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


  • "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 #8 Overall Rank


« Congressional Fact-finding on Follow-on Biologics | Main | UK High Court Invalidates HGS Neutrokine-alpha Patent »

August 14, 2008


These numbers seem off. I think the table that shows the fee increases is Table 3, is it not?


Dear anon:
You are right. Tables 2 and 3 reflect the adjusted fee amounts set forth in the rules as amended. Table 1 "sets out the fee amounts that would be published in a final rule in the event that legislation extending patent and trademark fee provisions of the fiscal year 2005 Consolidated Appropriatens Act into fiscal year 2009 is not enacted." Tables 2 and 3 as provided in the Federal Register Notice describe the small entity fee and non-small entity increases specifically. We are revising the table data to reflect the proper amounts.

Sorry for the confusion and thanks for pointing out the error.


The comments to this entry are closed.

March 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