May 21, 2012

Budget Crisis Derails the PTO Fast Track

Due to a $300 million shortfall in the U.S. Patent & Trademark Office's (Patent Office) 2011 fiscal year budget, the Patent Office's fast track train has been officially derailed.  According to Director Kappos, there is currently no estimate as to if or when it might get back on track. 

In a previous client alert,1 we reported that the Patent Office would be implementing a new initiative called "Track I," which was to begin May 4, 2011. The new initiative would have allowed patent applicants the opportunity to accelerate the examination process of a newly filed application in lieu of a $4,000 payment as long as certain procedural requirements were met.2  Director David Kappos, however, announced via his blog3 on April 22, that the Track I initiative would be postponed until further notice.

The shortfall has also forced Director Kappos to postpone or cancel other important initiatives, such as the opening of various satellite offices, hiring additional examiners, improving IT infrastructure, and improving employee training. All of these initiatives were aimed at increasing the quality of examination and reducing the backlog of applications, both of which have been primary goals for Director Kappos since he took over as director of the Patent Office. 

With this Track I train now heading nowhere, we encourage all stakeholders to communicate with their congressional representatives and Director Kappos and let them know that Track I should be reinstated as soon as possible to enhance the Unites State's efforts to remain a leader in investment and innovation. If you have any questions regarding Track I or how this may impact your patent applications, please contact any one of the authors of this alert, or your Bracewell & Giuliani patent attorney. We will, of course, keep you updated should any new information arise.

__________________________

1 Free Market Economists Rejoice – Kappos Moves PTO Train to the Fast Track

2 Be an original utility or plant nonprovisional application; be electronically filed; and contain no more than four (4) independent claims and no more than thirty (30) total claims.

3 Director's Forum: David Kappos' Public Blog, "An Update on the USPTO's FY 2011 Budget," available at http://www.uspto.gov/blog/

© 2012 Bracewell & Giuliani LLP

About the Author

Partner

Jeffrey Whittle has experience representing clients in various technology-based transactions, including licenses, agreements for technology development, transfer, acquisition, joint development, collaboration, product development, strategic alliance, collaboration, and product distribution, as well as various other intellectual property agreements in the software, telecommunications, mechanical/electrical, e-commerce, financial, energy and medical industries.

Mr. Whittle also has experience representing clients in various patent, trademark,...

713-221-1185

Boost: AJAX core statistics

Legal Disclaimer

You are responsible for reading, understanding and agreeing to the National Law Review's (NLR’s) and the National Law Forum LLC's  Terms of Use and Privacy Policy before using the National Law Review website. The National Law Review is a free to use, no-log in database of legal and business articles. The content and links on www.NatLawReview.com are intended for general information purposes only. Any legal analysis, legislative updates or other content and links should not be construed as legal or professional advice or a substitute for such advice. No attorney-client or confidential relationship is formed by the transmission of information between you and the National Law Review website or any of the law firms, attorneys or other professionals or organizations who include content on the National Law Review website. If you require legal or professional advice, kindly contact an attorney or other suitable professional advisor.  

Some states have laws and ethical rules regarding solicitation and advertisement practices by attorneys and/or other professionals. NLR does not accept advertising from attorneys or law firms. The National Law Review is not a law firm nor is www.NatLawReview.com  intended to be an advertisement or a referral service for attorneys and/or other professionals. The NLR does not wish, nor does it intend, to solicit the business of anyone or to refer anyone to an attorney or other professional.  NLR does not answer legal questions nor will we refer you to an attorney or other professional if you request such information from us. 

Under certain state laws the following statements may be required on this website and we have included them in order to be in full compliance with these rules. The choice of a lawyer or other professional is an important decision and should not be based solely upon advertisements. Attorney Advertising Notice: Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Statement in compliance with Texas Rules of Professional Conduct. Unless otherwise noted, attorneys are not certified by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization, nor can NLR attest to the accuracy of any notation of Legal Specialization or other Professional Credentials.