Inventors
Pressure
on the American Patent System |
|
Part
2: The Real Cause of Submarine Patents
by Ronald
J. Riley
One example of foreign interference
is how they managed to get the USPTO's backing for changes that will undermine
the patent system. Proponents who support weakening our patent system argue
that inventors are abusing it. They usually cite "submarine patents" as
an example of misuse. The term submarine patent first appeared in a Japanese
publication. It is used to describe a patent that is issued after a long
delay in the USPTO. When this happens, it catches everyone in industry
by surprise. Some persons claim that inventors intentionally delay. There
are no proven cases of intentional delay being used to create a submarine
patent.
There is considerable evidence that
delays are the fault of inefficient bureaucrats at the USPTO office. When
powerful interests confronted them over the problems created by patents
that were issued after lengthy delays of up to forty years they picked
individual inventors to be the scapegoat.
The office is specifically mandated
to aid individuals who are filing for patents. The office's claim that
submarine patents are caused by individual inventors is proof that they
are not adequately aiding inventors as mandated by law.
There is a great deal of evidence
that the USPTO is in fact the cause of excessive patent delays. When an
examiner receives an unusually complex or in some cases a poorly drafted
patent (as can happen with pro se applications), they tend to work on it
after they have processed other patents to keep their productivity evaluations
favorable. The patent may go one or more years between office actions and
I have heard of four and five years in extreme cases.
The examiner leaving the USPTO, causing
the file to be passed to another examiner, can cause an even greater delay.
The new examiner is faced with even more work to become familiar with the
patent and sticks the file on the bottom of their pile.
The application languishes and soon
ten or twenty years, or in the worst-case forty years have elapsed. This
is not the inventor's fault. The solution is to enforce the mandate that
the USPTO prosecute all patents, especially pro se patents in a timely
manner.
Many persons who have a vested interest
in a weaker patent system have claimed that inventors have a motive to
delay patents until a technology is well established. It is illogical to
believe that an inventor would intentionally delay his patent for forty
years. Compounded interest on money earned earlier far exceeds the potential
for a bigger market, which is cited as a motive to delay patents. And the
fact is that an inventor would have to be clairvoyant to see twenty, thirty,
or forty years ahead. There is a fair probability that an invention would
be rendered obsolete during a very long pendency by a new discovery that
would make the delayed patent worthless.
Prolific inventors would be foolish
to defer income when a lack cash flow stops them from filing additional
patents, whose financial return is likely to far exceed the value of compounded
interest on invested funds. It follows that prolific inventors want income
as soon as possible on existing patents, to fund developing their most
current ideas.
THE PRACTICAL
IMPLICATIONS OF THE CHANGES
I suggest the following
issues must be examined as a group while carefully considering what the
practical implications are.
-
1) 20 year from filing.
-
2) World wide proof of inventorship,
section 104.
-
3) Early publication.
-
4) Prior user rights.
-
5) Third party participation in the
patent process.
-
6) Privatizing the patent office.
The 20-year from
filing provision is a USPTO bureaucrat's dream, because it gives them a
huge lever to make an inventor accept whatever the USPTO dictates. The
five year, and then ten-year extensions they have offered, are Band-Aids
applied to a change that is not justified by the evidence or in America's
interests. Obtaining the extension is dependent on the whims of a bureaucrat.
By promoting the 20 year from filing term the USPTO gets more power and
eliminates industry criticism over patent delays.
The 20-year term also shifts
the financial consequences of unreasonable delays from large corporate
interests to the inventor. It is clear that the USPTO would rather have
one or two angry inventors verses having many large corporate interests
(and the organizations that represent them such as NAM, AIPLA and IPO),
demanding an explanation for unreasonable delays. In other words the 20-year
change removes a serious political problem for the PTO.
Administrative solutions such as
the five or ten year extensions (that are included in H.R. 400/ S.507)
are not acceptable. An inventor would be at the mercy of the USPTO admitting
that the USPTO had caused an unreasonable delay in the patent's execution.
USPTO upper management is not willing to accept any responsibility for
so called "submarine patents". And I think it unlikely that they would
take responsibility for the delays they cause if H.R. 400 / S. 507 were
passed. In any event giving the USPTO more power over inventors is poor
policy since they are already abusing their authority.
Another aspect of this problem is
allowance of the invention's claims. Currently the inventor or their representative
and the examiner interact to determine appropriate claim language. The
examiner has an incentive to complete the patent because they look bad
if the case drags on. Inventors have an incentive to receive their patent
as soon as possible because they rarely derive income from a patent before
it issues. I am sure it is not an accident that the 20-year change gives
the USPTO much more power over the inventor.
GATT enabling legislation also altered
section 104 to allow foreign interests to use non-published information
as evidence of prior art. This will lead to many more interference proceedings,
dramatically increasing legal costs. These costs will be incurred in the
early years of the patent, often before the inventor has cash flow from
the invention.
Early disclosure will be used by
dishonest entities to erode the patent term, by allowing third parties
to challenge pending patents, claiming prior user rights, and use of fraudulent
evidence from difficult to investigate foreign sources. Adoption of 18-month
publication will deny inventors a head start in the market with their invention.
Loss of that head start will cost the inventor the most lucrative sales,
there by denying the inventor profits that he needs to defend his patents
against large entities which frequently use litigation to force the real
inventor into bankruptcy.
Proponents of H.R. 400 / S. 507 will
argue that it "gives patent holders important rights even before the patent
is issued." Having "rights" does not help the inventor if those rights
are coupled with other provisions such as early publication. The problem
is that one must be able to defend their rights. Defense of the rights
is only possible if the inventor has cash flow, something he will not have
as a result of early publication and a host of other inventor unfriendly
provisions.
Early publication will make our patent
system subject to "flooding" as is common in Japan. Flooding is where hundreds
of narrow and often questionable improvement patents are filed concerning
a fundamental patent, limiting the ability of the original inventor to
collect royalties. The Wall Street Journal published Little U.S. Firm Takes
On Japanese Giant, Yamaha accused of "Patent Flooding' to Gain Advantage"
on page A10, on Wednesday, June 5,1996.
This article describes how Cyberoptics
technology has been appropriated through flooding by a Japanese company.
This has been a common tactic used by Japanese companies against American
companies who file their patents in Japan. Japanese companies are now using
this tactic in many other countries that have adopted early publication
of pending patents. We will be subject to the same abuses if we adopt early
publication.
Early publication will allow pre
issuance opposition of patents. American patent law has a provision of
pre issuance opposition that is rarely used because patents are now secret.
With early publication, the "Public Use Procedure" will be useable against
all patents.
Early publication will lead to a
massive transfer of concepts created by American inventors to other countries
which inevitability will cause further loss of American jobs. America cannot
afford to lose the creation of new jobs through new technology. Jobs are
the economic support of our population.
Early publication will result in
the transfer of technology with military significance. Publication of pending
patent applications will initially result in over 100,000 patents being
published. This huge volume of material will overload the staff that is
responsible for screening material with military significance. Technology
often has dual use, both military and civilian. Publication will cause
such technology to be disseminated much quicker to the detriment of our
national interests. Could USPTO upper managers position favoring publication
be motivated by the fee they will charge for publication? Is it possible
that some USPTO managers who have a history of working for Japanese interests
have been unduly influenced?
Prior user rights undermines the
purpose of our patent system. The patent system was created to encourage
inventors to disclose their inventions. If the incentive of a guaranteed
period of exclusive use is removed, it creates a strong incentive for inventors
to treat ideas as trade
secrets. If they are able to protect the idea as
a trade secret, they may use it indefinitely. If they fail to keep the
idea secret and someone else patents the idea, they forfeit the invention.
One of the most vocal proponents
of prior user rights is William Buddinger of Rodel, Inc. Mr. Buddinger
made a business decision many years ago to treat an invention as a trade
secret and enjoyed its exclusive use for over twenty years. A Japanese
company figured out his invention (probably through industrial espionage)
and received a patent on it. Now Mr. Buddinger would like all of America
to bail him out, he expects us to weaken our patent system because he made
a poor business decision.
Persons who decide to use trade secrets
to protect their inventions do so with full knowledge that they run the
risk that someone else may patent the idea. They make a decision to use
trade secret protection, knowing they may profit from the idea much longer
than the normal patent term. They profit from that decision while failing
to teach others as patentees do. They are adults who should accept the
consequences of their actions, and not scheme to selfishly protect their
personal interests at the expense of the rest of American society.
Important patents that are not stopped
outright will be tied up with interference's and other delaying tactics
that will eat up half or more of the 20 term. All infringers will claim
to be a prior user. The very concept of prior user rights is contrary to
the basic purpose of our patent system. The patent system is meant to encourage
disclosure of ideas to promote the general advancement of technology.
Prior user rights will encourage
greater use of trade secrets since the person using the trade secret will
not lose their right to continue using the idea if it is discovered by
another party. This is bad policy, persons who make a decision to use trade
secrets do nothing to advance technology and should therefore not enjoy
protection in the form of prior user rights.
Next page > The
USPTO's Attitude > Page
1, 2,
3,
4
Previous
Features
Important disclaimer information about this About site.
|