Last year’s America Invents Act made major changes to our patent system, largely designed to improve patent office operations, reduce the backlog of applications and improve the quality of patents. Last week, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office set out a framework to help determine fees for using the services of the PTO going forward.
While there was disagreement by industry groups over various provisions of the patent reform legislation, most agreed on one thing: the fees paid by users of the PTO should cover the cost of the services provided by the PTO. Once paid, the fees should be available to the PTO to continue to provide those services and not be diverted to other purposes.
PTO’s proposal fulfills the goals of the America Invents Act. Most important, the proposal is neutral. It does not provide special advantages or impose unique burdens on large applicants like Cisco (we apply for more than 700 patents per year) or on smaller applicants who may have far fewer applications.
The first approach proposed by the PTO would have increased initial filing fees by 47 percent. However, this increase would be offset with a 53 percent reduction of issue and publication fees. This sensible shift would align fees with the cost of service. Much of the increased revenue would come from higher fees to keep patents in force, allowing patent owners to decide which patents are worth the additional expenditure – at a time when their value is more certain.
There are also fee increases for requesting continued examination of rejected patent applications, although this comes with an understanding by the PTO that procedures may need to change to reduce the need for such requests. All filers, including large and small companies, as well as individual inventors, will benefit from a 17 percent reduction in the fees for prioritized examination. PTO is also proposing increases in fees to review the validity of already issued patents.
There is a strong benefit to increasing the PTO’s available resources. The U.S. economy needs an efficient patent examination system that quickly grants patents on real inventions, and weeds out weak patents that harm legitimate innovators.
By hiring more examiners and modernizing its infrastructure, PTO will process more patent applications, more quickly reducing its backlog. More importantly, the PTO will improve the quality of the patents it approves. For companies like ours, the additional fees would be outweighed by the economic benefit of avoiding for litigation costs against accusations of infringement based on bad patents.
The PTO also lays out an alternative approach which leaves fees in place but does not provide the same improvements to backlog or quality. The presentation of alternative approaches should lead to a healthy discussion to help the PTO choose the best path forward.
The bottom line is that there is no free lunch and no free patent process. We hope users of the patent office, large and small, will work together to achieve a fair and usable solution that will generate the benefits the new law was designed to accomplish.--Mark Chandler is Cisco Systems' senior vice president, general counsel and secretary; Dan Lang, Cisco's vice president for intellectual property, contributed to this article
Small entities and inventors have been given far too little voice on this bill when one considers that they rely far more heavily on the patent system than do large firms who can control their markets by their size alone. The smaller the firm, the more they rely on patents -especially startups and individual inventors. Congress tinkering with patent law while gagging inventors is like a surgeon operating before examining the patient.
Those wishing to help fight big business giveaways should contact us as below and join the fight as we are building a network of inventors and other stakeholders to lobby Congress to restore property rights for all patent owners -large and small.
Please see http://truereform.piausa.org/default.html for a different/opposing view on patent reform.
"Last year’s America Invents Act made major changes to our patent system, largely designed to improve patent office operations, reduce the backlog of applications and improve the quality of patents"
“This is not a patent reform bill” Senator Maria Cantwell (D-WA) complained, despite other democrats praising the overhaul. “This is a big corporation patent giveaway that tramples on the right of small inventors.”
Senator Cantwell is right. Just because they call it “reform” doesn’t mean it is. The agents of banks, huge multinationals, and China are at it again trying to brain wash and bankrupt America.
They should have called the bill the America STOPS Inventing Act or ASIA, because that’s where it is sending all our jobs.
The patent bill is nothing less than another monumental federal giveaway for banks, huge multinationals, and China and an off shoring job killing nightmare for America. Even the leading patent expert in China has stated the bill will help them steal our inventions. Who are the supporters of this bill working for??
Patent reform is a fraud on America. This bill will not do what they claim it will. What it will do is help large multinational corporations maintain their monopolies by robbing and killing their small entity and startup competitors (so it will do exactly what the large multinationals paid for) and with them the jobs they would have created. The bill will make it harder and more expensive for small firms to get and enforce their patents. Without patents we cant get funded. Yet small entities create the lion's share of new jobs. According to recent studies by the Kauffman Foundation and economists at the U.S. Census Bureau, “startups aren’t everything when it comes to job growth. They’re the only thing.” This bill is a wholesale slaughter of US jobs. Those wishing to help fight this bill should contact us as below.
David Patterson, known for his pioneering research that led to RAID, clusters and more, is part of a team at UC Berkeley that recently made its RISC-V processor architecture an open source hardware offering. We talk with Patterson and one of his colleagues behind the effort about the opportunities they see, what new kinds of designs they hope to enable and what it means for today’s commercial processor giants such as Intel, ARM and Imagination Technologies.