Category Archives: Uncategorized

How long does U.S. patent and trademark prosecution take? (2022 edition)

Posted on December 30, 2022 | Leave a comment

Each year, IP Spotlight updates our readers who often ask: how long does it take for a patent or trademark registration to grant?  In previous years, we’ve done that by reviewing the USPTO’s annual Performance and Accountability Report. In 2022 the USPTO discontinued that report. Instead, the USPTO now publishes up-to-date pendency information on its Data Visualization Center. The Data Visualization Center includes several dashboards with detailed information about allowance rates, average pendency, and other statistics about patent and trademark proceedings.

Patents: In 2022, the USPTO’s average time to first action remained steady at 16.9 months. The average total pendency — that is, the time from filing to either grant or abandonment — was 25.7 months, an increase of 2.4 months compared to 2021 data.

The wait times varied based on the USPTO Technology Center that reviewed the application. The breakdown by technology included:

  • biotechnology and organic chemistry (USPTO Technology Center 1600) inventions had an average wait time of 19.1 months to first action, and an average total pendency of 27.6 months;
  • chemical and materials engineering (USPTO Technology Center 1700) inventions had an average wait time of 18.4 months to first action, and an average total pendency of 29.2 months;
  • computer architecture, software and information security (USPTO Technology Center 2100) inventions had an average wait time of 16.2 months to first action, and an average total pendency of 27.2 months;
  • networks, multiplexing, cable and security (USPTO Technology Center 2400) inventions generally waited 15.0 months to first action, and had an average total pendency of 24.6 months;
  • communications technologies (USPTO Technology Center 2600) inventions once again had the shortest average wait times — 14.1 months to first action, and an average total pendency of 23.5 months;
  • semiconductors, electrical systems and optical systems (USPTO Technology Center 2800) inventions experienced an average wait time of 16.0 months to first action, and an average total pendency of 25.5 months;
  • e-commerce, transportation, construction, and agriculture technologies (USPTO Technology Center 3600) inventions had an average wait time of 17.6 months to first action, and an average total pendency of 27.5 months; and
  • mechanical engineering and manufacturing technologies (USPTO Technology Center 3700) inventions encountered an average wait time of 18.8 months to first action, and an average total pendency of 28.0 months.

The average time from the day that an applicant filed an amendment to the date of the next USPTO action was 58 days.

The allowance rate for all utility, plant, and reissue applications that the USPTO disposed of in the past year was 59%.

The USPTO offers a “Track One” examination program in which the USPTO will advance a new patent application to the front of the queue if the applicant pays an additional fee. (The fee is $4000 for a large entity, or $2000 for a small entity.) Track One examination ensures a final disposition within 12 months. In practice, the process is typically faster. In 2022, the average time from Track One petition grant to first action was 1.8 monhts, and the average time from petition grant to final disposition was 4.5 months. While the Track One program ensures speed, it does not ensure allowance; the allowance rate for Track One applications was 57% in 2022.

The summary above uses USPTO patents dashboard information through November 30, 2022:

Trademarks: The average time from filing to first Office Action in a trademark application continued to increase in 2022. The typical wait time is now 8.3 months to first action. This represents a two-month increase compared to 2021 data and five-month increase compared to 2020 data. Average total pendency is 13.8 months for applications that are not opposed or suspended during prosecution.

For the first time in 3 years, total number trademark filings decreased in 2022. (The percent decrease was 16.5%.) This should help reduce trademark application wait times in the upcoming year.

The summary above uses USPTO trademarks dashboard information for Q4 2022.

Leave a comment

Posted in Patents, Trademarks and Brands, Uncategorized

Tagged , ,

End of an era: USPTO proposes to phase out hard copy patent and trademark certificates

Posted on December 13, 2021 | 1 comment

As part of its plan to modernize the U.S. intellectual property registration system, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) plans to stop issuing patent and trademark certificates in hard copy format. In a recent blog post, USPTO Director Drew Hirshfeld announced that the USPTO will soon publish a proposed rule to eliminate the USPTO’s regulatory obligation to mail a paper copy of the patent to the correspondence address of record.

The USPTO expects the new rule to speed up patent grants by reducing the time required for publication. Under the new rule, patents will issue electronically within one week after the patent number is assigned.

The USPTO’s trademark regulations do not require the USPTO to mail trademark registrations in hard copy form. Nonetheless, the USPTO plans to issue a notice and seek public comment on this procedural change before applying it to trademarks, too.

When the new rule takes effect, patent applicants who plan to file a continuation application before a patent grants will need to take extra care, as less time will be available between the issue fee payment date and the patent grant date. As a best practice, applicants should try to file the continuation before they pay the issue fee, as they will lose the opportunity to file a continuation when the patent grants.

The USPTO’s announcement indicated that hard copies of patents and trademarks, with an embossed gold seal and the Director’s signature, will still available to registrants who request them and pay an extra fee.

1 Comment

Posted in Uncategorized

Tagged , ,

How long does U.S. patent and trademark prosecution take? (2021 edition)

Posted on December 6, 2021 | 1 comment

The USPTO recently released its FY 2021 Performance and Accountability Report, which contains detailed information about allowance rates, average pendency, and other statistics about its review of patent and trademark applications this year. Each year, IP Spotlight analyzes this Report and, and we update our readers who often ask: how long does it take for a patent or trademark registration to grant?  To answer that question:

Patents: In Fiscal Year (FY) 2021, for the first time in nine years, the USPTO’s average time to first action increased, to 16.9 months in FY 2021 (compared to 14.8 months in FY 2020). The average total pendency — that is, the time from filing to either grant or abandonment — remained steady at 23.3 months.

The wait times varied based on the USPTO Technology Center that reviewed the application. The breakdown by technology included:

  • biotechnology and organic chemistry (USPTO Technology Center 1600) inventions had an average wait time of 17.0 months to first action, and an average total pendency of 24.0 months;
  • chemical and materials engineering (USPTO Technology Center 1700) inventions had an average wait time of 18.8 months to first action, and an average total pendency of 26.7 months;
  • computer architecture, software and information security (USPTO Technology Center 2100) inventions had an average wait time of 17.5 months to first action, and an average total pendency of 25.6 months;
  • networks, multiplexing, cable and security (USPTO Technology Center 2400) inventions generally waited 15.7 months to first action, and had an average total pendency of 22.9 months;
  • communications technologies (USPTO Technology Center 2600) inventions once again had the shortest average wait times — 13.5 months to first action, and an average total pendency of 19.9 months;
  • semiconductors, electrical systems and optical systems (USPTO Technology Center 2800) inventions experienced an average wait time of 15.7 months to first action, and an average total pendency of 22.3 months;
  • e-commerce, transportation, construction, and agriculture technologies (USPTO Technology Center 3600) inventions had an average wait time of 18.1 months to first action, and an average total pendency of 25.9 months; and
  • mechanical engineering and manufacturing technologies (USPTO Technology Center 3700) inventions encountered an average wait time of 18.6 months to first action, and an average total pendency of 26.7 months.

The total number of nonprovisional patent applications remained flat at approximately 651,000 in FY 2021. The number of provisional patent applications dropped by 9.2% to a five-year low of 158,334, which may signal that a decrease in nonprovisional patent application filings will occur next year.

374,000 patents issued in FY 2021, which is a decrease from the 2020 number bit similar to the 2019 number. The overall allowance rate for patent applications remained steady at 61.8%.

Trademarks: In FY 2021 the average time from filing to first Office Action in a trademark application more than doubled from the previous year, with the average wait time now 6.3 months to first action. Average total pendency was 11.2 months for applications that were not opposed or suspended during prosecution. which is an increase of nearly 3 months compared to FY 2020 numbers.

The longer wait time can be attributed to an unprecedented increase in new trademark application filings. Specifically, in FY 2021 the total number of trademark applications was 943,928, which is a nearly 28% increase compared to the FY 2020 statistic, and a 40% increase when compared to the number of filings made in FY 2019.  The USPTO plans to address this by better leveraging artificial intelligence and automation in the examination process, which the USPTO expects will increase examination efficiency.

1 Comment

Posted in Uncategorized

Tagged , ,

New Federal Circuit decision finds packet monitoring patent claims eligible under Section 101

Posted on November 16, 2021 | Leave a comment

For the first time since 2020, the Federal Circuit issued an opinion finding claims of a computer-related invention to be eligible. Although designated as non-precedential, the case may signal a key claim feature that the court will look for in future Section 101 cases involving computer-related inventions.

In Mentone Solutions LLC v. Digi International Inc. (Nov. 15, 2021), the court reversed the District Court of Delaware’s finding that the claims of U.S. Patent 6,952,413 are invalid. The court focused on claim 5 of the patent, which is directed to a “multiple access communication method in a mobile station”.  The claim requires the steps of:

  • monitoring an assigned PDCH [(packet data channel)] to detect a USF [(uplink status flag)], and
  • (i) if shifted USF operation is not used then a first assigned PDCH is monitored to detect a USF corresponding to the first assigned PDCH and (ii) if the shifted USF operation is used then a second assigned PDCH is monitored to detect the USF corresponding to the first assigned PDCH and a USF corresponding to the second assigned PDCH.

The district court noted that claim 5 does not recite “when, how, or why one would . . . shift the USF or how a shifted USF would specifically improve the functioning of a prior art system.” On this basis, the district court found the claim to be ineligible.

On appeal, the Federal Circuit reversed, finding that “claim 5 is directed to a patent-eligible improvement to computer functionality, namely permitting additional multislot configurations for certain classes of mobile stations using extended bandwidth allocation.”

Notably, quoting its April 2020 Uniloc USA Inc. v. LG Electronics USA, Inc. decision, the Federal Circuit stated: “To the extent either the Appellees or the district court believe claim 5 must expressly mention the additional timeslots available or enabled by this achievement, they are mistaken. ‘Claims need not articulate the advantages of the claimed combinations to be eligible.’”

The Federal Circuit also contrasted the claims of this patent with those that it held ineligible in a previous case (Two-Way Media Ltd. v. Comcast Cable Communications), noting that in the past case “[w]e held the claims ineligible because they merely recited a series of abstract steps (“converting,” “routing,” “controlling,”  “monitoring,” and “accumulating records”) using ‘result-based functional language’ without the means for achieving any purported technological improvement. … Here, there is no functional claiming, nor are there abstract steps.’”

The court’s quote from its Uniloc decision may signal that that in future cases, the court (or at least the judges on this panel) will more closely assess whether claims merely cite a result or a technical means of achieving the result, and the Uniloc decision (which is precedential) may become prominent in future cases.

Leave a comment

Posted in Uncategorized

Tagged ,

H1-B cap registration opens March 9

Posted on March 5, 2021 | Leave a comment

Tech companies and other employers note: H1-B cap registration opens March 9, 2021.

Full details are available at this blog post by my partner Catherine Wadhwani, published on Fox Rothschild’s Immigration View .

Leave a comment

Posted in Uncategorized

Cyber Security in a Post-Corona World: Startup Opportunities and Challenges

Posted on November 4, 2020 | Leave a comment

On Nov 5, 2020 at 9 am EST / 3 pm CEST / 4 pm IDT, global innovation platform Axis Innovation will host a webinar titled Cyber Security in a Post-Corona World: Startup Opportunities & Challenges. This webinar will share actionable insights for companies (especially early stage companies) who seek to address global cybersecurity needs.

The speakers and topics include:
Developing Effective Cybertech Patent Strategies – with me, Jim Singer, Intellectual Property Department Chair of Fox Rothschild.
Cyber During Covid-19 – Going global by cooperating with leading international cyber leader Kaspersky – Vitaly Mzokov, Head of Kaspersky iHub.
Effective Fund Raising for your startup – with leading UK Venture Capitalist, Endre Sagi of Skylake Capital.

The webinar is free of charge, with more information and registration details available here.

Update: a recording of the event is available at this link.

Leave a comment

Posted in Uncategorized

Tagged , ,

USPTO is open during federal government shutdown

Posted on January 2, 2019 | 2 comments

Is the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office still operating during the current federal government shutdown? So long as the shutdown does not extend beyond the first few weeks of January 2019, the answer is yes.

According to the USPTO: “the agency has access to prior-year fee collections, which enables the USPTO to continue normal operations for a few weeks. Should the USPTO exhaust these funds before a partial government shutdown comes to an end, the agency would have to shut down at that time, although a small staff would continue to work to accept new applications and maintain IT infrastructure, among other functions.”

2 Comments

Posted in Uncategorized

What government contractors need to know about the revised disclosure requirements (and patent filing deadlines) for federally-funded inventions

Posted on May 7, 2018 | Leave a comment

The Bayh-Dole Act and federal regulations implementing the Act permit government contractors to retain ownership of inventions developed with federal government funding. However, to retain ownership the contractor must take certain actions within certain deadlines. If the contractor misses these deadlines, the government agency can take title to the invention.

These deadlines are about to become even more important when a regulatory change takes effect on May 14, 2018. Significant deadlines to keep in mind include:

1.  Disclose the invention to the government agency within two months of discovery, and elect title within two years of the disclosure.

The first required action is disclosure of the invention to the contracting agency. The Bayh-Dole Act (at 35 U.S.C.  § 202(c)(1)) requires any contractor who receives government funding to “disclose each subject invention to the Federal agency within a reasonable time after it becomes known to contractor personnel responsible for administration of patent matters.” Regulations implementing the Act state that the “reasonable time” is “two months after the inventor discloses it in writing to contractor personnel responsible for patent matters.” 37 C.F.R. § 401.14(c)(1).

The second required action is that if the contractor wants to retain ownership of the invention, the contractor must elect to retain title within two years of the disclosure. 37 C.F.R. § 401.14(c)(2).

If the contractor fails to make the required disclosure to the Federal agency within two months, or if the contractor fails to elect to retain title within two years, the Federal agency may take ownership to the invention.

Currently, a time limit also applies to the Federal agency’s right to take title to the invention. However, that is about to change. Continue reading →

Leave a comment

Posted in Uncategorized

How long does it take for the USPTO to issue a patent or register a trademark? (2016 edition)

Posted on December 31, 2016 | Leave a comment

At the end of each fiscal year, the USPTO releases a Performance and Accountability Report, with statistics about patent and trademark allowance rates, average pendency, and other details. The USPTO recently released its Performance and Accountability Report for Fiscal Year 2016. This means that it’s time for IP Spotlight’s annual review of the question:  “how long does it take to receive a patent or trademark registration?”

To answer that question, here are a few highlights from the USPTO’s FY 2016 report:

Patents:  The USPTO continued a five-year trend of reducing overall patent application pendency in FY 2016. The average time between filing and first office action was 16.2 months, down from 17.3 months in FY 2015 and 18.4 months in FY 2014.  Average total pendency also decreased to 25.3 months (from 26.7 months in FY 2015). These numbers are especially interesting when compared to those from only five years ago:  in FY 2011 the average wait times were 28 months to first action and 33.7 months total. It is clear that the USPTO has made significant strides toward reducing overall wait time for patent applications in recent years.

The wait times vary depending on the technology involved. Patent applications for computer architecture and mechanical engineering inventions generally experienced the longest waits, while applications in the biotech and organic chemistry fields moved relatively quickly. In particular, patent applications involving: Continue reading →

Leave a comment

Posted in Uncategorized

Supreme Court to address two intellectual property issues in fall 2016

Posted on May 11, 2016 | Leave a comment

The U.S. Supreme Court recently agreed to review two cases that involve important IP questions in the Court’s fall 2016 session. One case will consider whether to modify or do away with the long-standing defense of laches in patent infringement cases. The other case will address the extent to which apparel can be protected by copyright.

The doctrine of laches is a defense to patent infringement that protects accused infringers if (1) the patent holder unreasonably delayed in filing the infringement lawsuit, and (2) the accused infringer was materially prejudiced by the delay. If a patentee delays bringing suit for more than six years after the date the patentee knew or should have known of the alleged infringer’s activity, laches may be presumed. In SCA Hygiene Products Aktiebolag v. First Quality Baby Products, LLC, et al. (Fed. Cir. Sept. 18, 2015), the accused infringer argued that a 2014 Supreme Court decision that abolished laches as a defense in copyright cases should also apply to patent cases. The Federal Circuit disagreed and held that the defense of laches is still available in patent infringement cases. The Supreme Court will now resolve this dispute and determine whether the reasoning of its previous decision under copyright law equally applies to patents.

In the second case, the Court will address the extent to which copyright law covers apparel designs. In Varsity Brands Inc. v. Star Athletica, LLC (Sixth Cir. 2015), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit ruled that several copyright registrations on cheerleader uniform designs were valid. The designs included various stripes and chevrons, and the Sixth Circuit rejected an argument that those designs were functional and found that the designs were “’pictorial, graphic, or sculptural works’ and not uncopyrightable ‘useful articles.’” The Supreme Court will now address the question: “What is the appropriate test to determine when a feature of a useful article is protectable under § 101 of the Copyright Act?”

However, the Supreme Court also denied petitions in several other IP-related cases. Notably, so far the Court has denied at least seven petitions asking for clarity of the boundaries of patent-eligibility in view of the Court’s previous decisions in Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l and Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Laboratories, Inc..  Each of those decisions addressed the scope of Section 101 of the Patent Act, and each decision has resulted in confusion and inconsistency in lower court decisions and USPTO actions that have attempted to apply those decision.

 

Leave a comment

Posted in Copyrights, Litigation, Patents, Uncategorized

Tagged , , ,