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
USPTO Fee Schedule from
September 26, 2011 to October 4, 2012
USPTO Fee Schedule from October
5, 2012 forward
USPTO contemplated AIA fee
Utility Application Fees (Basic,
Search, and Examination)
Excess Claims (more than 3 independent
/ 20 total)
$250 / $60
$250 / $62
$420 / $80
Extension of Time Fee (1st / 2nd / 3rd
$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
(3.5 / 7.5 / 11.5 years)
$1,130 / $2,850
$1,150 / $2,900
$1,600 / $3,600
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.
To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.
Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.
In Wasica Finance GmbH v. Continental Automotive Systems, Inc., No. 15-2078 (Fed. Cir. 2017), the patentee Wasica Finance discovered, among other things, the importance of using consistent terminology in the patent specification and claims.
While under attack for several years now, the patent infringement defense of laches was dealt a serious, and likely final, blow by the recent Supreme Court case of SCA Hygiene Products AB et al. v. First Quality Baby Products LLC et al.
Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky and Popeo, P.C.
On April 6, 2017, the Federal Circuit reversed-in-part and affirmed-in-part the district court's judgment of infringement and summary judgment for non-infringement of The Medicines Company's ("MedCo") patents-in-suit.
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).