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


  • "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


« Court Report | Main | Renova Therapeutics Begins Congestive Heart Failure Gene Therapy Trials »

February 07, 2011


Here is a similar story

In part it seems like it would make the patent system work more for those with money and less for small inventors. But, such is life already….maybe it would be better if there was a graduated fee based on entity size?

How many big pharma/biotech company would like to go for Track-I option? Perticularly when most of the time in bringing new NCE or BLA to market goes in clinical trials.

Well I am not sure how many companies will take advantages of this Track-I option. If anyone have an idea please share it.

It would appear such examination tracks would work best in a "First to File" system, and would create a mountain of litigation opportunities in a "First to Invent" system. Wonder what the statistics are as they pertain to issued patents challenged by an inventor claiming to be the first to have invented a concept patented by another.

Does the proposed 3-Track examination system state anything in this regard?

"The Office would also like to offer a 50% discount on the Track I fee to small entities, and noted that the patent reform legislation (S. 23) recently introduced in the Senate (see "Here We Go Again") would allow the Office to set its own fees and thereby extend this discount to small entity applicants."

That is rather shrewd to garner support.

It is important to put an end to fee diversion before the 3-track plan goes into effect -- otherwise, the legislature will surely siphon off substantial revenue from the hew plan, and it would be criminal to let Congress plunder an even bigger share of the patent office's earnings.

The comments to this entry are closed.

May 2024

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