R.I.P., Patent Rules Changes, Hello Patent Reform Bill Push
The patent rules changes, proposed under the previous director of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, have been officially put down by the same agency under its new head. But that's far from the end of attempts to change the way the patent process currently works.
The USPTO announced that it was rescinding the rules package and that it would file a motion in the Taffas v. Kappos case to dismiss and vacate the district court ruling which opened the door to the changes happening. GlaxoSmithKline, one of the plaintiffs in the suit, is joining the motion.
"The USPTO should incentivize innovation, develop rules that are responsive to its applicants' needs and help bring their products and services to market," [David Kappos] said. "These regulations have been highly unpopular from the outset and were not well received by the applicant community. In taking the actions we are announcing today, we hope to engage the applicant community more effectively on improvements that will help make the USPTO more efficient, responsive, and transparent to the public."Had the rules gone through, the fallout would have settled mostly on other industry: biotech and pharma. In fact, many high tech giants supported the package -- largely because it would have helped lock out newcomers to the IP banquet table. As competitive tactics, it may have made sense.
I don't think it was much of a surprise, as there has been some telegraphing of the direction the agency was headed in. And once it was announced in September that Commissioner for Patents John Doll was stepping down, the conclusion was largely foregone. Doll was the big promoter of the change.
But now everyone is in far less certain waters as the USPTO, many in Congress, and much of the inventor and technology community considers what is necessary for patent reform. The Commerce Department has been working a full-court press, with Kappos calling for it in speeches, and the industry heavyweights are settling in as well. Here's the wish list, at least in a general sense:
- post patent review, which would allow parties to submit information that might bring into question whether the patent should have been allowed
- pre-issuance submissions of information, meaning third parties would be able to offer information to challenge whether a patent should be issued before it's issued but after the application is made public
- enhanced inter partes reexamination, so third parties could more challenge whether a patent should have been granted
- greater restrictions on potential patent suit damages
- reduced levels of patent litigation
Image via stock.xchng user svilen001, site standard license.