Court Stops Patent Office From Limiting Continuations
from the not-so-fast-there dept
The practice of filing for continuations, or modifications, on patent applications can make sense in some cases, but it's widely abused by people who file a broad, overly vague patent on a hot area, and then continually update it as they see where the market is heading. Then, by the time they finally get a patent it covers a lot of the actual innovation (usually done by others) after the patent was filed and which had little to do with the original patent. Earlier this year, the US Patent Office, recognizing this problem (years too late) decided to start limiting continuation filings and announced that the change would go into effect November 1st. Not surprisingly, supporters of stronger patent laws were aghast and filed a lawsuit to stop the changes from going into effect. A judge has now blocked the USPTO from implementing the new rules. This isn't a permanent block on the rules -- it's just an injunction while the court decides whether or not the rules make sense. Obviously, those who are fans of monopoly-based business models want to be able to continually modify patents, but the fact that it's been abused so often means that limits on such things makes a lot of sense -- so much sense it's almost surprising the Patent Office supported it. Now we'll see if they're ever allowed to actually implement those rules.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: continuations, patents, rules, uspto
Companies: glaxosmithkline
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
You don't know what you're talking about!
Mike, do you understand you can't just make up new claims unless your "original" spec supports that new claim? So, if support for a "new" claim is found in the original spec, how does that negate the inventor's right to a patent for that idea if there is no prior art before the date of his spec?
Do you really believe that if an inventor describes something in his original spec, but just didn't initially apply for a claim to it, that he doesn't deserve credit for thinking of that idea first by later adding a claim to his original idea?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
#1
Also, it is way easy to add modifications when your covered subject is super broad.
Thats part of why are system is broken.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: #1
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Doh
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Of Course
So are you a fucking idiot or an industry shill?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Of Course
I guess you're the idiot if you couldn't see I was making the point that such practice (making new claims from board specs) doesn't typically happen - So, Mike is wrong to make a statement as if it "typically" happens.
Even if a small percentage of granted patents seem to apply to this practice, it's a far reach to call the system "broken". No system will ever be 100% foolproof. A small percentage of patents will always find a way to beat the system. It's simply wrong to make major changes to the rules that will harm the majority of patents that play by the rules just because a small minority is not. The focus of reform should be to weed out these minority abusers *without* effecting the others.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Might I suggest that you spend a little time researching the new rules the USPTO is attempting to institute and the arguments being presented by the plaintiffs who sued to stop them? For one thing, according to the USPTO's own statistics, the new rules will only eliminate about 2.7% of the applications filed in 2006. Therefore, the new rules wouldn't put much of a dent in the Examiners' backlog.
Also, one of the big issues in the lawsuit is whether the USPTO overstepped its bounds as a regulatory agency and is grabbing more power than was originally granted by Congress. From your writings in other areas, I think you are someone who would care greatly about government trying to grow, just because it can get away with it.
Yes, there are reforms that are desperately needed to the patent system here in the U.S., but many of those reforms need to come from Congress, or at least come out of powers granted by Congress to a regulatory body such as the USPTO.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I didn't say anything about the backlog... I just said that continuation apps are widely abused. I'd say that 2.7% of the total number of apps is a HUGE number. So I stand by the statement that it's widely abused. Think of how many patent apps are being used this way.
Also, one of the big issues in the lawsuit is whether the USPTO overstepped its bounds as a regulatory agency and is grabbing more power than was originally granted by Congress.
Yes, that's an important point, but not nearly as interesting as the continuation issue -- which was the point I was focusing on here. I'm sorry I didn't cover the issue you wanted covered, but it wasn't as interesting to me.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Well you should mention it, as it's the reason for the injunction.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Slightly confused
If the USPTO is trying to improve the system somewhat, then why would supporters of stronger patent laws NOT be on board with that?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Slightly confused
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hard on the individual.
While I find Mike's remarks, about using continuations to add innovations by others after your original filing date, to be an exaggeration, it is odd to me that years ago, patent examiners would require the applicant to cite the page and line in the original written description where it described a later-claimed invention. Now, I never see that being required. The effect of that practice being loosened is to enable applicants to claim more perhaps than they've disclosed in their original application.
Even so, the new rules were a paperwork blizzard and bureaucratic assault, which would not serve to improve the patenting system. The moneyed clients would find ways to meet the rules, and the small inventors would find it harder to patent their inventions.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
One Story = Widely?
Again with your exaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaggerations!
Your reference link for the term "Widely Abused" points to another one of YOUR articles and it's about JUST ONE inventor %|
How can you title something as "widely", when you only offer one example???
I almost feel sad for you that you have to constantly twist the facts to suit your warp reality :(
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Patent Office Should Know Their Business
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Patent Office Should Know Their Business
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Reform
Just who is this judge that made that ruling preventing the US PTO from implementing badly needed rule changes? Which court and case number is it? I might look into it and perhaps file an Amicus Brief (legal term for friend of the court)...Anyone with an interest in the case can write the court.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]