Skip to main content

USPTO Eliminates Patent Prosecution Highway Petition Fee

Washington—The Department of Commerce’s United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) today announced it would eliminate the fee for the petition to participate in Patent Prosecution Highway (PPH) programs. The elimination of the PPH petition fee is expected to encourage greater PPH participation by patent applicants.

Since 2006, the USPTO has implemented Patent Prosecution Highway programs with a number of patent offices as part of work sharing arrangements to avoid duplication of work among patent offices, and for reducing its own pendency and backlog. Until now, the PPH notices have indicated that a request for participation in the PPH program required the payment of a $130 petition fee.

“Patent Prosecution Highway programs have great potential to reduce unnecessary duplication of work between offices, reduce pendency and improve quality,” said Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and Director of the USPTO David Kappos. “By eliminating the petition fee, we expect to see more applicants take advantage of PPH.”

PPH applications have proven to take significantly less time to prosecute, on average, than non-PPH applications. Using the PPH process also increases the sharing and re-use of information (primarily search and examination results) between the USPTO and its partner patent offices. Improving the PPH framework to make it more user-friendly, and thereby encouraging greater participation by applicants, would support the Office’s goal to optimize both the quality and timeliness of patents.

Since 2006, the USPTO has entered into PPH agreements with the patent offices of Australia, Canada, Denmark, Finland, Germany, Japan, Korea, Singapore, The United Kingdom and the European Patent Office (EPO).

Under the PPH program, if an application filed in an Office of First Filing (OFF) receives an indication that at least one claim is patentable, a corresponding application with corresponding claims filed in the USPTO as the Office of Second Filing (OSF) may be advanced out of turn for examination. To have the request for participation in the PPH accepted in the USPTO, an applicant must make available to the USPTO the relevant work of the OFF as well as any necessary translation.

Notices regarding the PPH programs are available on the USPTO Web site at: http://www.uspto.gov/patents/init_events/pph/index.jsp.

For non-press inquiries, contact Magdalen Greenlief at Magdalen.Greenlief@uspto.gov.
Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

15 Gang Members Convicted on Conspiracy, Weapons Possession, Firearms Trafficking Charges Case Follows Recent Convictions of 137th Street Crew and East Harlem Narcotics Trafficking Organization

Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus R. Vance, Jr., announced the results of the investigation and prosecution of one of Central Harlem’s most destructive criminal street gangs, referred to as “ONE TWENTY-NINE” or “GOODFELLAS/THE NEW DONS,” which terrorized the neighborhood surrounding West 129th Street between Lenox and Fifth Avenues. Thirteen members of the gang have previously pleaded guilty to importing, possessing, and using firearms over the course of the conspiracy.
Post a Comment
Read more

The Myth, The Matrix, and The Malpractice: Unpacking the Sophia Stewart Saga

The internet loves a good underdog story, especially one where a lone creator battles Hollywood giants. Few tales have captivated online forums and social media quite like that of Sophia Stewart, the woman who famously sued the creators of The Matrix and The Terminator, claiming they stole her work, "The Third Eye." Her story is a complex tapestry woven with claims of stolen genius, judicial conflicts, and attorney negligence. Let's untangle the legal facts from the compelling narrative and examine the heart of her claims. The Core Allegation: "The Third Eye" and the Blockbusters Sophia Stewart alleged that her copyrighted manuscript, "The Third Eye," conceived in 1981 and finalized in 1983, was the blueprint for two of the most iconic sci-fi franchises: The Terminator (first film 1984) and The Matrix (first film 1999). From her perspective, the similarities were undeniable. Stewart’s supporters often point to broad, impactful themes and ev...
3 comments
Read more

Charlie Kirk Was Right, and Charlie Kirk Was Wrong: The Enduring Legacy of the Civil Rights Act of 1964

Charlie Kirk, a prominent conservative commentator, has argued that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was unnecessary, contending that the 14th Amendment should have been sufficient to guarantee equal rights. There's a compelling argument to be made for both sides of this statement. Let's break down where Kirk was right and, more importantly, where historical context reveals he was profoundly wrong. Where Charlie Kirk Was "Right" (In Theory) Kirk's theoretical point hinges on the idea that fundamental constitutional principles, if interpreted and enforced correctly, should have negated the need for additional legislation. And, in a perfect world, he would be correct. The 14th Amendment, ratified in 1868, explicitly states that "no State shall... deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." The intent was to ensure all citizens, particularly newly freed African Americans, were treated equally under the law. If this ...
Post a Comment
Read more