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.

Filed Under: continuations, patents, rules, uspto
Companies: glaxosmithkline

US Patent Office Making Some Changes To The Rules

from the good-for-them dept

With Congress debating patent reform and the Supreme Court correcting the mistakes of lower courts when it comes to patent laws, it seems that the US Patent and Trademark Office is finally starting to realize that there's widespread dissatisfaction with how it's going about things. Perhaps it's starting to realize that the purpose of the USPTO isn't to grant patents, but to promote innovation. To that end, it's making some minor, but still important, changes to the rules for patent examiners, hoping to improve the quality of patents being approved. The latest change is to try to cut down on overly broad patents and patents where the actual invention isn't entirely clear, by forcing applicants to only include a single invention in a claim. This way the examiners know what the invention is that they're actually supposed to be examining. The fact that this wasn't in place before (along with the suggestion that patent examiners weren't entirely sure what they were examining) should say something about the state of our patent system.

Filed Under: patents, rules, uspto

Inventors And Patent Attorneys Sue USPTO Over Supposedly Unqualified Appointment

from the good-or-bad? dept

Nick writes "Looks like a group of patent lawyers and inventors are suing the US Secretary of Commerce to block the appointment of an "unqualified" person to the spot of Deputy Director of the USPTO, claiming its an abuse of the Secretary's discretion. There are two ways to look at this: either it's a noble attempt to ensure the right people are in place to oversee the patent and trademark office and to keep out political hacks, or (as Techdirt might see it) an attempt by patent people to keep their business protected from outsiders. Whether or not this person's appointment should be blocked based on her background as a legislative adviser on IP issues seems debatable, but she apparently has never drafted a patent or trademark application before, which allegedly doesn't jive with the requirement that the Deputy Director have 'professional experience and background in patent or trademark law.' The suit does ask the District Court in DC to clarify exactly what qualifies as patent or trademark background, so maybe some good will come out of it. But it also begs the question: is the backlog and confusion in the patent office the result of bad management there or the result of a community of insulated patent specialists that want to assert their importance in the new info economy?"

Nick's analysis is pretty thorough, so there's not much for us to add. We have no doubt that there have been some bad appointees to the USPTO, but it's not clear this lawsuit is the way to go about fixing these problems. The people bringing the lawsuit definitely do note the rise in bad patents being granted, though it's hard to blame that on an appointee from two months ago. This does highlight that this particular appointment does seem more politically motivated than based on real knowledge and experience with the patent system -- but it's not at all clear how having a patent attorney who has experience drafting patents would necessarily make the system any better. In fact, just as it has been a problem for the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals, those who come out of a background of being patent attorneys tend to favor more patents, rather than better patents (not always true, but there's enough evidence suggesting that it's pretty common). Since the goal of the USPTO should be to foster innovation, shouldn't the criteria not be experience with patents and trademarks, but experience with actual innovation and the economic impact of innovation?

Filed Under: patents, politics, uspto