On October 5, 2012, the USPTO
implemented a modest fee increase. See here. The previous USPTO fee schedule
had been in effect since September 26, 2011.
The USPTO is also contemplating a more comprehensive fee adjustment
based on the AIA. The proposed (not final) fees were published
on September 6, 2012. See here. Of the contemplated fee
adjustments, the large entity fees for a utility patent application
are increasing by approximately 27%, while the large entity issue
fee is decreasing by approximately 46%. However, the three
maintenance fees are increasing by approximately 43%. These
further fee adjustments are expected to be implemented before the
first-to-file crossover date of March 16, 2013.
The following table compares some of the more relevant USPTO fees
for these three time periods: (1) from September 26, 2011 to
October 4, 2012; (2) from October 5, 2012 forward; and (3)
contemplated AIA fee adjustments.
USPTO Fees (Large
Entities)
USPTO Fee Schedule from
September 26, 2011 to October 4, 2012
USPTO Fee Schedule from October
5, 2012 forward
USPTO contemplated AIA fee
adjustments
Utility Application Fees (Basic,
Search, and Examination)
$1,250
$1260
$1,600
Excess Claims (more than 3 independent
/ 20 total)
$250 / $60
$250 / $62
$420 / $80
Extension of Time Fee (1st / 2nd / 3rd
month)
$150 / $560 / $1,270
$150 / $570 / $1,290
$200 / $600 / $1,400
RCE (1st / 2nd or more)
$930 / $930
$930 / $930
$1,200 / $1,700
Appeal
$1,240
$1,260
$3,000
Issue Fee
$1,740
$1,770
$960
Maintenance Fee
(3.5 / 7.5 / 11.5 years)
$1,130 / $2,850
/ $4,730
$1,150 / $2,900
/ $4,810
$1,600 / $3,600
/ $7,400
Of the fee increases being implemented on October 5, 2012, we
note that the basic filing fees are increasing from $1250 to $1260,
and that the issue fee is increasing from $1740 to $1770.
For this proposed fee adjustment (and based on the current fees),
we note that the basic filing fees are proposed to increase from
$1250 to $1600, and that the issue fee is proposed to decrease from
$1740 to $960.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general
guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought
about your specific circumstances.
Specific Questions relating to this article should be addressed directly to the author.
Publisher John Wiley & Sons and the American Institute of Physicists has claimed that lawyers and their Chicago-and Minneapolis-based law firms had wrongfully copied journal articles.
Startups and emerging growth companies should focus on building a patent monopoly around the most commercially important choke points of their inventions while making efficient use of their patent dollars and the precious time of their key innovators and technical experts.
Your company has just developed a new invention that it intends to unveil at your annual industry trade show. In advance of the show, your marketing department sends out a press release describing your new invention in detail and launches photos of your invention on your website.
In "Bayer Healthcare Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Watson Pharmaceuticals, Inc.", the Federal Circuit reversed the district court and held that Bayer’s patent covering its Yaz® birth control pill product is invalid as obvious.
On April 18, 2013, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York again held that YouTube is subject to the safe harbor provisions of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act as an internet service provider despite alleged general knowledge of extensive copyright infringement.
Twitter
Facebook
Digg 
