The larger patent reform bill has run into a roadblock and now Congress is currently trying to pass smaller scale reform. One of these smaller scale bills, a bill that would have given the USPTO the ability to set its own fees, was temporarily withdrawn from the house today. Several notable IP groups, including AIPLA and the IPO, opposed the bill and instead are pressing for funding along with a provision to stop fees collected in the patent office from being diverted to other parts of the government. AIPLA president Alan J. Kasper, regarding this bill giving the PTO fee setting authority, contended:
"This year's funding represents an example of the problem: the House is considering legislation that would essentially raise the fees paid by users to the USPTO while significant monies will be diverted unless something is done. Given the importance of our intellectual property system as a key economic driver that attracts and protects investment in new technology, our country's innovators who pay the fees deserve no less. Furthermore, AIPLA supports a comprehensive approach to patent reform now working its way through the Congress, and not the piecemeal approach represented by this bill."
However, according to the IPO's website: "Judiciary leaders are understood to now be considering a more comprehensive USPTO funding bill that might include a 15 percent patent fee surcharge, a provision to stop fee diversion, and fee-setting authority."
The larger patent reform bill also has a similar provision allowing the PTO to set its own fees:
SEC. 9. FEE SETTING AUTHORITY.
(a) FEE SETTING.--
(1) IN GENERAL.--The Director shall have authority to set or adjust by rule any fee established or charged by the Office under sections 41 and 376 of title 35, United States Code, or under section 31 of the Trademark Act of 1946 (15 U.S.C. 1113), or any other fee established or charged by the Office under any other provision of law, notwithstanding the fee amounts established or charged thereunder, for the filing or processing of any submission to, and for all other services performed by or materials furnished by, the Office, provided that patent and trademark fee amounts are in the aggregate set to recover the estimated cost to the Office for processing, activities, services and materials relating to patents and trademarks, respectively, including proportionate shares of the administrative costs of the Office.
We will continue to monitor any changes in proposed patent law reform as they develop.
Leave a comment