Essay about United States Patent Office as a Government Corporation

Between 1790 and 1860, the Patent and Trademark Office of the federal government issued just 36,000 patents- licenses that give an inventor the exclusive rights to make, use or sell an invention for a set period of time

They have also attacked patent listings in the Food and Drug Administration “Orange Book” and have alleged monopolization through fraud on the Patent and Trademark Office and sham litigation. Yet other cases have condemned distribution agreements as unlawful exclusive dealing. These government actions have led to substantial private class action litigation against the pharmaceutical industry. The FTC has also challenged numerous mergers and acquisitions in the industry over the last decade. One common feature in all of these cases is the need to define a relevant market. In nonmerger cases, the FTC and private plaintiffsgenerally allege narrow markets, limited to a single drug and its generic equivalent in some cases and to generic drugs excluding the bioequivalent “brand-name” drug in other cases. In its merger challenges, on the other hand, the FTC has alleged markets ranging from those based upon a particular chemical compound, to broader markets based upon various drugs’ manner of interaction or dosage form, to still broader markets of all drugs used to treat a disease or condition. In numerous pharmaceutical merger challenges, the government has included in the market not only currently marketed drugs but also other drugs under development, alleging “innovation markets.”

Proponents of patent reform largely focus on the cost of patent infringement litigation to the U.S. economy and companies. While some argue that the type of patents issued should be limited in order to uphold the intent of Article I, Section 8, others claim that standards for issuing patents should be strengthened in order to reduce the number of costly patent infringement lawsuits. The cost of litigation and standards for issuing a patent is the focus of the proceeding text and justification for patent reform in the United States.

The Leahy-Smith America Invents Act, passed on September 16, 2011, was the most significant reform to the patent system in the United States since the Patent Act of 1952, which redefined the patentability of patent to include being nonobvious in addition to new and useful (1). The demanding need for patent reform had been discussed and debated frequently both within the literature focusing on patent trolls and consistently in Congress with the introduction of many patent reform acts that were never enacted: the Patent Reform Act of 2006 at the 109th Congress, the Patent Reform Act of 2007 at the 110th Congress, and the Patent Reform Act of 2009 at the 111th Congress (2-5). The enactment of the America Invents Act in 2011 after the failure of previous reform attempts signifies its importance in addressing the pressing issues of the United States patent system. The America Invents Acts specifically aimed to confront problems that were impeding innovation: the ever-increasing expense of the patent process, the exploitation of the patent system by patent trolls, and the unnecessary complexity and inefficiency of the patent process as a whole.

In the case of university patents, the problem was that of technology transfer, moving inventions and technology created in universities to the marketplace. The three phases involved in the construction of the institution of university patenting were the formation of a proto-institution by a skilled actor, the development and growth of a professional community, and finally the Bayh-Dole Act. The success of the institutionalization of university patenting was due to the social skill and resources utilized to elicit collective action.

Second, to ensure a maximum benefit to the public, drafters included a federal “March-in Right”. If a university “has not taken, or is not expected to take within a reasonable time, effective steps to achieve practical application of the subject invention[,]” the government may invoke its march-in right. Under this provision, agencies can require a university or exclusive licensee of a subject invention to license the subject invention to any responsible applicant.

In 1836, about the same time that de Tocqueville’s essays first appeared in print, the US Congress radically changed the patent process and also provided funding for a new Patent Office building. This magnificent structure became the symbol of American commitment to technological innovation. Among the provisions of the 1836 law was a requirement for patent models to be submitted with each application. The models became highly effective tools to communicate the originality and special features of various inventions. The number of patents issued by the office rose in dramatic and spectacular fashion. From 1790 to 1840 the office issued a total of 11,500 patents; in the years between 1840 and 1900, the number of approved patents swelled to more

Welcome to the USPTO and may your tenure be successful. A love/hate relationship will most likely occur between you and I while you are in office. Background work on you has revealed that you are a direct and forthright person and I am sure you will use the following information as it suits your nature. I have a successful track record of reporting wrong doing with the USPTO CIO office and unfortunately that is why I am writing today. Received many e-mails from the CIO staff to forward to you, mainly because they are afraid of retribution. The former CIO was basically depriving a village of an idiot somewhere, and much to chagrin of the business he selected some his cousin idiots to leadership positions, namely David Chiles,

While servings as the Deputy Director of Organizational Policy and Governance (OPG), within the office of the USPTO CIO. The USPTO is a regulatory agency that employs around 12 thousand personnel, in which 70% telework, and has a budget of around 3 billion annually. The Office of the CIO employs around 500 federal and 600 contract personnel. It has a budget of around 500 million annually with 300 million dedicated to software development. One of the duties of the directorate is the operational oversight of all USPTO systems and applications. This oversight is independent of the application development directorate and the infrastructure support directorate, to ensure a check and balance exist. When I first came on board in 2012, the major patent and trademark applications were experiencing serious issues with design reliability and operational issues at the infrastructure level. Concurrently during this timeframe, OPG had been assigned the task of holding business review meetings with leadership of Patents and Trademarks. These meetings were requested by the customers to facilitate concerns between the customer leadership and the CIO. It was clear after attending the meetings that the customers were very unhappy and the meetings always ended with customers being either unhappy about application development, or current operations of their business applications, typically the conversations centered around downtime or outages. In summation, the meetings were not always

Patent trolls, often referred to as Patent Holding Companies (PHC) in the media, are a defamation to the ideals that the United States patent office were meant to promote, that is protection for the innovators and inventors of America. Wikipedia defines patent trolls as “a person or company who enforces patent rights against accused infringers in an attempt to collect licensing fees, but does not manufacture products or supply services based upon the patents in question…”.1 ("Patent troll.") Not only do they undermine the ability of small companies or individuals to experience success and profitability through invention, they also hamper the progress of society, especially in fields of technology. PHCs are a devastating problem in the United States, not only in terms of their impact on global markets and progression, but also in terms of how many PHCs there are and how big they can become.

I'm writing today to ask you to put your full support behind the Innovation Act, also known as H.R. 9, and help stop patent trolls from damaging our economy. The number of frivolous lawsuits these individuals and their greedy attorneys file is unbelievable. Each year, they cost businesses around 80 billion dollars in settlements and legal fees. For some companies, particularly the smaller ones, these lawsuits can drive them out of business while others survive only by passing the cost on to consumers.

All this being said, I fully agree with your assertion, despite having more than enough reserves to fight common copy cat legal battles, Patents would be useless against the big boys who have 10s of millions of dollars at their disposal. Hence the reason our revenue platform was designed to offer both our software and quantitative services for free to all institutions. You questions are not only welcome they are very much appreciated. Keep them coming for they expose the fact we have left very little to chance.

Hello, Mr. Speaker and class; today, we will be discussing the banning of patents. Patents should be stopped, because of two main and very serious reasons that have come to my attention, and today, I will discuss them with you, and make you see the true threat that patent have to us. My first point will be about the economy, and how patents are just too expensive to maintain. My second point is that there may be too much responsibility to be able to keep the patent alive and going. Having patents may seem good at first, but once someone does it for real, they may have already ruined themselves. In fact, somebody can very well ruin themselves before they even finish signing their patents. How? Well, to sign a patent, someone will have to first pay a filing fee that’s from $250 -

The U.S. constitution gave Congress the power to “ promote the devellopment of the useful arts” by granting exclusive rights to inventers for a limited period of time. The purpose of a patent was to assurre the rights of the creators in exchange for not keeping these inventions secret, thus overall knowledge base grows.

Many industries count on sufficient enforcement of their IP, by means of trade secrets, trademarks, copyrights, and patents. According to the USPTO (2015) “In the United States patents are available to any person who invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof” (para.6). There are three types of patents