Robert Hulse Discusses USPTO’s Patent Processing Initiative
I’m sure many of you are still trying to weed through the detailed call for comments on the USPTO’s Three-Track Patent Processing Initiative that was published in the Federal Register last week. It will be interesting to see the comments that come in from the Patent Community and how the PTO’s proposal will evolve based on the comments. I had an opportunity to ask Robert Hulse, partner at Fenwick & West, LLP and Contributor on the Patent Center, some general questions that I had regarding the PTO’s initiative:
Are you in favor of or opposed to Three-Track proposal? Do you believe it’s an improvement from the one-size-fits-all patent system?
Generally, I think this proposal will be good for patent applicants, but I would caution that it is just a general proposal with no specific rules. Once the PTO published the proposed rules for implementing the Three-Track system, we will have a better understanding of how beneficial the system will be for applicants and how likely this system is to achieve the PTO’s stated goals of reducing pendency while maintaining quality examination. For example, the rules may impose a high fee or otherwise place onerous requirements on applicants to take advantage of the prioritized track, Track 1. In this case, most applicants simply wouldn’t take advantage of Track 1, which would reduce the effectiveness of the program. This is the case with the current accelerated examination procedure, which requires a supporting document (the Accelerated Examination Support Document, or AESD) that places a tremendous burden on the applicant. (more…)
2 Comments
06.14.10 | Patent Case Management, Patent Issues, Patent Litigation, Patent Reform, posts, USPTO | Stefanie Levine