Source: https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2014/01/24/2014-01195/changes-to-require-identification-of-attributable-owner
Timestamp: 2015-03-30 04:24:14
Document Index: 194649147

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 1', '§ 1', '§ 1', '§ 1', '§ 1', '§ 1', '§ 1', '§ 1', '§ 1', '§ 1', '§ 1', '§ 1', '§ 1', '§ 1', '§ 1', '§ 1', '§ 1', '§ 1', '§ 1', '§ 1', '§ 1', '§ 1', '§ 1', '§ 1', '§ 1', '§ 1', '§ 1', '§ 1', '§ 1', '§ 1', '§ 1', '§ 1', '§ 1', '§ 1', '§ 1', '§ 1', '§ 1', '§ 1', '§ 1', '§ 1', '§ 1', '§ 1', '§ 1', '§ 1', '§ 1', '§ 1', '§ 1', '§ 1', '§ 1', '§ 1', '§ 1', '§ 42', '§ 42', '§ 1', '§ 42', '§ 1', '§ 1', '§ 42', '§ 1', '§ 1', '§ 1', '§ 1', '§ 1', '§ 1', '§ 1', '§ 1', '§ 1', '§ 1', '§ 1', '§ 1', '§ 1', '§ 1', '§ 1', '§ 1', '§ 1', '§ 1', '§ 1', '§ 1', '§ 1', '§ 1', '§ 1', '§ 1', '§ 1', '§ 1', '§ 1', '§ 1', '§ 1', '§ 1', '§ 1', '§ 1', '§ 1', '§ 1', '§ 1', '§ 1', '§ 1', '§ 1', '§ 1', '§ 1', '§ 1', '§ 1', '§ 1', '§ 1', '§ 1', '§ 42', '§ 1', '§ 1', '§ 1', '§ 1', '§ 1', '§ 1', '§ 1', '§ 1', '§ 1', '§ 1', '§ 1', '§ 1', '§ 1', '§ 1', '§ 1', '§ 1']

Federal Register | Changes To Require Identification of Attributable Owner
-4121 (17 pages)
Document Number: 2014-01195
Shorter URL: https://federalregister.gov/a/2014-01195 Related Topics
Changes to Require Identification of Attributable Owner 4 actions from January 24th, 2014 to February 2015
Identification of Attributable Owner in PatentsInvolved in Proceedings Before the Office
As with other procedural requirements of the Office, this proposal provides an applicant or patent owner with a means to correct omissions and errors in the attributable owner information that has been reported. The notice also proposes to excuse good faith failures to notify the Office of the attributable owner or to provide correct or complete attributable owner information.
Background: On June 4, 2013, the White House Task Force on High-Tech Patent Issues published a paper detailing five executive actions and seven legislative recommendations “to protect innovators from frivolous litigation and ensure the highest-quality patents in our system.”Fact Sheet: White House Task Force on High-Tech Patent Issues, Legislative Priorities & Executive Actions. The first of the five executive actions calls for the Office to “begin a rulemaking process to require patent applicants and owners to regularly update ownership information when they are involved in proceedings before the [Office], specifically designating the `ultimate parent entity' in control of the patent or application.”Id.
Before the White House initiatives were announced on June 4, 2013, the Office had begun the process of considering whether and how to collect assignment or real-party-in-interest information (referred to herein as the “attributable owner”) with a request for comments in 2011 and a roundtable held at the Office in January 2013. Request for Comments on Eliciting More Complete Patent Assignment Information, 76 FR 72372 (Nov. 23, 2011) (2011 Request for Comments); Notice of Roundtable on Proposed Requirements for Recordation of Real Party-in-Interest Information Throughout Application Pendency and Patent Term, 77 FR 70385 (Nov. 26, 2012) (2012 Roundtable Notice). The 2012 Roundtable Notice reiterated that the Office was considering promulgating regulations that would require reporting of real-party-in-interest information during the application process and at certain times post-issuance and invited further public input. The Roundtable, which was open to any member of the public, was held on Friday, January 11, 2013. Details on the comments received from organizations and individuals can be found at http://www.uspto.gov/ip/officechiefecon/roundtable_01-11-2013.jsp.
As set forth in the Roundtable Notice, having accurate and up-to-date attributable owner information will facilitate patent examination and other parts of the Office's internal processes. As courts have previously recognized, the Office has the authority to promulgate regulations that “shall govern the conduct of proceedings in the Office.”Star Fruits S.N.C. v. U.S., 393 F.3d 1277, 1282 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (quoting 35 U.S.C. 2(b)(2)); see also
Cooper Techs. Co. v. Dudas, 536 F.3d 1330, 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (“To comply with section 2(b)(2)(A), a Patent Office rule must be `procedural'—i.e., it must `govern the conduct of proceedings in the Office.' ”). Pursuant to this authority, the Office may require the submission of information that is reasonably necessary to proper examination or treatment of the matter at hand, provided that such requests are not arbitrary or capricious. See Star Fruits, 393 F.3d at 1283-84.
In addition, it is important for the Office to know the attributable owner of each application or each patent involved in a proceeding before the Office in order to avoid potential conflicts of interest for Office personnel. This problem has been identified during the adoption of regulations for the PTAB. For example, “in the case of the Board, a conflict would typically arise when an official has an investment in a company with a direct interest in a Board proceeding. Such conflicts can only be avoided if the parties promptly provide information necessary to identify potential conflicts.”Rules of Practice for Trials Before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board and Judicial Review of Patent Trial and Appeal Board Decisions, 77 FR 48612, 48617 (Aug. 14, 2012). Like administrative patent judges at the PTAB, “[p]atent examiners are quasi-judicial officials.”Western Elec. Co., Inc. v. Piezo Tech., Inc., 860 F.2d 428, 431 (Fed. Cir. 1988) (citing Butterworth v. United States ex rel. Hoe, 112 U.S. 50, 67 (1884)). Office employees are also subject to executive branch regulations that govern conflicts of interest in certain cases where employees have threshold financial interests in matters before them. See 5 CFR 2640.202(a); see also 18 U.S.C. 208. Accordingly, a clear identification of the attributable owner is important to ensure that officials are able to recuse themselves.
There are recent trends towards greater liquidity in the markets for patent-related intellectual property. See, e.g.,
U.S. Dept. of Justice & Fed. Trade Comm'n, The Evolving IP Marketplace: Aligning Patent Notice and Remedies with Competition, at 37-39 (2011) (“FTC Report”) (discussing the increasing importance of technology transfer from small, specialized firms to manufacturing firms and from large companies to spin-offs). Thus, the Office has a corresponding need for more regular ownership reporting and updating requirements for the Office's internal function. In particular, having such accurate and up-to-date attributable owner information will help the Office determine whether current representatives in any proceeding before the Office are authorized by the current applicant or owner. Likewise, having such attributable owner information will facilitate the Office's efforts to ensure that applicable conflict-of-interest provisions for Office personnel are followed.
Beyond providing these benefits to the Office, collecting attributable owner information and making it publicly available may have other potential benefits. In particular, collecting attributable owner information and making it publicly available may: (1) Enhance competition and increase incentives to innovate by providing innovators with information that will allow them to better understand the competitive environment in which they operate; (2) enhance technology transfer and reduce the costs of transactions for patent rights since patent ownership information will be more readily and easily accessible; (3) reduce risk of abusive patent litigation by helping the public defend itself against such abusive assertions by providing more information about all the parties that have an interest in patent or patent applications; and (4) level the playing field for innovators.
With regard to reducing abusive patent litigation, developing a record of attributable owners will help accused patent infringers identify: (i) The parties who control and/or influence the ability to enter into a settlement agreement or licensing arrangement; and (ii) the full range of patent rights held by the attributable owners so that a license to all desired rights may be taken at once. This point is also reflected in the White House's Fact Sheet: White House Task Force on High-Tech Patent Issues, Legislative Priorities & Executive Actions (June 4, 2013), which notes that certain patent enforcement entities “set up shell companies to hide their activities” and this “tactic prevents those facing litigation from knowing the full extent of the patents that their adversaries hold.” Accord, United States Government Accountability Office, Intellectual Property: Assessing Factors That Affect Patent Infringement Litigation Could Help Improve Patent Quality, available at http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-13-465 (2013) (reporting that patent holders sometimes “intentionally hide the existence of their patents until a sector or company are using the patented invention without authorization and can be sued for infringement,” and in some lawsuits, “the identity of interested operating companies is intentionally hidden.” (pp. 20, 31)). Furthermore, providing the public with access to updated attributable owner information may help accused infringers determine whether a patent or application may be subject to fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory (FRAND) licensing commitments.
Request for Comments on the Voluntary Submission of Licensing Information: The Office is also seeking public comment on enabling patent applicants and owners to voluntarily report licensing offers and related information for the Office to make available to the public. The Office currently permits patent owners to request that their patents be listed in the Official Gazette as available for license or sale, upon payment of the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.21(i). See MPEP 1703. For examples of such listings, see (http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/com/sol/og/2012/week02/TOC.htm#ref18) (Jan. 10, 2012) and (http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/com/sol/og/patlics.htm) (Dec. 11, 2007). The Office seeks public comment on whether the Office should also, or alternatively, permit patent applicants and owners to voluntarily provide information about licensing for the Office to make available to the public in, for example, a searchable online database or Public PAIR. Such licensing information could include willingness to license, as well as licensing contacts, license offer terms, or commitments to license the patent, e.g., on royalty-free or reasonable and non-discriminatory terms. In accordance with best practices in technology transfer, this information could also include permitting a patent applicant or owner to include keywords, technical fields, and/or descriptive information about the underlying technology, related technical papers and publications, and desired attributes in a technology partner (see, e.g. http://www.federallabs.org/).
The Office believes that the implementation of such a voluntary program would further enhance the transparency and efficiency of the marketplace for patent rights by providing a clearinghouse for patent holders to post licensing terms. Such a system would be expected to further enhance technology transfer and reduce the costs of transactions for patent rights. The World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) has offered a similar option to report licensing terms and information to PCT applicants since January 2012, in order to promote voluntary licensing. In November 2013, it introduced the WIPO GREEN online marketplace, to promote innovation and diffusion of green technologies. (https://webaccess.wipo.int/green/).
In many cases, these types of ownership interests may be coextensive. Specifically, the titleholder (or assignee) is often the same entity that has the right to enforce the patent, and is not controlled by any other entity (and so would not have to separately report an ultimate parent entity). Most additional reporting will need to be done by companies that have complicated corporate structures and licenses, which often include the complex structures used by certain patent assertion entities (“PAEs”) to hide their true identities from the public. Some of this additional reporting may include exclusive licensees. Although exclusive licensees are sometimes confidential now, they would only need to be disclosed where their rights are so substantial that they have enforcement rights in the patent. In such circumstances, the public has a strong interest in knowing their identities in order to have an accurate picture of the competitive patent landscape, to allocate their research and development efforts appropriately, and to take licenses or purchase patents proactively and efficiently from the correct entities, as dictated by business needs.
1. Titleholders: The first type of attributable owner information the Office proposes to collect is comprised of the titleholder(s) of the patent application or issued patent. Titleholders are defined as an entity that has been assigned title to the patent or application. This proposed requirement overlaps with the information that applicant and patent owners currently may voluntarily submit for assignment recordation at the Office. Reporting of exclusive licensees might be required in the limited circumstances where the exclusive license transfers so many rights that it is effectively an assignment, but the Office expects that exclusive licensee information would more routinely be reported under the second type of ownership information the Office proposes to collect (entities that have standing to enforce). See, e.g.,
Alfred C. Mann Found. v. Cochlear Corp., 604 F.3d 1354, 1360-61 (Fed. Cir. 2010).
After Patent Issuance: The Office proposes the following attributable owner reporting requirements for issued patents: (1) Maintenance Fee Requirement: The patent owner would be required to identify the attributable owner (or verify that the attributable owner information currently on record at the Office is correct) at the time each maintenance fee is paid; and (2) Post-Issuance Proceeding Requirement: The patent owner would be required to identify the attributable owner (or verify that the attributable owner information currently on record at the Office is correct) at the time the patent becomes involved in certain post-issuance proceedings before the Office, including (1) any trial proceeding before the PTAB, such as any post grant review under 35 U.S.C. 321, inter partes review under 35 U.S.C. 311, covered business method patent review under section 18 of the AIA, or derivation proceeding under 35 U.S.C 135; (2) any request for supplemental examination under 35 U.S.C. 257(a); and (3) any ex parte reexamination proceeding under 35 U.S.C. 302.
Section 1.17: Section 1.17(g) is proposed to be amended to include a reference to proposed §§ 1.279 and 1.387. Sections 1.279 and 1.387 as proposed provide for a petition and the petition fee set forth in § 1.17(g) if the applicant or patent owner has failed to notify the Office of a change to the attributable owner, or has indicated an incorrect or an incomplete attributable owner, despite a good faith effort to comply with these requirements.
Section 1.271: Section 1.271 as proposed defines the entity or entities that are covered by the term “attributable owner” as that term is used in the rules of practice. Section 1.271(a) as proposed specifically provides that the attributable owner includes each of the following entities: (1) An entity that, exclusively or jointly, has been assigned title to the patent or application (proposed § 1.271(a)(1)); and (2) an entity necessary to be joined in a lawsuit in order to have standing to enforce the patent or any patent resulting from the application (proposed § 1.271(a)(2)).
Section 1.271(b) as proposed provides that the attributable owner of a patent or application includes the ultimate parent entity as defined in 16 CFR 801.1(a)(3) of an entity described in § 1.271(a). The ultimate parent entity is an entity which is not controlled by any other entity. 16 CFR 801.1(a) provides the following illustrative examples for identifying the ultimate parent entity: “(1) If corporation A holds one hundred percent of the stock of subsidiary B, and B holds seventy-five percent of the stock of its subsidiary C, corporation A is the ultimate parent entity, since it controls subsidiary B directly and subsidiary C indirectly, and since it is the entity within the person which is not controlled by any other entity; (2) if corporation A is controlled by natural person D, natural person D is the ultimate parent entity; and (3) if P and Q are the ultimate parent entities within persons `P' and `Q,' and P and Q each own fifty percent of the voting securities of R, then P and Q are both ultimate parents of R, and R is part of both persons `P' and `Q.' ”
Section 1.271(c) as proposed provides that any entity that, directly or indirectly, creates or uses a trust, proxy, power of attorney, pooling arrangement, or any other contract, arrangement, or device with the purpose or effect of temporarily divesting such entity of attributable ownership of a patent or application, or preventing the vesting of such attributable ownership of a patent or application, shall also be deemed for the purpose of § 1.271 to be an attributable owner of such patent or application.
Section 1.271(d) as proposed defines the term “entity” used in § 1.271. Section 1.271(d) as proposed specifically provides that the term “entity” used in § 1.271 includes: (1) Any natural person, corporation, company, partnership, joint venture, association, joint-stock company, trust, estate of a deceased natural person, foundation, fund, or institution, whether incorporated or not, wherever located and of whatever citizenship (proposed § 1.271(d)(1)); (2) any receiver, trustee in bankruptcy or similar official or any liquidating agent for any of the entities described in § 1.271(d)(1), in his or her capacity as such (proposed § 1.271(d)(2)); (3) a joint venture or other corporation which has not been formed but the acquisition of the voting securities or other interest in which, if already formed, would be an attributable owner as described in this section (proposed § 1.271(d)(3)); or (4) any other organization or corporate form not specifically listed in § 1.271(d)(1), (d)(2), or (d)(3) that holds an interest in an application or patent (proposed § 1.271(d)(4)). Section 1.271(d) as proposed (in combination with the exception in proposed § 1.271(e)) tracks the definition of entity in 16 CFR 801.1(a)(2).
Section 1.271(e) as proposed provides an “exception” to the term “entity” as used in § 1.271. Section 1.271(e) as proposed specifically provides that, notwithstanding the provisions of § 1.271(c), the term “entity” does not include any foreign state, foreign government, or agency thereof (other than a corporation or unincorporated entity engaged in commerce), and also does not include the United States, any of the States thereof, or any political subdivision or agency of either (other than a corporation or unincorporated entity engaged in commerce).
Section 1.271(f) as proposed sets out the information concerning an entity that must be provided when that entity is being identified as an attributable owner. Section 1.271(f) as proposed specifically provides that when there is a requirement to identify the attributable owner, each entity constituting the attributable owner must be identified as follows: (1) The identification of a public company must include the name of the company, stock symbol, and stock exchange where the company is listed (proposed § 1.271(f)(1)); (2) the identification of a non-public company must include the name of the company, place of incorporation, and address of the principal place of business (proposed § 1.271(f)(2)); (3) the identification of a partnership must include the name of the partnership and address of the principal place of business (proposed § 1.271(f)(3)); (4) the identification of a natural person must include the full legal name, residence, and a correspondence address (proposed § 1.271(f)(4)); and (5) the identification of any other type of entity must include its name, if organized under the laws of a state, the name of that state and legal form of organization, and address of the principal place of business (proposed § 1.271(f)(5)).
Section 1.271(g) is proposed to clarify that a shareholder or partner in a corporate form, partnership, or other association (except for shareholders of a public company) must also be identified as an attributable owner if the shareholder or partner meets one of the definitions set forth in § 1.271(a), (b), or (c), even if the a corporate form, partnership, or other association is separately identified as an attributable owner.
Section 1.273: Section 1.273 as proposed requires the applicant to identify the attributable owner (the “initial” attributable owner) on filing or within the time period provided in § 1.53(f) (provides for the completion of an application under 35 U.S.C. 111(a) for examination) or § 1.495(c) (provides for the submission of missing requirements in an international application that commenced the national stage under 35 U.S.C. 371). Section 1.273 as proposed specifically provides that the attributable owner must be identified in each application under 35 U.S.C. 111(a), including a reissue application, and in each international application that commenced the national stage under 35 U.S.C. 371(b) or (f). The requirements of proposed § 1.273 would not apply to provisional applications under 35 U.S.C. 111(b), and would not apply to international applications prior to the commencement of the national stage under 35 U.S.C. 371(b) or (f). Section 1.273 as proposed also provides that if an application under 35 U.S.C. 111(a) which has been accorded a filing date pursuant to § 1.53(b) or (d) does not identify the attributable owner, or if an international application which complies with § 1.495(b) does not identify the attributable owner, the applicant will be notified and given a period of time within which to file a notice identifying the attributable owner to avoid abandonment. Section 1.273 as proposed also provides that the notice by the Office under § 1.273 may be combined with a notice under § 1.53(f) (providing for the completion of an application under 35 U.S.C. 111(a) for examination) or § 1.495(c) (providing for the filing of missing requirements in an international application that commenced the national stage under 35 U.S.C. 371). Thus, the applicant must identify the attributable owner on filing or in reply to a notice setting a time period within which the attributable owner must be identified. The Office generally issues a notice under § 1.53(f) (if necessary) within one to two months of the filing date of an application and sets a two-month time period for an applicant to comply with the requirements in the notice under § 1.53(f). The two-month time period for an applicant to comply with the requirements in the notice under § 1.53(f) may be extended under § 1.136(a) by up to five months. Thus, this process would permit an applicant up to eight months from the filing date of an application to provide the attributable ownership information. The failure to identify the attributable owner within the time period set under § 1.273 would result in abandonment of the application. An applicant would be able to revive an application abandoned for failure to identify the attributable owner within the time period set under § 1.273 under the provisions of § 1.137, provided that the failure to identify the attributable owner was unintentional.
Section 1.275: Section 1.275 as proposed addresses the procedure to be followed if there is a change in attributable owner during the pendency of an application under 35 U.S.C. 111(a) or the pendency of an international application which complies with § 1.495(b). The requirements of proposed § 1.275 would not apply to provisional applications under 35 U.S.C. 111(b), and would not apply to international applications prior to the commencement of the national stage under 35 U.S.C. 371(b) or (f). Section 1.275 as proposed specifically provides that if there is such a change during the pendency of an application, the applicant has three months (non-extendable) from the date of the change to the attributable owner within which to file a notice identifying the current attributable owner.
Section 1.277: Section 1.277 as proposed requires applicants to confirm that attributable owner information on record at the Office is accurate, or to provide updated information. Section 1.277 as proposed specifically provides if a notice of allowance under § 1.311 has been sent to the applicant, and if the attributable owner information on record at the Office is no longer correct, that the applicant must file a notice identifying the current attributable owner within three months (non-extendable) from the date of the mailing of the notice of allowance. If the attributable owner information on record at the Office is still correct, applicants can simply confirm that there have been no changes. To this end, the Office plans to provide a checkbox on the notice of allowance (PTOL-85b) (or checkbox via the electronic filing system) so that if the information on record at the Office remains correct, an applicant may simply check a box to so indicate. The failure to either update or confirm within three months (non-extendable) from the date of mailing of the notice of allowance would result in abandonment of the application. An applicant would be able to revive an application abandoned for failure to complete this action under the provisions of § 1.137, provided that the failure was unintentional.
Section 1.279: Section 1.279 as proposed provides for the situation in which the applicant has failed to notify the Office of a change to the attributable owner, or has indicated an incorrect or an incomplete attributable owner, despite a good faith effort to comply with these requirements. Section 1.279 as proposed specifically provides that if, despite a good faith effort by the applicant to notify the Office of the initial attributable owner, and of any changes to the attributable owner, in the manner required by §§ 1.273, 1.275, and 1.277, the failure or error may be excused in a pending application on petition accompanied by a showing of reason for the delay, error, or incompleteness and the petition fee set forth in § 1.17(g).
Section 1.279 as proposed is limited to excusing failure or errors in a pending application. Where there has been a failure to identify the attributable owner within the time period set under § 1.273, or after mailing the notice of allowance, a failure either to confirm that the information on file at the Office is correct, or to identify the current attributable owner within three months (non-extendable) from the date of mailing under § 1.277, that has resulted in abandonment of an application, the applicant's remedy (if the failure was unintentional) is by way of a petition to revive the abandoned application under the provisions of § 1.137.
Section 1.381: Section 1.381 as proposed provides for a patent holder to either: (1) Identify the current attributable owner prior to each maintenance fee payment; or (2) confirm prior to each maintenance fee payment that there has been no change to the attributable owner information most recently provided to the Office. Section 1.381 as proposed specifically provides that a notice identifying the current attributable owner must be filed within the period specified in § 1.362(d) or (e), but prior to the date the maintenance fee is paid, for each maintenance fee. Section 1.381 as proposed does not require that the notice be provided concurrently with the maintenance fee payment as the Office appreciates that maintenance fee payments are often provided as bulk payments in an automated fashion by a third party. Rather, § 1.381 as proposed provides a considerable “window” (within the six-month payment window in § 1.362(d) or the six-month surcharge window in § 1.362(e), but prior to the date the maintenance fee is paid) within which a notice identifying the current attributable owner must be provided. The Office welcomes comments on how to collect attributable owner information at the time of each maintenance fee, particularly in light of this practice of maintenance fee submission in bulk by third parties.
Section 1.383: Section 1.383 as proposed requires the patent holder to identify the current attributable owner for any patents involved in a PTAB trial proceeding. Section 1.383 as proposed specifically provides that the mandatory notice filed by a patent owner as required by § 42.8(a)(2) must also be accompanied by a notice identifying the current attributable owner. Section 42.8 requires that the petitioner and the patent owner each file a notice identifying (inter alia) each real party in interest owner for the party. See§ 42.8(b)(1). Proposed § 1.383 differs from the current requirement in § 42.8 to identify each real party in interest in that proposed § 1.383: (1) Requires identification of each attributable owner (defined in § 1.271), rather than real party in interest; and (2) applies only to a patent owner. Section 1.383 as proposed further provides that if there is a change to the attributable owner during the pendency of the trial, the patent owner has twenty-one days (non-extendable) from the date of the change within which to file a notice identifying the current attributable owner. Section 1.383 provides a twenty-one-day period, rather than a three-month period, for updating any changes in attributable owners for a patent involved in a PTAB proceeding because § 42.8 requires that a notice must be filed with the Board within twenty-one days of a change in the information that is required to be in the mandatory notice. See 42.8(a)(3).
Section 1.385(a) as proposed pertains to supplemental examination. Section 1.385(a) as proposed provides that a request for supplemental examination under § 1.610 must also be accompanied by a notice identifying the current attributable owner. Thus, a request for supplemental examination would not be accorded a filing date unless it is accompanied by a notice identifying the current attributable owner. A request for supplemental examination may be filed only by the patent owner and a supplemental examination proceeding will not last longer than three months (35 U.S.C. 257(a)). Therefore, there are no provisions for a request for supplemental examination by a party other than the patent owner or for a change to the attributable owner during a supplemental examination.
Section 1.385(b) as proposed pertains to a request for ex parte reexamination by the patent holder. Section 1.385(b) as proposed specifically provides that a request for ex parte reexamination under § 1.510 by the patent holder must also be accompanied by a notice identifying the current attributable owner. Thus, a request for ex parte reexamination by the patent owner would not be accorded a filing date unless it is accompanied by a notice identifying the current attributable owner.
Section 1.387: Section 1.387 as proposed addresses the situation in which the patent holder has failed to notify the Office of a change to the attributable owner, or has indicated an incorrect or an incomplete attributable owner, despite a good faith effort to comply with these requirements. Section 1.387 as proposed specifically provides that if, despite a good faith effort by the patent holder to notify the Office of the initial attributable owner, and of any changes to the attributable owner, in the manner required by §§ 1.273, 1.275, 1.277, 1.381, 1.383, and 1.385, the failure or error may be excused on petition accompanied by a showing of reason for the delay, error, or incompleteness and the petition fee set forth in § 1.17(g). Thus, proposed § 1.387 would be the applicable provision for corrections in an issued patent, regardless of whether the failure or error occurred during the application process (i.e., there was a failure to comply with §§ 1.273, 1.275, or 1.277) or after the patent issued (i.e., there was a failure to comply with §§ 1.381, 1.383, and 1.385).
The legal basis for the proposed rules is 35 U.S.C. 2(b)(2), which authorizes the Office to establish regulations, not inconsistent with law, which “govern the conduct of proceedings in the Office.” 35 U.S.C. 2(a)(2)(A); see also Star Fruits S.N.C., 393 F.3d at 1282 (quoting 35 U.S.C. 2(b)(2)), and Cooper Techs., 536 F.3d at 1335 (“To comply with section 2(b)(2)(A), a Patent Office rule must be `procedural'—i.e., it must `govern the conduct of proceedings in the Office.’ ”). Pursuant to this authority, the Office may require the submission of attributable owner information that is reasonably necessary to proper examination or treatment of the matter at hand, provided that such requests are not arbitrary or capricious. See Star Fruits, 393 F.3d at 1283-84.
Further legal basis for the proposed rule comes from 35 U.S.C. 2(a). Because the Office publishes information it possesses related to an application or patent (subject to 35 U.S.C. 122), the Office has an interest in ensuring that such information is not misleading. The Office currently receives (and publishes) only assignment information that is voluntarily submitted by the applicant or patent owner. There is currently no requirement that changes in assignment information be updated, though current law protects against certain types of fraud if such updating occurs. See 35 U.S.C. 261. Consequently, the information the Office has on file may be outdated, which may be misleading to the public. Ensuring that the Office can provide information to the public that is not misleading is consistent with several statutory provisions directing the Office to disseminate information to the public as well as those directing the Office to provide access to information through electronic means. See 35 U.S.C. 2(a)(2) (creating a duty of “disseminating to the public information with respect to patents”); 10(a)(4) (providing for publication of information, including “annual indexes of . . . patentees”); 10(b) (allowing the Director to publish the specified information set forth in item (4) of subsection 35 U.S.C. 10(a) of this section in a publication format “desirable for the use of the Office”) and 41(i) (creating a duty to provide access to information electronically).
Based upon the information in the Office's Revenue Accounting Management (RAM) system, the Office received the following fee payments in fiscal year 2013: (1) 296,481 issue fee payments (68,574 by small or micro entity applicants); (2) 153,875 first stage maintenance fee payments (27,076 by small or micro entity patent owners); (3) 99,249 second stage maintenance fee payments (16,692 by small or micro entity patent owners); and (4) 75,470 third stage maintenance fee payments (11,273 by small or micro entity patent owners). Thus, the Office estimates that 297,000 (266,481 rounded up to the nearest thousand) patent applicants, of which 69,000 (68,574 rounded up to the nearest thousand) are small or micro entities, will need to update attributable owner information each year due to the requirement to identify the attributable owner (or verify that the current attributable owner has been previously identified) at the time of issue fee payment, and the Office estimates that 329,000 (153,875 plus 99,249 plus 75,470, rounded up to the nearest thousand), of which 55,000 (27,076 plus 16,692 plus 11,273, rounded up to the nearest thousand) are small or micro entities, will need to update attributable owner information each year due to the requirement to identify the attributable owner (or verify that the attributable owner information currently on record at the Office is correct) at the time each maintenance fee is paid.
A patent attorney or general practice attorney would have the type of professional skills necessary for providing the attributable owner information required by the proposed rules. As discussed previously, the Office issued a request for comments in November of 2011 (Request for Comments on Eliciting More Complete Patent Assignment Information, 76 FR at 72372 et seq.) and issued a notice of a roundtable and request for comments in November of 2012 (Notice of Roundtable on Proposed Requirements for Recordation of Real Party-in-Interest Information Throughout Application Pendency and Patent Term, 77 FR at 70385 et seq.). The Office received input at this roundtable, including the suggestion that providing the attributable owner information might have a transaction cost of $100, depending upon the inclusiveness of the definition of attributable owner (which was discussed under the rubric of “real party in interest” at the roundtable). It was also suggested that the transaction could be less costly, and less frequently incurred, because reporting would occur at times applicants were already working with the application and would require ownership information that was readily known and could be easily reported. As described further below, given the Office's records concerning assignment recordation and feedback at the roundtable, the Office estimates that in many instances, reporting ownership information in compliance with this proposed rule will have negligible costs. Applicants or patentees will often be reporting information readily known (e.g., that the patent is owned by the inventor, or that the patent is owned by the employer of the inventor to whom it has been assigned) and in many instances will be providing this information at a time they are otherwise interacting with the Office (e.g., upon application, upon issue, during a post-grant proceeding). This seems likely to have a minimal cost, and to require minimal time to report. Given the Office's records suggesting that many applications do not have more than one recorded assignment, in many instances applicants or patentees will likely be merely confirming the ownership information is unchanged, which should have a negligible cost.
Other countries, however, have their own patent laws, and an entity desiring a patent in a particular country must make an application for patent in that country, in accordance with the applicable law. Although the potential for overlap exists internationally, this cannot be avoided except by treaty (such as the Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property, the Patent Law Treaty (PLT), or the Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT)). Nevertheless, the Office believes that there are no other duplicative or overlapping rules.
The collection of information that would be triggered by these proposed requirements has been submitted to OMB under OMB control number 0651-00xx. The proposed collection, containing the basis for the following summary of the estimated annual reporting burdens, will be available at OMB's Information Collection Review Web site: www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain. The title, description and respondent description of this information collection, with an estimate of the annual reporting burdens, follows:
Needs and Uses: This information collection is necessary in order to provide the Office and the public with up-to-date information concerning the attributable owner of a patent or patent application. The Office will use the information collected to facilitate patent examination and other parts of the Office's internal processes by helping to: (1) Ensure that a “power of attorney” is current in each application or proceeding before the Office; (2) avoid potential conflicts of interest for Office personnel; (3) determine the scope of prior art under the common ownership exception under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) and uncover instances of double patenting; (4) verify that the party making a request for a post-issuance proceeding is a proper party for the proceeding; and (5) ensure that the information the Office provides to the public concerning published applications and issued patents is accurate and not misleading.
Estimated Total Annual (Hour) Respondent Cost Burden:$43,494,090 per year (111,810 hours times the $389/hour attorney rate suggested by the AIPLA 2013 Economic Survey).
35 U.S.C. 2(b)(2).
2.Section 1.17 is amended by revising paragraph (g) to read as follows: § 1.17 Patent application and reexamination processing fees.
§ 1.46—for filing an application on behalf of an inventor by a person who otherwise shows sufficient proprietary interest in the matter.
§ 1.55(f)—for filing a belated certified copy of a foreign application.
§ 1.279—for correction of attributable owner in a pending application.
§ 1.387—for correction of attributable owner in a patent.
3.New undesignated center headings and new §§ 1.271, 1.273, 1.275, 1.277, and 1.279 are added immediately after § 1.251 to read as follows: Attributable Owner Back to Top
Identification of Attributable Owner in Pending Applications Back to Top
§ 1.273 Initial identification of attributable owner in an application.
The attributable owner as defined in § 1.271 must be identified in each application under 35 U.S.C. 111(a), including a reissue application, and in each international application that commenced the national stage under 35 U.S.C. 371(b) or (f). If an application under 35 U.S.C. 111(a) which has been accorded a filing date pursuant to §§ 1.53(b) or (d) does not identify the attributable owner as defined in § 1.271, or if an international application which complies with § 1.495(b) does not identify the attributable owner as defined in § 1.271, the applicant will be notified and given a period of time within which to file a notice identifying the attributable owner as defined in § 1.271 to avoid abandonment. The notice by the Office under this section may be combined with a notice under § 1.53(f) or § 1.495(c).
§ 1.275 Maintaining current attributable owner during prosecution of an application.
If there is a change to the attributable owner as defined in § 1.271 during the pendency of an application under 35 U.S.C. 111(a) or the pendency of an international application which complies with § 1.495(b), the applicant has three months from the date of the change to the attributable owner within which to file a notice identifying the current attributable owner as defined in § 1.271. This three-month period is not extendable.
§ 1.277 Identifying current attributable owner at allowance.
If a notice of allowance under § 1.311 has been sent to the applicant, the applicant must file a notice identifying the current attributable owner as defined in § 1.271 within three months from the date of mailing of the notice of allowance to avoid abandonment of the application. This three-month period is not extendable. If there has been no change to the attributable owner as defined in § 1.271 that was most recently provided to the Office, the notice may simply indicate that there has been no change to the attributable owner as defined in § 1.271 most recently provided to the Office.
§ 1.279 Correction of failure to notify the Office of a change to the attributable owner and errors in notice of attributable owner in a pending application.
If, despite a good faith effort by the applicant to notify the Office of the initial attributable owner as defined in § 1.271, and of any changes to the attributable owner as defined in § 1.271, in the manner required by §§ 1.273, 1.275, and 1.277, the applicant has failed to notify the Office of a change to the attributable owner or has indicated an incorrect or an incomplete attributable owner, the failure or error may be excused in a pending application on petition accompanied by a showing of reason for the delay, error, or incompleteness, and the petition fee set forth in § 1.17(g).
4.A new undesignated center heading and new §§ 1.381, 1.383, 1.385, and 1.387 are added immediately after § 1.378 to read as follows: Identification of Attributable Owner in PatentsInvolved in Proceedings Before the Office Back to Top
§ 1.381 Identifying current attributable owner with maintenance fee payment.
A notice identifying the current attributable owner as defined in § 1.271 must be filed within the period specified in § 1.362(d) or (e), but prior to the date the maintenance fee is paid, for each maintenance fee payment. If there has been no change to the attributable owner as defined in § 1.271 most recently provided to the Office, the notice may simply indicate that there has been no change to the attributable owner as defined in § 1.271 that was most recently provided to the Office.
§ 1.383 Identifying attributable owner in patents involved in Patent Trial and Appeal Board Trial Proceedings.
The mandatory notice filed by a patent owner as required by § 42.8(a)(2) of this chapter must also be accompanied by a notice identifying the current attributable owner as defined in § 1.271. If there is a change to the attributable owner as defined in § 1.271 during the pendency of the trial proceeding, the patent owner has twenty-one days from the date of the change to the attributable owner within which to file a notice identifying the current attributable owner as defined in § 1.271. This twenty-one-day period is not extendable.
§ 1.385 Identifying attributable owner in patents involved in supplemental examination and reexamination proceedings.
(a) A request for supplemental examination under § 1.610 must also be accompanied by a notice identifying the current attributable owner as defined in § 1.271.
(b) A request for ex parte reexamination under § 1.510 by the patent owner must also be accompanied by a notice identifying the current attributable owner as defined in § 1.271.
(c) A reply or any other paper filed by the patent owner in an ex parte reexamination proceeding must be accompanied by a notice identifying the current attributable owner as defined in § 1.271, unless such a notice has previously been filed by the patent owner. If there is a change to the attributable owner as defined in § 1.271 during the pendency of the reexamination proceeding, the patent owner has three months from the date of the change to the attributable owner within which to file a notice identifying the current attributable owner as defined in § 1.271. This three-month period is not extendable.
§ 1.387 Correction of failure to notify the Office of a change to the attributable owner and errors in notice of attributable owner in a patent.
If, despite a good faith effort by the patent owner to notify the Office of the initial attributable owner as defined in § 1.271, and of any changes to the attributable owner as defined in § 1.271, in the manner required by §§ 1.273, 1.275, 1.277, 1.381, 1.383, and 1.385, the patent owner has failed to notify the Office of a change to the attributable owner or has indicated an incorrect or an incomplete attributable owner, the failure or error may be excused on petition accompanied by a showing of reason for the delay, error, or incompleteness, and the petition fee set forth in § 1.17(g).