USPTO Monthly Review -- October 2018

The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) has substantially revised its standard operating procedures (SOPs) regarding paneling of matters before the PTAB and precedential and informative decisions. The revisions focus on increasing transparency, predictability, and reliability across the USPTO. They update the procedures based on feedback received from stakeholders, courts, legislators, and our six years of experience with AIA trial proceedings. 

To learn more, read the complete summary of changes.

We have been quite busy at the USPTO. Among other things, we are addressing some of the thorniest issues surrounding the patent system, attending to important trademark developments, and dealing with challenges posed by our legacy IT systems. And all while maintaining our high standards and pendency goals.

On the trademark side, in fact, we have been consistently meeting or exceeding our goals for the past 12 years. That has not changed, despite a very significant growth in the number of applications. That growth has required us to hire, train, and integrate more trademark examiners, while maintaining our culture of organizational excellence.

To learn more, read the remarks from USPTO Director Andrei Iancu.

As I’ve said before, and I truly believe, the U.S. intellectual property system is a crown jewel of the nation’s economy, culture, and history. Protecting IP is vital to maintaining the incentives for research and development, creating quality jobs, driving our economic prosperity, and providing incredible benefits to society as a whole. The USPTO’s ability to issue timely, reliable patents—both today and in the future—is a critical part of that.

As you are aware, the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (AIA), which was passed by Congress with bipartisan support in 2011, made several significant changes to the U.S. intellectual property system. Among those changes, and most germane to our discussion here today, was that the Act granted the USPTO authority to set its own patent and trademark fees by rulemaking to recover the aggregate estimated cost of operations for patents and trademarks. Congress granted us this authority because it recognized that the USPTO, in collaboration with the larger intellectual property community, is uniquely positioned to determine the most appropriate fees that will both promote innovation and provide sufficient revenue to sustain the USPTO services designed to protect that innovation.

To learn more, read the remarks from USPTO Director Andrei Iancu.

On September 14, President Trump issued a Proclamation on Constitution Day, Citizenship Day, and Constitution Week, 2018. Our Founding Fathers recognized the important role intellectual property plays in promoting “the progress of science and useful arts…” and growing a vibrant economy. And so, at the USPTO we are proud to draw our mission and mandate from Article 1, Section 8, Clause 8 of the Constitution.

To learn more, read the blog by USPTO Director Andrei Iancu.

The USPTO currently is planning to propose to set or adjust patent fees pursuant to its Section 10 fee setting authority. As part of the rulemaking process to set or adjust patent fees, the Patent Public Advisory Committee (PPAC) is required under Section 10 of the AIA to hold a public hearing about any proposed patent fees. The hearing was held on September 6 at the USPTO headquarters in Alexandria, VA.

To learn more, view the archived livestream.

On September 20, the Office of Innovation Development, held its monthly Inventor Info Chat titled "Understanding the Notice of Missing Parts,” with an informative discussion on "Responding to Pre-Examination Notices.” This presentation served as a helpful resource in the understanding of missing parts and methods of making corrections to an application after a missing parts letter is received.

This ongoing series fosters invention and entrepreneurship by providing full access to the U.S. intellectual property system.

To learn more, watch the archived livestream.

USPTO Director Iancu Reveals Proposed New Patent Eligibility Guidelines
by Courtenay C. Brinckerhoff, National Law Review

Exclusive Interview: PTO Director Andrei Iancu and OED Director Will Covey on Practitioner Dues, CLE and Unauthorized Practice 
by Gene Quinn, IP Watchdog

Damian Porcari – Detroit Patent Office
by Dennis Crouch, PatentlyO

Patent Office Reworks Process for Challenge Review Panels
by Malathi Nayak, Bloomberg Law

USPTO Offers Anti-Counterfeiting Video Contest
by Reid Creager, Inventors Digest