Director's Forum: David Kappos' Public Blog
USPTO Co-Sponsors IP Small Claims Roundtable
Last Thursday (May 10, 2012), a roundtable of intellectual property experts convened at the George Washington University Law School. It was co-sponsored by the USPTO and the U.S. Copyright Office. The purpose of this roundtable meeting was to consider the possible introduction of small claims proceedings for patent and/or copyright claims.
The day began with framing of the challenge: offering access to IP justice to creators least resourced but often most in need, in an age in which creative works (both in the copyright and patent domain) are more subject to disputes, of all magnitude, than ever before. Presentations followed on the small claims system in the UK, and the U.S. Constitutional limitations on the nature of such procedures, including the Seventh Amendment right to a jury, Article III judicial power, and due process.
In breakout sessions on patents and copyrights, attendees discussed the need for and ways to structure a small claims system in both areas.
This productive session was a first step in determining whether and how it makes sense for the government to help set new parameters for the resolution of small claims in the patent and copyright areas. USPTO will continue to work with the Copyright Office on taking these ideas forward, so stay tuned. And of course, as always, if you have thoughts on this topic please let us know.
Posted at 11:03AM May 16, 2012 in ip | Comments[5]
Building a Better Post Grant
Guest blog by Deputy Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and Deputy Director of the USPTO Teresa Stanek Rea
Currently, the USPTO has two principal ways of challenging granted patents - inter partes reexamination and ex parte reexamination. Both of these are an examination performed in the Patent Examining Corps, specifically in the Central Reexamination Unit (CRU). Inter partes reexamination has not proven as efficient as was originally intended. It has taken an average of 32 to 38 months to move from filing to issuance of a final reexamination certificate. The time to a final determination within the USPTO is even longer, when you factor in appeals. To best serve the applicant community, Congress directed the Agency in the America Invents Act (AIA) to implement more efficient and timely alternatives to litigation.
On September 16, 2011, President Obama signed the AIA into law. It establishes three post grant proceedings conducted by the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences (Board). These proceedings include post grant review, inter partes review and the transitional program for covered business method patents. The AIA also renames the Board as the Patent Trial and Appeal Board.
The size and experience level of the Board is being significantly expanded to handle the new proceedings. The Board now has more than 120 judges, with many of the new members coming from outside the USPTO. Many of the new judges have considerable litigation and patent prosecution experience, augmenting the considerable examination experience of other judges. This Board is well positioned to handle the new contested cases. We at the USPTO are pleased to have fresh viewpoints and diverse experiences as we take on the challenges of the AIA.
We are hard at work on the final rules concerning post grant procedures as we implement and fulfill Congress’ intent with the AIA. The need to provide an efficient way for the Board to reconsider granted patents is an important feature of the new law. The process desired by Congress is one that is efficient and cost-effective, and relies on expertise within the Agency to provide high-quality decisions. Congress also specifically limited the length of these new proceedings to 12 months, with an additional six months in exceptional cases.
Our rulemaking is taking into consideration a wide variety of information, input, and experience. The experience and procedures used in Federal District Court litigation were considered as well as the experience and procedures in the CRU. We studied procedures used by other administrative agencies, such as the Board of Veterans’ Appeals, and the International Trade Commission. We actively engaged the user community in the rulemaking process. We discussed a wide range of procedures and recommendations from a variety of sources including associations, corporations, law firms and individuals.
The Board also has some direct experience in handling contested cases. Interference practice has a long history within the Agency, and the Agency evaluated those procedures in order to identify best practices. I have practiced in the interference area for many years, and watched the development of efficient trial proceedings take root at the Board. About 15 to 20 years ago, interferences took approximately four to seven years, costing stakeholders time while adding uncertainty. They allowed for dilatory practices, wasteful motions, and procedural traps. The process eventually was modified—much to its benefit—and is now a trial-like proceeding, streamlined by careful involvement of judges. The average interference today is completed in less than a year, approximately 11 months. We in the practice learned to trust the involvement of the judges in shepherding proceedings to a quick and efficient conclusion.
The team working on the rules consists of individuals with a balanced set of viewpoints. The Director, myself, and the Chief and Vice Chief of the Board have all practiced in firm and corporate settings, and are well aware of the needs and concerns of external stakeholders. We do not wish to retain any of the elements of an overly complex interference practice. We have started from scratch and take a fresh look in our rulemaking.
Post-AIA proceedings will be very different from reexamination proceedings or interferences. First, they must be completed within a year, which means streamlining. There will be no examination, no counts, no determination of priority, no complex procedures of inter partes reexamination, and no establishing priority of invention. Complex inter partes reexamination and interference practices will not return. We envision reaping the benefits of a straightforward trial proceeding, implemented by experienced judges, resulting in a fair and efficient proceeding.
The user community has provided diverse and, at times, contradictory recommendations on aspects of the rule implementation. We are diligently taking this information into consideration as we draft procedures that will provide high quality decisions that are clear and predictable. We aspire to present final rules which will accomplish Congress’ intent of efficiency and cost-effectiveness within a 12-month window. I appreciate the interest and helpful input of the entire user community.
Posted at 08:55AM May 15, 2012 in America Invents Act | Comments[0]
Focusing on Funding Continuity
As USPTO continues to work toward improving effectiveness, a key to maintaining progress will be financial stability, predictability, and sustainability.
Towards this end, the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (AIA) authorized a 15 percent surcharge on most patent fees, which went into effect on September 26, 2011. The AIA also entrusted the USPTO with the responsibility to set fees through regulation— a new authority that the Office, in collaboration with our stakeholders, is working to put in place in the coming months. Our target is to have a new fee schedule operational by the middle of FY 2013.
In addition to these in-process AIA fee adjustments, the USPTO recently published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) that proposes an increase to statutory fees based on inflation as of October 1, 2012, using the Consumer Price Index. CPI adjustments have routinely been implemented in the past—generally on an annual basis—to help the Office adjust to the higher costs of doing business resulting from increases in the price of products and services. Given this mix, it is quite understandable that I am sometimes asked why we need the additional fee increase, given the 15 percent surcharge already in place and plans to implement a revised fee schedule by the first quarter of next year.
The answer is: leveling, cash flow, continuity -- much like with any large enterprise. Think of the CPI adjustment as ensuring “bridge funds.” This planned CPI adjustment will provide a small but needed increase in funding, allowing the USPTO to continue reducing the backlog and pendency until our new fee schedule--which will provide long-term financial resources--is in place.
An adequately funded USPTO will optimize the administration of the U.S. intellectual property system, moving your innovative ideas to the marketplace more quickly, while creating and sustaining U.S. jobs and enhancing the health and living standards of Americans and indeed people everywhere around the globe.
Posted at 11:59AM May 14, 2012 in USPTO | Comments[0]
USPTO Exhibit on Steve Jobs Opens at Smithsonian
If you missed our wonderful exhibit—The Patents and Trademarks of Steve Jobs: Art and Technology that Changed the World—while it was on display several months ago here at the USPTO campus, you now have another chance. This exhibit, which commemorates the far-reaching impact of Steve Jobs’ innovation on our daily lives, opens today at the Smithsonian Institution. Head to the concourse of the Smithsonian’s Ripley Center, and you’ll see displays of the more than 300 patents that bear the name of the iconic innovator, along with many of the trademarks that have given Apple its instantly recognizable identity around the world. You’ll gain insights into the visionary commitment Jobs gave to each of the products and designs he influenced during his time with Apple, the company he co-founded at the age of 21 with his friend and fellow computer enthusiast Steve Wozniak. You might also be interested to know that on May 2nd, Jobs was inducted posthumously into the National Inventors Hall of Fame at a dinner held in the Smithsonian American Art Museum and Portrait Gallery, the historic home of the USPTO. The Patents and Trademarks of Steve Jobs: Art and Technology that Changed the World runs through July 8th.
Posted at 08:36AM May 11, 2012 in ip | Comments[0]
GAO a Helpful Partner on AIA Implementation
USPTO is making it a major focus to actively engage and have regular conversations with our stakeholders on a host of issues. Look no further than how we have managed the rulemaking process to implement the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (AIA), including – for the first time in the Agency’s history – proposing and setting a new fee schedule.
Recently, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) released a report that looked at USPTO’s user fee design. GAO’s report is quite positive. The report found that the USPTO has a robust fee review process in place, and applauded our efforts to manage funding uncertainty by creating an operating reserve, borrowing from a practice widely used in industry. The report also notes that the USPTO has a strong stakeholder communication base on which to build, assisting us in our ongoing pursuit of transparency and two-way communication.
The report did, however, note opportunities to ensure superior implementation going forward, opportunities we have already begun pursuing. Because the Office has not yet issued a notice of proposed rulemaking for setting fees under section 10 of the AIA, the findings are based largely upon past practices going back several years. Since we are just now reaching the mid-point for our fee-setting process, and the “new” information available to GAO was gathered very early in the process, the report comes at a great time for us to gain value going forward. As such, the report serves as a guide to help the Office successfully carry out the authorities entrusted to it, and not as a comprehensive review of the entire fee setting process.
The report recommends that the USPTO continue to build upon the communication successes we have already achieved, by enhancing transparency through providing detailed accounting of program costs as well as communicating clearly our policy choices. This is a fair recommendation, especially considering the GAO’s review and conclusions were based on the high-level informational materials provided in advance of the fee setting hearings held in Alexandria and Sunnyvale in February. Enhancing transparency remains critical to our business model.
Finally, GAO encouraged us to continue building on current successes by establishing guidance and protocols for communication with the PPAC and other stakeholders regarding our fee setting process. This will help ensure consistency far into the future. We have taken this recommendation to heart, and plan to incorporate specific protocols for communication into our fee-setting process.
We welcome the guidance and assistance that GAO has provided to us in their report, and look forward to continuing this strong relationship. We’ll be looking for additional ways to engage and seek help from our stakeholder community to ensure the best possible implementation of AIA, as well as numerous other initiatives underway at PTO.
Posted at 10:01AM May 10, 2012 in America Invents Act | Comments[1]
USPTO Official Honored for Public Service
One of our stars here at the USPTO was honored this morning for her excellent work as a public servant. Senior Telework Advisor Danette Campbell is one of 33 Samuel J. Heyman Service to America Medal finalists in the category of Management Excellence. Under Danette’s guidance, the USPTO has created a teleworking program that is a model not just for the federal government but for any employer. A full two-thirds of USPTO employees telework in some manner, which saves millions of dollars, increases productivity, and boosts employee job satisfaction and retention.
The “Sammies,” as the awards are known, is a project of the nonprofit Partnership for Public Service, which honored the finalists at a breakfast today at the Ronald Reagan Building here in DC. Danette and her fellow finalists were profiled Monday in The Washington Post, and we’ve already been contacted by TV and radio outlets looking to hear Danette’s story. Of course, her story is really the story of the thousands of USPTO employees who have embraced teleworking to everyone’s benefit. We all will be pulling for Danette when they announce the winners on September 13th.
Posted at 10:50AM May 09, 2012 in USPTO | Comments[3]
Continued Success in Improving the Global IP System
Guest blog by Acting Administrator for Policy and External Affairs Shira Perlmutter
As fiscal year 2012 moves forward, the Office of Policy and External Affairs (OPEA) continues to make great strides toward improving the global intellectual property system. Our dedicated staff promotes the protection of U.S. intellectual property interests around the world—from the World Intellectual Property Organization, to our work with the Office of the United States Trade Representative on trade agreements, to our collaboration with other offices via the Trilateral and IP5 processes. We are engaged in initiatives across the entire spectrum of intellectual property rights focused on enhancing the contribution the intellectual property system makes to global economic and social prosperity. I wanted to take this opportunity to give you an update on some of these initiatives and point you to details and statistics found on our updated Policy and External Affairs dashboard.
One of our most important projects is the Patent Prosecution Highway (PPH). The PPH is a worksharing framework designed to promote more efficient and higher quality examination, while enabling innovators to obtain patent protection more quickly and with greater certainty in multiple jurisdictions. The basic concept is that when one office determines claims to be allowable in an application, the applicant can fast-track examination in another office on a related application (filed via the Paris Convention or the Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT)) containing the same or similar claims.
The USPTO has PPH arrangements with 22 patent offices around the world and the PPH network continues to expand. Furthermore, improvements made to the program were launched in January of this year as PPH 2.0, which are expected to encourage increased use of the program. As of the end of the second quarter, the USPTO had received a cumulative total of 10,322 PPH requests from applicants worldwide since the program’s inception.
Another of our key activities is providing educational and training programs for foreign government officials through our Global Intellectual Property Academy (GIPA) to improve intellectual property protection and enforcement worldwide. As of the end of the second quarter of this fiscal year, GIPA had conducted 68 training programs for 3,949 participants from 79 countries.
I am proud of the work OPEA is doing to advance these important initiatives, and I look forward to reporting continued progress in the future.
Posted at 12:22PM May 07, 2012 in ip | Comments[0]
BPAI: Reducing the Backlog
The Board of Appeals and Interferences (BPAI), like other areas within the USPTO, have experienced increased growth, leading to a large backlog of ex parte appeals. With the new Post-Grant Review processes set forth in the America Invents Act (AIA) fast approaching and BPAI resources being diverted to prepare for those new proceedings, there are concerns this backlog may continue to grow. As a result of the AIA, on September 16, 2012, the BPAI will become known as the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) as it adds Post-Grant Review and inter partes review proceedings, to its current workload of ex parte appeal cases.
In recognition of this additional workload and in anticipation of the new processes beginning at the end of fiscal year 2012, we continue to look at how the USPTO can reduce this backlog. Chief Administrative Judge James Donald Smith blogged about the topic in December 2011 and he discussed streamlining the appeals process for applicants and examiners. This effort, and the new regulations resulting from it, was prompted by comments received at a USPTO public roundtable in January 2010 and a notice of proposed rulemaking in November 2010.
This is just one avenue which we are pursuing as we are continually looking for ways to improve the patents appeals process. In fact, public perception has suggested a high number of pending applications were sent to the BPAI from the Patent Technology Centers (TCs) unnecessarily. In response to this perception and because of our desire to decrease the backlog of ex parte cases, the Patent TC Directors working on a BPAI task force enlisted the help of the Office of Patent Quality Assurance (OPQA). OPQA reviewed a sample of 1,300 pending applications at the BPAI. This review was intended to determine if some of the cases most recently sent to the BPAI from the patent corps were truly ripe for appeal.
Results of this review found a low number of reviewed applications containing deficiencies that would result in them not being ready for review by the BPAI. More importantly, this information gave the patent corps the opportunity to take an in-depth look at these sample cases to identify issues where further training could be provided. Examiners recently completed mandatory training on the above new rules for the BPAI, but there is more opportunity for improvement.
As we continue to work diligently to decrease the backlog, special attention has been given to design programs to help prevent applications from being sent to the BPAI when appeal is unnecessary. Our emphasis on interviews is designed to help examiners and attorneys resolve as many issues as possible—if not allow the application—before appeal. Our Ombudsman Program is designed to assist applicants and their representatives to bring the examination back on track when the process is not working as intended, thus avoiding appeal where possible. One of our latest efforts encourages examiners to hold interviews after final and, if possible, move those applications to allowance rather than appeal.
While we work toward preventing unnecessary appeals, the BPAI is working to reduce the current ex parte backlog and to prepare for the new post-grant review and inter partes review proceedings resulting from AIA.
Our goal is two-fold, 1) to serve you as quickly as possible when you need to appeal and 2) make sure that we do everything possible to resolve issues before the appeal route is chosen.
Posted at 12:25PM May 03, 2012 in patents | Comments[3]
The Role of Submission Limits in Timely Completion of Supplemental Examination
This entry in our series on implementation of the America Invents Act (AIA) focuses on the proposed rules for supplemental examination.
The supplemental examination procedure was designed to provide patentees with a quick and decisive examination of items that were overlooked during the patent’s original prosecution. So quick in fact, that the AIA set a three-month period for us to conduct and conclude a supplemental examination after a request is filed. That’s just three months to determine if any of the items of information raise a substantial new question of patentability.
In order to meet this timeframe, we have proposed a limit of 10 items of information that a patent owner can submit to the USPTO for consideration in each request. The purpose of this limit is to strike a balance between the needs of the patent owner and the ability of the Office to timely conclude the proceeding. That said, we did not limit the number of issues that these 10 items of information can raise, nor did we limit the number of separate supplemental reexamination requests that a patentee can file.
Following publication of the proposed rules, the Office received a number of suggestions requesting us to accept more than 10 items of information in a single supplemental examination request. While we're still considering this and all of the other input we have received, I wanted to share with you the factors the Office took into consideration in proposing a limit of 10 submissions.
First, far fewer than 10 prior art documents form the basis for most inequitable conduct allegations. In fact, we are unaware of any publicly reported inequitable conduct dispute involving more than 10 items of information – if you know of one, please let us know. Second, in over 85 percent of the requests for ex parte reexamination, the requester cites 10 or fewer items for consideration by the Office. Third, the Office was very mindful of the time necessary for examiners to analyze the items of information submitted, particularly since the items are not limited to patents and printed publications, and each item may raise multiple issues.
Accordingly, limiting the number of items of information to 10 will help the USPTO establish a procedure that is not only practical, but also one enabling an examiner to fully, comprehensively, and timely analyze all submitted items of information and issues to accurately determine whether there is a substantial new question of patentability.
So, as is always the case with matters of balance, there is no definitive answer. But one thing is for sure: Congress mandated very fast action on supplemental examination. And that in turn calls for limits on what we all take on within the scope of a single proceeding.
Posted at 10:10AM Apr 27, 2012 in patents | Comments[1]
Record Results for Trademark Pendency
Guest blog by Commissioner for Trademarks Debbie Cohn
This month marks a record for performance by our Trademarks team. It has now been five consecutive years that first action pendency has stayed in the range of our goal to issue a first action between 2.5 and 3.5 months from filing. This record is the result of a number of factors including greater use of the systems, tools, and resources necessary to manage new application filings electronically and to manage them well. It demonstrates how electronic filing and systems have led to more consistent results in our ability to deliver top quality service. A look at our performance dashboard for the second quarter of fiscal year 2012 shows quality and timeliness to first action or disposal either meets or exceeds target goals.
Meanwhile, despite a 7 percent increase in new application filings, trademark pendency to registration continues to remain at historically low levels. Disposal pendency – the time from when an application is filed until a trademark is registered or abandoned – has been under 11 months for the past eight quarters in a row – a record due in part to the increase in electronic processing, which now comprises 75 percent of all trademark applications filed, processed and disposed.
Trademark quality shows improvement – all three indicators are better than their respective targets. Our newest indicator for evaluating quality, introduced last year, as the ‘excellent office action’ standard has been renamed ‘exceptional office action’. The name change is a better reflection of the criteria that set exceptionally high standards for evaluating an examiner’s writing, evidence, and search strategy in preparing the office action. Our evaluation of quality is an ongoing process, and we regularly use the results for improving how we work—from developing policy and training guides and manuals to reinforcing and ensuring the quality of the trademark register.
We welcome any feedback you have on how we can improve this dashboard. Simply email a comment to our dedicated mailbox for Trademarks feedback. We look forward to hearing from you.
Posted at 03:21PM Apr 20, 2012 in trademarks | Comments[1]
We Mean Business About Diversity
April is Celebrate Diversity Month, and in the spirit of this month, I want to take this opportunity to provide you with updates on various diversity initiatives underway at the USPTO.
On Tuesday, April 17, the USPTO is hosting the first-ever White House Initiative on Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders (WHIAPPI) Federal Sector Conference. The WHIAPPI conference theme is “Empowering Asian American and Pacific Islander Communities through Federal Service.” We are expecting attendance of up to 400 government employees.
Last December, I shared with you the good news about our efforts to improve the retention of patent examiners beyond their probationary period through the New Examiner Mentoring Program pilot, a voluntary, peer-based program. I am pleased to report that we will soon be kicking off an expanded pilot mentoring program through the support of the USPTO's associated affinity groups and the Patent and Trademark Office Society. The New Examiner Mentoring Program 2.0 will pair mentors with new patent examiners arriving in May. As I previously mentioned, when we look at the benefits associated with retaining examiners -- who are costly to recruit and on-board, we are quite optimistic about the pilot’s expansion.
In addition to our diversity and inclusion programs within USPTO, I want to take a moment to highlight our diversity efforts beyond the USPTO. For example, Chief Judge of the BPAI James Smith joined Deputy Director Rea at the Minority Corporate Counsel Association (MCCA) Continuing Legal Education Expo in Chicago. Deputy Director Rea and Chief Judge Smith participated on discussion panels presenting to a diverse audience of IP professionals.
In addition to the MCCA, we are working on sending USPTO representatives to present at several important conferences as follows: The National Bar Association; the National Asian and Pacific American Bar Association; the National Black Chamber of Commerce; Blacks in Government National Training Conference; Out in Science, Technology & Math; the Society of Women Engineers; the Society of Hispanic Professional Engineers; and the American Indian Science and Engineering Society.
In response to fiscal year 2012 hiring goals, our Office of Equal Employment Opportunity and Diversity (OEEOD) has launched an important diversity hiring initiative, now underway. In advance of USPTO recruiters reaching college campuses, a member of the OEEOD contacts university engineering organizations, such as the National Society of Black Engineers or the Society of Women Engineers, to provide them with a personalized invitation to meet with our recruiters, along with our recruitment schedule. We hope that this diversity outreach will get the word out about the USPTO through diverse networks on college campuses and, in turn, encourage more students from diverse backgrounds to apply for positions at USPTO.
We can all be proud of USPTO's inclusive culture in which diversity is welcomed, encouraged, and appreciated. Enjoy this month’s theme, and celebrate diversity!
Posted at 03:22PM Apr 16, 2012 in USPTO | Comments[0]
Electronic Terminal Disclaimers Now Get Immediate Approvals
You may remember that last November USPTO launched a new feature called eTerminal Disclaimer (eTD) as an open beta. eTD enables filing of terminal disclaimers (TDs) using an electronic interface from the USPTO’s online patent-filing system, EFS-Web. eTD allows applicants to expedite the filing and decision process for terminal disclaimers and receive immediate, real-time approval if the submission requirements are met.
Based on the positive feedback we received in response to the beta, I am pleased to report that eTD is now in full production. Some 1,500 eTDs have been processed since the deployment. And eTD submissions now account for nearly 12 percent of all terminal disclaimer submissions in utility applications.
As you are probably painfully aware, historically all terminal disclaimers have either been prepared and submitted as paper documents, or submitted as electronic PDF documents through EFS-Web. In either case, the USPTO’s manual review process delayed examination of the application in which the traditional TD had been filed. In contrast, by filing an eTD, you receive an immediate, real-time answer to your petition -- normally an approval (provided the submission requirements are met). To submit the petition, you enter information directly into EFS-Web’s workflow interface for eTD. These web-based screens guide you through the process and will prompt you for the correct information quickly and easily.
Up to 20 percent of traditional terminal disclaimers have historically been disapproved as a result of errors in the submission materials. Once a traditional terminal disclaimer is disapproved, the submission process starts over again, unfortunately increasing the effort and delay encountered to complete the filing. eTD was designed to make it easier and faster for you to file a terminal disclaimer and to obtain its immediate acceptance. In addition, eTD provides users with a payment advantage. Fees are not collected until the eTD is actually accepted by the USPTO.
The eTD also represents a move forward for operational efficiency at USPTO. It allows us to reallocate resources by eliminating the time needed to review terminal disclaimers, and eliminates rework associated with non-compliant submissions.
I hope you will consider the many advantages of eTD when filing terminal disclaimers. For more details on eTD, visit the USPTO eTerminal Disclaimer resource page at http://www.uspto.gov/TerminalDisclaimer. Live assistance with any questions regarding eTD or with filing an eTD can be obtained by calling the Patent Electronic Business Center at 866-217-9197 (toll free) or sending an email to EBC@uspto.gov.
Thanks as always for picking up and using these new programs, and keep the input coming!
Posted at 09:27AM Apr 09, 2012 in patents | Comments[0]
Realignment in the Office of the Commissioner for Patents Helps to Improve Efficiency
Guest blog by USPTO Commissioner for Patents Peggy Focarino
One of my challenges as Commissioner for Patents is providing my senior leadership team with the tools and flexibility they need to manage a productive and growing workforce. As the USPTO moves forward with implementing the America Invents Act and our Strategic Plan, we continue to invest heavily in organizational growth. In 2011 alone, the patent organization, which comprises nearly 70% of the USPTO’s more than 10,000 employees, hired over 800 new patent examiners. Substantial growth will also occur in 2012, as we are planning to hire 1,500 new patent examiners. This hiring initiative is the backbone of our goal to significantly reduce the backlog of patent applications and decrease the pendency to an average of ten months for first actions.
To manage the necessary increase of our workforce, I announced a realignment within the senior leadership team in the Office of the Commissioner for Patents. Specifically, three new deputy commissioner positions have been created in an effort to continue to build the strength of the senior leadership team and maximize their contributions. The new positions consist of a Deputy Commissioner for Patent Operations, a Deputy Commissioner for Patent Examination Policy, and a Deputy Commissioner for Patent Administration, to be filled by Andrew Faile, Drew Hirshfeld and Bruce Kisliuk, respectively. All three bring unique skills to their respective positions and form a strong and well-balanced team at the Deputy Commissioner level.
As the new Deputy Commissioner for Patent Operations, Andrew Faile will be responsible for all patent examining functions in the nine Patent Technology Centers, the Office of Patent Training and the Central Reexamination Unit. Andy was the Assistant Deputy Commissioner for Patent Operations for the Electrical Discipline and has over 20 years of experience in patent examining and operations management. He first joined the USPTO in 1989 as a patent examiner in the areas of cellular telephony, radio frequency communications, and cable television. In 1994, he earned an examiner master’s rating in telecommunications. Recently, Andy served on a joint management/union task force in charge of modernizing the examiner production system. He was awarded the Department of Commerce Silver Medal for his work on the task force.
Drew Hirshfeld will serve as the Deputy Commissioner for Patent Examination Policy. In his new position, Drew will be responsible for providing staff assistance in establishing patent examination policy standards for the Commissioner for Patents. The Deputy Commissioner for Patent Examination Policy will direct the activities of the USPTO’s Office of Petitions, Office of Patent Legal Administration, Office of Patent Cooperation Treaty Legal Administration, and the Office of Patent Quality Assurance. As the current Associate Commissioner for Patent Examination Policy, Drew is the authority on patent laws, rules, and examining practice and procedure. He joined the USPTO in 1994 as a patent examiner, became a supervisory patent examiner in 2001, and was promoted to the Senior Executive Service in 2008 as a Group Director in Technology Center 2100, Computer Architecture and Software. Drew has also served as the chief of staff to the Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and Director of the USPTO.
The Deputy Commissioner for Patent Administration will be Bruce Kisliuk. This new position will act as a single point of oversight for resources and planning, information management and innovation development. Since 2008, Bruce has been the Assistant Deputy Commissioner for Patent Operations for Mechanical and Chemical Disciplines. He joined the USPTO in 1983 after working as an engineer for the Gulf Oil Corporation. In 1993, Bruce received the Department of Commerce Bronze Medal for individual achievement. In addition, he has also been a member of two different teams that received the Department of Commerce Silver Medal for Nanotechnology-related Patent Examining Initiatives (2007) and Patent Examiner Count System Initiatives (2010).
I am looking forward to working with Andy, Drew and Bruce as we continue to move forward in implementing our Strategic Plan. Each of them possesses the expertise necessary to lead a growing and dynamic patent organization in the 21st century. With its new leadership alignment, the USPTO will be well-positioned to meet its strategic goals and ensure that American innovation thrives.
Posted at 01:11PM Mar 26, 2012 in patents | Comments[1]
Recruiting for Innovation
Guest Blog by USPTO Chief Administrative Officer Patricia Richter
USPTO is on the move. The enactment of the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act has allowed the USPTO to launch several transformative initiatives that are not only making it easier for businesses to navigate the patenting and trademark processes—but also helping the U.S. usher groundbreaking innovations to the marketplace, faster. Inherent in the realization of this goal is our ability to attract and retain top talent.
The agency is actively seeking exceptional individuals for patent examiner positions. We’re looking for individuals who hold (or will within the next 12 months) engineering and science degrees in a variety of disciplines. We are also seeking candidates who have accredited state law degrees and experience with intellectual property law. As we all know, a career as a patent examiner at the USPTO is one where we can—quite literally—imagine the possibilities. We represent one of the world’s largest and most sought-after patent systems, conducting research and interacting with applicants who are working on inventive, modern breakthroughs. And we offer a benefits package that is highly competitive with strong salaries, promotion potential, and access to bonus programs, paid overtime, top notch healthcare and retirement plans. Furthermore, we frequently hear positive comments on the work/life balance we achieve here, with access to telework, alternative work schedules, world-class fitness centers and onsite childcare—elements that are hard to put a price on.
Meanwhile, the agency has a goal to hire 10 percent of its total recruits from our nation’s veteran and transitioning military servicemember population. Veterans who transition into the civilian workforce have a strong track record of success at USPTO, with robust training and instruction and access to a USPTO Military Association made up of individuals who can help mentor you as you grow.
Additionally, we’re excited to open our first satellite office in Detroit, Michigan in July of this year. This is a great opportunity for new patent examiners to be a pioneering presence in the heart of America’s manufacturing sector. (Don't forget our Open House event in Detroit this Saturday!) While the big recruitment push is focused primarily on patent examiners, there are other exciting opportunities for IT professionals, trademark attorneys, and administrative patent judges, just to name a few.
Just like in our daily, mission-related work, we’re looking for ways to be innovative in our recruitment efforts as well. If you have ideas on how we can more effectively target exceptional candidates, we’d love to know. Please share them in the comments section below. And you can learn more about a career with the USPTO and see our job vacancies at USPTOcareers.gov.
Posted at 01:53PM Mar 22, 2012 in USPTO | Comments[3]
Increased Fees v. Operational Efficiencies
Returning to our series on America Invents Act (AIA) implementation, I’d like to focus today on an aspect of USPTO fee-setting. During a number of our recent outreach events on the USPTO’s fee-setting proposal, some stakeholders have taken the view—to caricature it slightly—that the USPTO does not need to increase fees; it needs to get more efficient.
We could not agree more on the importance of improving efficiency at the USPTO. During the last three years, we have made many improvements aimed squarely at improving efficiency. To name a few, we’ve implemented a new count system, revised examiner performance plans, established a first action interview pilot, provided training and incentives to substantially increase interviews overall, instituted the Patents Ombudsman Program, reengineered our Patent Cooperation Treaty processing, reengineered our reexamination processing, introduced important IT improvements including e-petitions, a reengineered MPEP/TMEP, and modern computing platforms, as well as expanded our Patent Prosecution Highway and other work-sharing programs to avoid duplication of efforts with international IP offices.
And we have much more coming. Many additional process improvements have been identified through our patents reengineering effort, with work already underway to improve legacy IT systems and develop new 21st century systems and processes. These improvements, coupled with the efficiency elements of the AIA such as Track One accelerated examination, will assure continued efficiency gains into the future. In fact, we will never be done looking for ways to improve efficiency, and we will never be complacent about our efficiency.
But attempting to draw a corollary between fee-setting and speculation about the possible impact of potential future efficiency gains is difficult without the benefit of hindsight. As we have outlined in our fee proposal, our fees must be set in a manner that enables us to continue investing in reducing the backlog and improving all other areas of our agency. Our experience also reminds us that implementing improvements frequently causes short term disruptions, and likely won't immediately translate into efficiencies. Anyone who runs a business will tell you that productivity investments often take years to pay off.
Moreover, my judgment as the steward of this agency is that I cannot proceed with a funding model that assumes further efficiency gains, especially if we have not yet achieved them. It places our agency at risk, and is just not right for our employees or for our stakeholders.
The responsible approach is to rely on our experience and current cost model, factoring in the efficiency gains we have achieved to date, but not speculating about possible future gains. This approach of using current costs as a basis for setting prices is the common practice among businesses, and follows the sound advice of the accounting, finance, and economics professions.
Then the question becomes the one asked in our fee proposal: does the U.S. innovation community want us to continue investing to quickly reduce the backlog and fully capture the promise of the AIA, or does it want us to back off a bit and accept a longer trajectory to reducing the backlog, and a higher level of risk relative to future funding downturns? The answer will ultimately have consequences for the kinds of efficiencies the agency is able to realize in the future, and what level of services the USPTO can deliver in years to come.
Posted at 02:16PM Mar 20, 2012 in America Invents Act | Comments[5]
