Patent Law Weblog

recent posts

about

USPTO to Hold Roundtables on Patent Quality

    By Sarah Fendrick —


USPTO Seal Last week, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office published a notice in the Federal Register
(75 Fed. Reg. 22120) regarding two roundtables that the Office will be holding to obtain public input on methods
that can be used to improve patent quality and the methods the Office uses to measure
quality.  The roundtables are part
of an initiative implemented by the USPTO and the Patent Public Advisory
Committee to enhance overall patent quality.

The
first
roundtable will be held at the Los Angeles Public Library-Central
Library
on May 10, 2010, beginning at 1 p.m.  The second roundtable
will be held at the USPTO on May 18, 2010, beginning at 8:30 a.m.  Because admission to the roundtables will be limited, individuals
wishing to
be part of the patent improvement initiative can submit comments to patent_quality_comments@uspto.gov
until June 18, 2010.

In a press release that was issued on Friday, Under
Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and Director of the USPTO David
Kappos stated:

Quality patents are critical to
the proper functioning of the patent system, and issuing high quality patents
is a top priority for the USPTO.  Quality
issuances provide certainty in the market and allow businesses and innovators
to make informed and timely decisions on product and service development.

Posted in

7 responses to “USPTO to Hold Roundtables on Patent Quality”

  1. David Boundy Avatar
    David Boundy

    Director Kappos’ press release is a symptom of one of the most deep-seated and destructive problems at the PTO. Note that the press release only raises concerns for “quality patents” and “quality issuances.” It ignores the importance of quality rejections and the social costs that arise when the PTO delays or denies allowance of patents to which inventors are legally entitled.
    The one analysis I’ve seen (see Ron Katznelson’s letter from the previous round of comments on qualtiy metrics, http://www.uspto.gov/patents/law/comments/katznelson10mar2010.pdf) shows pretty convincingly that bad rejections cause greater social cost than bad allowances.
    My letter also raised the issue of considering both Type I and Type II error, and weighting them appropriately (http://www.uspto.gov/patents/law/comments/boundy06mar2010.pdf)
    The continued focus on only half the problem is not an encouraging sign that the PTO is taking its legal obligations and applicants’ entitlement seriously.

    Like

    Reply
  2. David Boundy Avatar
    David Boundy

    Can you revise the previous comment – in the last paragraph after “its legal obligations, applicant’s entitelenet,” add “the importance of patents in the economy” to the list of things the PTO isn’t taking seriously – put in a dig at Rai and Graham

    Like

    Reply
  3. Dale B. Halling Avatar
    Dale B. Halling

    I will second David’s comments both about the one sided focus of patent quality and Ron Katznelson’s analysis of the detrimental effects of false rejections. Another interesting article explaining the detrimental effects of the PTO’s one side focus on quality is by David Kline, see http://blogs.hbr.org/cs/2010/05/the_biggest_job_creator_you_ne.html

    Like

    Reply
  4. GGF Avatar
    GGF

    Reward examiners who actually examine. I recently came across a case where the original claims were rejected, the patentee modified the claims, there were two other rejections. The patentee then canceled all the claims and put in the original claims. The examiner allowed the application at that point.

    Like

    Reply
  5. Skeptical Avatar
    Skeptical

    GCF,
    What was the rationale listed for allowance?
    What about estoppel? Not sure why any practicioner would ever do this. There is no chance this patent will ever be asserted against anyone.

    Like

    Reply
  6. 6 Avatar
    6

    50$ to any speaker at this conference who begins their lecture by saying “in order to improve patent quality over the long haul we’re going to need to reject, reject, reject”.
    I will need 3rd party confirmation that it was done in a serious manner.

    Like

    Reply
  7. Gena777 Avatar
    Gena777

    Darn … I just happen to be in Los Angeles at the moment, but narrowly missed attending the roundtable. Guess I’ll just have to wait until the USPTO opens its rumored west-coast patent law office.
    http://www.industryweek.com/articles/patent_enforcement_21538.aspx?SectionID=2

    Like

    Reply

Leave a reply to Dale B. Halling Cancel reply