Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Patent Law Blogs -> IPBiz

Patent Law

: IPBiz

USPTO fee-setting authority without ending fee diversion useless

By Lawrence B. Ebert, Esq.

In a post titled With Overhaul of Patent Law Stalled, House To Consider Narrower Bill, CQ Politics discusses a limited-scope patent reform bill of Congressman Conyers, the House Judiciary Chairman.

The problem is that a grant of fee setting authority to the USPTO without ending fee diversion from the USPTO merely means that patent applicants will be paying more for less.

The problem with ending fee diversion has been documented by Marla Grossman, so that the current activities are merely repeats of an old shell game.

Patent Docs includes the text:

In its own release, the American Intellectual Property Law Association (AIPLA) stated that it "opposes granting the USPTO fee-setting authority without ending the problem of fee diversion." According to the AIPLA press release, the Patent and Trademark Office Fee Modernization Act of 2010 will give the USPTO Director the authority to increase fees, while lacking "any mechanism to ensure that those fees remain at the Office." In its release, the "AIPLA emphatically opposes this legislation." AIPLA President Alan Kasper adds that "[t]he time has come for Congress to once and for all provide the USPTO with the ability to more predictably and intelligently plan its fiscal operation by ending the possibility of fee diversion."

Note post Lofgren-backed patent reform bill stalls [from 18 May 2010] which includes:

In a posting on the Intellectual Property Owners Association Web page, the group -- which had opposed the bill along with other IP and trademark groups -- said the House Judiciary Committee leadership "decided last evening to withdraw the USPTO fee bill, not yet introduced, from today's House 'suspension' calendar."

Read more: Lofgren-backed patent reform bill stalls - Silicon Valley / San Jose Business Journal

Previous IPBiz posts:

Different takes on patent reform

Fee diversion: don't get fooled again

Full post as published by IPBiz on May 20, 2010 (boomark / email).