E-mail Newsletter

  • Enter your e-mail address below to receive the "Patent Docs" e-mail newsletter.

Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner

Contact the Docs

Docs on Twitter


About the Authors

  • The Authors and Contributors of "Patent Docs" are patent attorneys and agents, many of whom hold doctorates in a diverse array of disciplines.

Disclaimer

  • "Patent Docs" does not contain any legal advice whatsoever. This weblog is for informational purposes only, and its publication does not create an attorney-client relationship. In addition, nothing on "Patent Docs" constitutes a solicitation for business. This weblog is intended primarily for other attorneys. Moreover, "Patent Docs" is the personal weblog of the Authors; it is not edited by the Authors' employers or clients and, as such, no part of this weblog may be so attributed. All posts on "Patent Docs" should be double-checked for their accuracy and current applicability.

  • Law Blogs

Become a Fan

« Court Report | Main | Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Laboratories, Inc. (2012) »

March 19, 2012

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d83451ca1469e20168e90371d8970c

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference USPTO Posts Comments on Proposed Fees Changes:

Comments

I heard Dave Kappos say yesterday at the Sughrue Symposium in Ohio that at least the first RCE fee was to be lowered. He also outlined a "CUPID" program which would allow late IDS submissions to not be dragged through the RCE process.

Nonetheless, I remain somewhat skeptical about the funding paradigms and the assumptions being made under the hood.

As far as funding a reserve, why not ask Congress to simply return all previous funds "lifted" from the USPTO that applicants have already paid into the system?

"I remain somewhat skeptical about the funding paradigms and the assumptions being made under the hood."

Agreed. Call me Skeptical II about these proposed patent fee changes.

The fee system is very unfair. Why should applicants that happen to draw bad examiners have to pay more in the form of appeal fees? Appeals should be free. Maybe that would provide an incentive to PTO management to improve examination and to perhaps move away the from knee jerk second action final policy

The comments to this entry are closed.

December 2014

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
  1 2 3 4 5 6
7 8 9 10 11 12 13
14 15 16 17 18 19 20
21 22 23 24 25 26 27
28 29 30 31