{
  "id": "RL34422",
  "type": "CRS Report",
  "typeId": "REPORTS",
  "number": "RL34422",
  "active": false,
  "source": "EveryCRSReport.com, University of North Texas Libraries Government Documents Department",
  "versions": [
    {
      "source": "EveryCRSReport.com",
      "id": 352164,
      "date": "2009-02-10",
      "retrieved": "2016-04-07T02:47:05.508262",
      "title": "U.S. Patent and Trademark Office Reforms: Regulatory Impacts Upon Innovation and Competition",
      "summary": "Congressional interest in the patent system has been evidenced by discussion of substantial reform bills in previous sessions. Alongside these congressional proposals, the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) has engaged in a significant rulemaking effort in recent years. This process culminated in new rules that would make several significant changes to the patent acquisition process.\nFirst, the rules would limit the number of \u201ccontinued applications\u201d that could be filed, absent a petition and showing by the patent applicant of the need for such applications. Stated generally, a continued application is one that has been re-filed at the USPTO, commonly following an examiner\u2019s rejection. The USPTO has justified this limitation on the basis that the increasing number of continued examination filings is hampering its ability to review new applications.\nSecond, the rules would limit the number of \u201cclaims\u201d that can be filed in a particular patent application, unless the applicant supplies the USPTO with an \u201cExamination Support Document\u201d in furtherance of that application. The USPTO asserts that these rules would lead to a more effective examination process.\nCritics of the new rules contend that they will negatively impact the ability of innovators to obtain effective proprietary rights. Legal challenges to the rules resulted in the April 1, 2008 decision in Tafas v. Dudas. There, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia concluded that the USPTO claims and continued application rules were substantive in nature. Because Congress has not granted general substantive rulemaking power to the USPTO, the District Court declared that the rules were void and therefore unenforceable. The USPTO has appealed that judgment. At the time of the publication of this report, this outcome of this appeal is not yet available.\nIn addition, the USPTO has proposed reforms that would impose additional applicant disclosure obligations with respect to \u201cInformation Disclosure Statements\u201d filed in support of a particular patent application. The USPTO has not yet taken action concerning this rule.\nShould Congress conclude that the current situation with respect to claims and continued application practice at the USPTO is satisfactory, then no action need be taken. If Congress wishes to intervene, however, a number of options present themselves. Congress could expressly provide the USPTO with regulatory authority to specify the circumstances under which a patent applicant may file a continued application. Other possibilities include providing the USPTO with substantive rulemaking authority and more specific reforms directed to the relevant substantive provisions of the Patent Act.",
      "type": "CRS Report",
      "typeId": "REPORTS",
      "active": false,
      "formats": [
        {
          "format": "HTML",
          "encoding": "utf-8",
          "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/RL34422",
          "sha1": "6e7d9e3b937fcfd98fbfe1c9074c5d22d1b4dcbc",
          "filename": "files/20090210_RL34422_6e7d9e3b937fcfd98fbfe1c9074c5d22d1b4dcbc.html",
          "images": null
        },
        {
          "format": "PDF",
          "encoding": null,
          "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/pdf/RL34422",
          "sha1": "18b502e3bfba1e95eaf5c5b583922729919f03a2",
          "filename": "files/20090210_RL34422_18b502e3bfba1e95eaf5c5b583922729919f03a2.pdf",
          "images": null
        }
      ],
      "topics": []
    },
    {
      "source": "University of North Texas Libraries Government Documents Department",
      "sourceLink": "https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc813168/",
      "id": "RL34422_2008Apr04",
      "date": "2008-04-04",
      "retrieved": "2016-03-19T13:57:26",
      "title": "U.S. Patent and Trademark Office Reforms: Regulatory Impacts Upon Innovation and Competition",
      "summary": null,
      "type": "CRS Report",
      "typeId": "REPORT",
      "active": false,
      "formats": [
        {
          "format": "PDF",
          "filename": "files/20080404_RL34422_fab6d891f20cdde8233e2c892057121b322e13cd.pdf"
        },
        {
          "format": "HTML",
          "filename": "files/20080404_RL34422_fab6d891f20cdde8233e2c892057121b322e13cd.html"
        }
      ],
      "topics": []
    },
    {
      "source": "University of North Texas Libraries Government Documents Department",
      "sourceLink": "https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc822164/",
      "id": "RL34422_2008Mar21",
      "date": "2008-03-21",
      "retrieved": "2016-03-19T13:57:26",
      "title": "U.S. Patent and Trademark Office Reforms: Regulatory Impacts Upon Innovation and Competition",
      "summary": null,
      "type": "CRS Report",
      "typeId": "REPORT",
      "active": false,
      "formats": [
        {
          "format": "PDF",
          "filename": "files/20080321_RL34422_35dd4c715de70912e443093cfcdfafbb9b4afc77.pdf"
        },
        {
          "format": "HTML",
          "filename": "files/20080321_RL34422_35dd4c715de70912e443093cfcdfafbb9b4afc77.html"
        }
      ],
      "topics": []
    }
  ],
  "topics": [
    "Economic Policy",
    "Health Policy"
  ]
}