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.
2018 Juristant Badge - MBHB_165
Juristat #4 Overall Rank

E-mail Newsletter

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

Contact the Docs

Docs on Twitter


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.
Juristat_165
Juristat #8 Overall Rank

Pharma-50-transparent_216px_red

« Senator Schumer Sends a Signal | Main | Patent Profile: Nventa Biopharmaceuticals Corp. Announces Grant of U.S. Patent 7,262,014 to HPV-Fusion Technology »

October 31, 2007

Comments

The USPTO has a real problem on its hands. Now that patent fees are no longer being diverted to the General Fund, the USPTO can’t blame its increasing patent application backlog on a simple lack of funding. Instead, the agency seems to be currently focussing its Sisyphean assault on changing customers’ behavoir, rather better-focussing their limited resources on the examinations that really matter — reexaminations, reissues, appeals, and those involved in infrigement litigation. Can we really afford a patent system where all inventions are treated equally, regardless of their (lack of) effect on commerce? The UKIPO no longer examines all trademark applications for relative grounds of refusal. The day may be coming for the patent system to stop automatically examining all patent applications for novelty and inventive step.

The sky is not falling Mr. Practitioner. Why not just try delayed examination?

As for the hearing - I was there and it was a beautiful thing. My two favorite PTO arguments:

1) Enjoining the rules would cause the loss of all the training of Examiners because they can't remeber the rules for 6 weeks. Stunning.

2) The Schumer letter was aimed at the '06 rules, not the August 21 rules. This, of course, was easily refuted by GSK as the letter points to August 21 in the first freakin' paragraph!!!!

Poor woman from DOJ was totally outclassed. Loved it when she said at the end that they needed a new scheduling order bacause they are now up against a multi-billion dollar corporation instead of an individual inventor.

GREAT DAY! BREAK OUT THE BEER!

While waiting for the GSK argument, I was a little unnerved when Judge Cacheris was conducting a criminal guilty plea colloquy and struggled with the pronunciation of "methamphetamine", deleting the "h". The non-Registrant AUSA argued this case poorly, and was clearly outgunned. She was whiny and arrogant by telling the court that if GSK couldn't find adequate guidance for the ESD search requirements, they "haven't looked hard enough." She described it "ironic" that what GSK was really looking for was "unlimited continuations". She continued the Government's silly and vigorous objection to AIPLA's amicus brief, described as a "putative" amicus in her papers. The only thing that's putative now is the new rules. The Bushies lose another one, deservedly so!

The comments to this entry are closed.

January 2023

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