USPTO Rescinds Rules Regarding the Patent Regulations Package
October 13, 2009
By Miguel Taveras, Noro IP Patent Division Director
After much public and legal discord, the USPTO has rescinded the Patent Regulations Package.
After much public and legal discord, the USPTO has rescinded the Patent Regulations Package. Many in the public (especially the biotech industry) felt the rules would hinder their ability to protect their Intellectual Property.
The following is the release from the USPTO:
WASHINGTON — Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and Director of the USPTO David Kappos has signed a new Final Rule rescinding highly controversial regulations, proposed by the previous administration, that patent applicants felt unduly restricted their capacity to protect intellectual property. The regulations, which addressed the number of continuation applications as well as the number of claims that could be included within each application, were published in the Federal Register in August 2007, but were enjoined and never came into effect.
The USPTO also announced that it will file a motion to dismiss and vacate the federal district-court decision in a lawsuit filed against the USPTO that sought to prevent the rules from taking effect. GlaxoSmithKline - one of two plaintiffs in the Tafas v. Kappos lawsuit - will join the USPTO’s motion for dismissal and vacatur.
Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and Director David Kappos
“The USPTO should incentivize innovation, develop rules that are responsive to its applicants’ needs and help bring their products and services to market,” 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.”
“We are grateful to GlaxoSmithKline for working with us to file this joint motion to both dismiss the appeal and vacate the district court’s decision. This course of action represents the most efficient way to formally and permanently move on from these regulations and work with the IP community on new ways to take on the challenges these regulations were originally designed to address.”
Background on Rules
In August 2007, the agency published new rules intended to help improve examination efficiency, enhance the quality of examination, and manage the growing backlog of unexamined applications.
Two regulations, commonly referred to as the “Continuation Rule” and the “RCE Rule,” would have permitted an applicant to file only two continuation applications and one request for continued examination (“RCE”) per application family as a matter of right. For a third or subsequent continuation application or RCE, the applicant would have had to make a case to the USPTO to show why the additional filing was needed.
A third regulation, referred to as the “Claims Rule,” would have permitted an applicant to file five independent claims and twenty-five total claims per application. If an applicant desired more than five independent claims or more than twenty-five total claims, then the Claims Rule would have required the applicant to supply information to the USPTO about the claimed invention to assist the Office’s examination. The specific information that would have been required was outlined in another regulation, termed the “ESD Rule.”
Many in the applicant community felt the combination of these new requirements would ultimately have had an effect that was at odds with their intended purposes.
History of Litigation
In the fall of 2007, GlaxoSmithKline and Dr. Tafas brought suit against the USPTO in the U.S. District Court of the Eastern District of Virginia and sought a preliminary injunction to stop the Claims and Continuations Rules from becoming effective, which the district court granted. In April 2008, the district court ruled in favor of GlaxoSmithKline and Dr. Tafas on the merits and permanently enjoined the rules, preventing the agency from implementing them. The agency appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.
In March 2009, a panel of the Federal Circuit concluded that the Claims and Continuations Rules were all procedural in nature and within the agency’s rulemaking authority. The Court also concluded that the rules, except for the Continuations Rule, were consistent with the patent law.
In 2009, the Federal Circuit granted rehearing en banc, and ordered additional briefing that would have commenced in the coming weeks.
What does this Mean and what does the Future Hold?
Although this is a major victory to those that opposed the rules change, this does not necessarily signal the end of the fight entirely. Reports have been issued claiming that the USPTO administration has still reiterated its support of patent reform and the patent reform bill. The USPTO administration has also provided several recommendations for improvement including granting the USPTO more rulemaking authority and requesting Kappos be provided with more flexibility in the administration of patent rules and procedures. Noro IP will continue to update you on the situation as it changes.
Comments
Post comment
Celebrity Patents: Harry Houdini - Diver's Suit Patent 1,370,316
By Miguel Taveras, Noro IP Patent Division Director Famous magician Harry Houdini (who was born Erik Weisz later spelled Ehrich Weiss), was more than just an extraordinary magician he also was an…
Tavern on the Green Trademark Lawsuit in New York
By Tim Meyer, Staff Writer for Noro IP Tavern on the Green a popular restaurant in New York City is in a legal battle over its name this week after both the restaurant and the City both claim…
USPTO Rescinds Rules Regarding the Patent Regulations Package
By Miguel Taveras, Noro IP Patent Division Director After much public and legal discord, the USPTO has rescinded the Patent Regulations Package.
Gena777
10/24/2009 05:57:54 PM
This is the latest item in a string of encouraging moves early in the Kappos era. Let's hope such improvements continue for patent litigation.