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 each of two essentially contemporaneous decisions, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit rejected the patentee’s contentions on appeal that claim differentiation supported a broader construction than found by the district court.
Addressing a lower court's reasonable royalty determination that chose not to rely on the Georgia Pacific factors, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit recently affirmed the district court's reasonable royalty determination without discussing the Georgia-Pacific factors at all.