ADVERTISEMENT



Google       

Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Intellectual Property Law Blogs -> Biolaw Blog

OR PHONE (866) 635-1838 for Bankruptcy Help, (866) 635-6190 for Divorce,
(866) 635-2689 for Personal Injury or (866) 635-9402 for Criminal Defense

Find a Local Lawyer

Bankruptcy (866) 635-1838
Divorce (866) 635-6190
Personal Injury (866) 635-2689
Criminal Defense (866) 635-9402

Bookmark

Intellectual Property Law

: Biolaw Blog

Eight-Track Tape, Meet Three-Track Patent

By Jim Chen et al.

ADVERTISEMENTS

A lot can happen in five years.  One could write a great novel - or two.  One could run around the world.  One could complete an MD degree, and begin saving lives.  One could get pregnant, have a baby, watch that baby learn to crawl, walk, talk, and read, and begin kindergarten.  Or, one could apply for, and receive a final determination about, a patent.  Enter the new "Three-Track" patent system being proposed by the United States Patent and Trademark Office ("USPTO").

Gary Locke, U.S. Secretary of Commerce, has described the Three-Track system as a strategy for shifting the speed of patent prosecution for higher quality patents from lentissimo to allegro:
?The Patent and Trademark Office plays a key role in promoting innovation and entrepreneurship,? Locke said. ?This new system will bring the most valuable patents, as determined by inventors, to market faster and will help shrink the backlog by catering to the business needs of America?s innovators.?
The USPTO placed a notice of its prioritized "Track I" proposal in the Federal Register on February 4, 2011, describing this new fast track to patenting as follows:

Under Track I prioritized examination, an application would be accorded special status and placed on the examiner?s special docket throughout its entire course of prosecution before the examiner until a final disposition is reached in the application. The aggregate goal for handling applications under Track I prioritized examination would be to provide a final disposition within twelve months of prioritized status being granted.
The main elements of Track I would be (1) a very expensive examination fee of $4,800 (that is, almost five times more expensive than the filing, search, and examination fees currently paid by large entities (companies with more 500 employees), and almost ten times what small entities (with 500 or fewer employees) currently pay), (2) strict limits of 4 independent claims and 30 dependent claims per application, and (3) mandatory filing of patent applications using the USPTO's electronic filing system ("EFS-Web").

Track III would allow patent applicants request that docketing of an application be delayed, allowing the application to hibernate from prosecution for up to 30 months (corresponding to the Patent Cooperation Treaty ("PCT") deadline for taking a patent application national).  Unless a patent applicant specifically affirmatively opted for Track I or Track III, that applicant would be placed by default on Track II, the current patent prosecution pathway.

The USPTO has proposed that the Track I pathway would be limited to 10,000 patent applications during its first year, and the USPTO would hire "additional examiners above the number of planned hires...so that the non-prioritized applications would not be delayed due to resources being diverted to process the prioritized applications."  This may be somewhat optimistic given the U.S. Congress' penchant for diverting fees collected by the USPTO to other governmental purposes, and 10,000 expedited patent applications, yielding almost $50,000,000 in the first year of the program alone, would present an extremely tempting target in this dawning age of federal austerity.

Full post as published by Biolaw Blog on February 05, 2011 (boomark / email).

Bloggers, promote your law blog by nominating your blog for inclusion in USLaw.com's Law Blog Directory and RSS Reader. Benefits described.
Lawsuits and Settlements

Sears, Roebuck & Co.
alleging the company’s web site used spyware to track customers Internet use.

Mentor OB Tape
vaginal sling can allegedly various problems and even permanent injury.

Zantac Patent
GlaxoSmithKline and Cypress Pharmaceutical settle patent infringement dispute.

Soliris Patent
Alexion Pharmaceuticals Inc. agrees to pay the Oklahoma Medical Research Foundation a $10 million patent infringement settlement.

DRAM Patent
ProMOS Technologies and Mosel Vitelic pay MOSAID Technologies an undisclosed patent infringement settlement.

Manufacturing Protocol
Sioux Manufacturing Corp. pays $1.9 million settlement for failing to meet Kevlar specifications.

Related Searches

























































































































US Law
#1 Online Legal Resource













Your Blog Subscriptions
Subscribe to blogs

10,000+ Law Job Listings
Lawyer . Police . Paralegal . Etc
Earn a law-related degree
Are you the author of this blog? Adding USLaw.com to your Blogroll increases relevance. You qualify to display a USLaw Network badge.
Suggest changes to this blog's description or nominate another for inclusion. Register for updates.


Practice Area
Zip Code:

Contact a Lawyer Now!






0.0163 secs (new cache)