16, 2024
- Under Taliban, GNU/Linux Share Nearly Doubled in Afghanistan, Windows Sank From About 90% to 68.5%
- Suffice to say, we're not meaning to imply Taliban is "good"
- Debian aggression: woman asked about her profession
- Reprinted with permission from Daniel Pocock
- Gemini Links 17/03/2024: Winter Can't Hurt Us Anymore and Playstation Plus
- Links for the day