“These changes render patent applicants ineligible for patents, patent applications rejected, granted patents invalid, surviving patents unenforceable, and patents in litigation suffering little or no damage. and the patent owner will be kicked out of the courts or banished.Rewarded with debt.”- US inventor
The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) announced Tuesday that it will again extend the deadline for filing a Request for Comment on the USPTO’s Initiative to Ensure the Robustness and Reliability of Patent Rights.
The Office originally issued a Federal Register notice on October 4, 2022, with a January 3 deadline. That deadline was then extended to February 1, he said in November, with the note that “this will be the only extension of the comment period.” But on Monday, the office said it would extend the deadline yet again “to ensure all interested parties have ample opportunity to submit comments on the questions posed in the October 4, 2022 notice.” The announcement also asserted that “this will be the final extension of the comment period.”
Despite this assurance, some sources have told IPWatchdog that multiple changes to the deadline are concerning and create uncertainty.
As of February 16, 131 comments had been submitted, and by 11:59 PM on February 15, 178 comments had been received, according to the regulation.gov website. On February 3rd, 99 comments were posted and 169 comments were received.
Compared to previous requests for comments (RFCs), this is a huge number of submissions. So why does the Secretariat keep extending the deadline? The USPTO wants to hear from as many interested parties as possible.
Earlier this month, we reported on some of the comments posted as of February 2nd. About 30 more comments have been added since then. Below is a summary of some of them, in reverse order of posting. IPWatchdog will continue to monitor comments made between now and February 28th.
US Inventor: Comment posted on February 15th (received on February 14th)
US Inventor adopted the Angel Capital Association’s substantive comments as its own, but in their introduction, the government has changed the rules in nearly every area of patent law over the last 20 years to the detriment of inventors. is given. “These changes render patent applicants ineligible for patents, patent applications rejected, granted patents invalid, surviving patents unenforceable, and patents in litigation suffering little or no damage. The patent owner will be kicked out of court or out of court.
In its comments, the Angel Capital Association emphasized that the patent system must be both reliable and flexible in order to benefit patent holders, noting that the issues raised by the RFC were “big tech It appears to be yet another attack on patent owners.” Severe restrictions on an applicant’s ability to obtain meaningful patent claims for his invention. ”
Google, LLC: Comment posted on February 7 (received on January 31)
Our comments focus on three main recommendations: (2) require patent examiners to have technical training in emerging technologies such as her AI; (3) Integrate patent and non-patent prior art resources within PE2E to further improve the search process; ”
Most of Google’s suggestions are devoted to the first point. The company asks the Office to require applicants of amended claims, new claims, or continuation applications to “identify where in the specification the claims are supported.” Google’s comments argue that the potential for lawsuits in computer-related technology, especially by non-practising persons (NPEs), is greater in the case of continuing claims, and even more so in the case of continuing acquisitions more than five years after the grant of the patent. I’m here. “Establishing a requirement for patent applicants to identify support for amended patent claims or new patent claims during prosecution helps ensure that those claims are supported by the patent specification, It will give patent examiners much clearer information—a starting point for identifying and applying prior art,” Google wrote.
Adam Mossoff: Comment posted on February 6th (received on February 1st)
Professor Adam Mossoff has been actively working on issues surrounding the USPTO’s RFCs and attended a recent listening session held by the Office to gather information on many of the same issues. Expanding on the Hudson Institute’s 2022 Policy Memo, Mossoff’s submission details historical and economic evidence for patents as engines of innovation, and those calling for systemic change in the patent system should: It claims to be responsible for presenting verifiable evidence to justify such changes.
Mossoff cites the Initiative for Medicines, Access and Knowledge (I-MAK), which has become the most cited source for those advocating radical changes to the patent system, for failing to meet this burden. I am calling in particular. In addition to a detailed analysis of the discrepancies between his I-MAK figures on patents and the official Orange Book figures, Mossoff points to Novartis testimony in his listening session, noting that the I-MAK is clearly the drug’s It states that Gleevec has reached the claim that it is covered by 73. “By including his 44 abandoned patent applications that have never been issued as patents and various patents that do not cover our drugs.”
I-MAK: Comment posted on February 6 (received on February 1)
I-MAK, on the other hand, reiterates its widely-cited allegation that patents are the direct cause of high prescription drug prices, citing the tactics of branded pharmaceutical companies to delay patent expirations in large part. doing. Most of the citations are to original research.
The application focuses on three areas of change: (b) Final Disclaimer. (c) Double Patenting Practice. I-MAK makes the following recommendations to address the problems that these practices may pose.
- The USPTO should “restrict the number of continuation applications filed in connection with a product to two and consider that they must be filed within 12 months of the parent application.”
- and/or Offices should impose “strengthened examination of continuing applications and/or increased filing/search/examination fees”.
- In a continuation application, “only those claims that were not previously included in the parent application should be allowed, and the applicant must provide justification as to why the continuation claims could not be included in the original application.” must”; and
- “change [terminal disclaimer] If a key patent (or member of a patent family) is invalidated, the patent subject to the final disclaimer on the invalidated patent must also be invalidated, so there is no need to sue separately. is not. ”
I-MAK’s comments also indicate that the USPTO will grant nonprofits and advocacy groups permanent seats on the Patent Publication Advisory Board, and that both the USPTO and Congress should consider the impact of pharmaceutical patent practices on U.S. households. It suggests that more hearings should be held.
Image Source: Deposit Photo
Image ID: 125703412
Author: Roxana Balint
