About Me

Robert J. Sayre
Robert J. Sayre
Cambridge, MA,
United States

Contact Bob


Subscribe by Email

Your email:

Modern Times Legal Patent Blog

Current Articles | RSS Feed RSS Feed

Changes are coming to the USPTO--Part II: "This is not [just] a tweak or an adjustment"

 | Submit to Digg digg it | Submit to Reddit reddit | Add to delicious delicious | Submit to StumbleUpon StumbleUpon | Share on Twitter Twitter 

In my post last week, I profiled comments from incoming United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) Director David Kappos and reflected on how Kappos aims to reshape operations at the USPTO, including revamping the USPTO count system for measuring examiner production and improving relations between the USPTO and all interested parties. During the nomination hearing from which the captured clips in the previous post were extracted, Kappos also repeatedly referred to discussions he had had with Secretary of Commerce Gary Locke to jointly reshape USPTO operations. The USPTO falls under the US Department of Commerce, so Locke will serve as Kappos's boss, and we can expect Locke to guide policy.

This past Wednesday provided me with a surprising opportunity to see Secretary Locke at the office, as he visited the Cambridge Innovation Center to meet with Cambridge Innovation Center CEO Timothy Rowe and with a few CIC tenants, including the inbound marketing gurus downstairs at Hubspot (who, naturally, snapped a great photo with Secretary Gary Locke). 

Alas, Modern Times Legal did not make the short list of companies meeting with the Secretary so I cannot offer a personal interview, though I can offer the next best thing--a recap from CIC CEO Timothy Rowe on what Secretary Locke had to say about reshaping the US patent system:

Secretary Locke used the occasion of the luncheon at CIC to highlight some of his priorities as he enters office, including what he termed a major redesign of the patent system. He pointed out that mounting numbers of pending patents are creating unacceptable uncertainty that harms business. In describing the planned changes he said “this is not a tweak or an adjustment” but rather a complete restructuring from the ground up. Stay tuned.

A full report on Locke's visit is available on the CIC blog.

At this stage, I cannot overemphasize the importance of this restructuring. Lest you doubt the impact that the USPTO Director and Commerce Secretary can have on US patent practice, let's revisit what happened to patent allowance rates under the previous USPTO Director, John Dudas, who served in that position from 2002 until January 2009:

 USPTO patent allowance rate

Do not get me wrong, I am not suggesting that allowance rates will quickly rocket from 42% back up to 70% at the USPTO under Locke and Kappos, though I am proud to note that the allowance rate for US patent applications prosecuted by Modern Times Legal with final resolutions (i.e., allowance, abandonment or RCE) from January 2008 through today continues to trounce the norm with an allowance rate of at least 70%. And I am optimistic that we will start to see faster and fairer resolutions overall for patent applications filed at the USPTO.

What happens next? Subscribe to the RSS or email feeds (see box in column to the right) for this blog to receive additional updates on changes at the USPTO and what they will mean for applicants. Past results do not guarantee future sucess, though Modern Times Legal has thus far been successful in obtaining patents for most clients no matter the climate at the USPTO.


Tags: 

Comments

Why is Foley & Lardner hosting David Kappos of IBM, new Obama candidate? Answer may lie in Trillion Dollar Lawsuit 
 
MADOFF + STANFORD + DREIER + SATYAM + FISERV + ALBERT HU + The 1031 Tax Group LLC - Edward H. Okun = PROSKAUER ROSE + FOLEY & LARDNER 
 
Foley partner Patricia J. Lane represented FISERV, sue Foley, read on. 
 
Investors who have been burned in these scams should start to seek redress from the lawyers who were involved with these scams. I personally have been trying to notify regulators and authorities of a ONE TRILLION DOLLAR liability that is putting states like New York and Florida at huge risk, as well as, companies like Intel, Lockheed, SGI and IBM. The states and companies involved in the fraud fail to acknowledge the risk exposing shareholders and citizens to impending liabilities. Investigators, courts and federal agents ignoring the crimes and evidence, including a car-bombing attempt on my life. I know how Harry Markopolos felt trying to expose Madoff in a world without regulation. 
 
Did I hear Proskauer Rose is involved in Madoff (involved many clients too) and acted as Allen Stanford's attorney. Investors who lost money in these scams should start looking at the law firm Proskauer's assets for recovery. First, Proskauer partner Gregg Mashberg claims Madoff is a financial 9/11 for their clients, if they directed you to Madoff sue them. Then, Proskauer partner Thomas Sjoblom former enforcement dude for SEC and Allen Stanford attorney, declares PARTY IS OVER to Stanford employees and advises them to PRAY, this two days before SEC hearings. Then at hearings, he lies with Holt to SEC saying she only prepared with him but fails to mention Miami meeting at airport hanger. Then Sjoblom resigns after SEC begins investigation and sends note to SEC disaffirming all statements made by him and Proskauer, his butt on fire. If you were burned in Stanford sue Proskauer. 
 
Proskauer Rose and Foley & Lardner are also in a TRILLION dollar FEDERAL LAWSUIT legally related to a WHISTLEBLOWER CASE in FEDERAL COURT. Marc S. Dreier, brought in through Raymond A. Joao of Meltzer Lippe after putting 90+ patents of mine in his own name, is also a defendant in the Federal Case. 
 
The Trillion Dollar suit according to Judge Shira Scheindlin is one of PATENT THEFT, MURDER & A CAR BOMBING. For graphics on the car bombing visitwww.iviewit.tv. 
 
Federal Court cases 
 
US Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circ Docket 08-4873-cv - Bernstein v Appellate Division First Department Disciplinary Committee. - TRILLION DOLLAR LAWSUIT 
 
(07cv09599) Anderson v The State of New York - WHISTLEBLOWER LAWSUIT 
 
(07cv11196) Bernstein v Appellate Division First Department Disciplinary Committee 
 
(07cv11612) Esposito v The State of New York 
 
(08cv00526) Capogrosso v New York State Commission on Judicial Conduct 
 
(08cv02391) McKeown v The State of New York 
 
(08cv02852) Galison v The State of New York 
 
(08cv03305) Carvel v The State of New York 
 
(08cv4053) Gizella Weisshaus v The State of New York 
 
(08cv4438) Suzanne McCormick v The State of New York 
 
John L. Petrec-Tolino v. The State of New York 
 
Posted @ Sunday, August 16, 2009 5:41 AM by Eliot Bernstein
Post Comment
Name
 *
Email
 *
Website (optional)
Comment
 *

Allowed tags: <a> link, <b> bold, <i> italics

Receive email when someone replies.