Patent statistics for decision makersのプレゼン資料がEPOのHPで公開されました。(LINK)


Session: Impact of the economic crisis on patenting
Chair: Dominique Guellec, OECD

Detailed knowledge of local factors is important for valid international comparisons of domestic invention: the real value of the USPTO’s ‘Small Entity’ data.
Kevin Scally, University College Cork, Ireland
Presentation (PDF, 203 KB)

Patent activity at the USPTO during the current recession
Gerard Torres, USPTO
Presentation (PDF, 40 KB)

Impact of economic crises on patenting activity: lessons from the economic downturn in the beginning of the 2000s
Hans Lööf, Centre of Excellence for Science and Innovation Studies, Royal Institute of Technology, Sweden
Presentation (PDF, 873 KB)

Session: Patent quality (1)
Chair: Roger Burt, IBM UK

Validity of European patents: the DM&S opposition quality indicator
Christoph Laub, EPO
Presentation (PDF, 257 KB)

Financial patenting in Europe: an analysis of filing, grant, and opposition
Grid Thoma, University of Camerino, Italy
Presentatio n (PDF, 69 KB)

Session: Patent quality (2)
Chair: Roger Burt, IBM UK

Applications, grants and renewals - legal status information and citations
Rainer Frietsch, Fraunhofer Insitute for Systems and Innovation Research, Germany
Presentation (PDF, 250 KB)

Changing pattern and functions of applications and citations at the European Patent Office
Ulrich Schmoch, Fraunhofer Institute for Systems and Innovation Research, Germany
Presentation (PDF, 101 KB)

Session: Shining the light on the patent system
Chair: Kazuyuki Motohashi, The University of Tokyo, Japan

SMEs as patent applicants in France
Laurence Joly, INPI, France
Presentation (PDF, 52 KB)

An application of patent statistics - some insight into filing strategies
James Pearce and Janis Jekabsons, EPO
Presentation (PDF, 755 KB)

Uncertainty in the patent system - the role of concurrent patenting and standardisation activities
Florian Köhler, Berlin Technical University, Germany
Presentation (PDF, 102 KB)

The use of time in patent families: exploring applicants strategies
Catalina Martínez, Institute for Public Goods and Policies, CSIS, Spain
Presentation (PDF, 189 KB)

Darby Joseph Robinson氏 別事務所へ(メモ)

New York IP boutique Darby & Darby has lost two partners to McDermott, Will & Emery. The departures of Joseph Robinson and Robert Shaffer were announced Wednesday. Robinson said the move would allow the pair to provide their clients with a full-service international practice. "I don't think we could have that at Darby," he said.


米国 特許法律事務所の新たなサービス

 日本企業の日本での特許出願は毎年40 数万件と世界一
 多いが、その内、企業内で出願を行うのは10% くらいで、
 90% は外部の日本特許事務所に出願業務を依頼し、この比

Outside GC Launches Patent Firm, Patent GC LLC
BOSTON, Oct. 9 /PRNewswire/ -- Outside GC, the pioneer and national leader in
on-demand in-house counsel services, today announced the launch of its sister
firm, Patent GC (www.patentgc.com).

Co-Founded with Peter Gordon, a veteran patent lawyer who left Fish &
Richardson to launch the new firm, Patent GC will provide its clients with
partner-only patent counsel at rates that are dramatically lower than
traditional patent firms while providing best-in-class service. Leveraging
Outside GC's high value model, Patent GC will be comprised exclusively of
patent lawyers with significant in-house experience who have practiced law for
at least ten years.

US corporate spend on external IP advice set to fall further in 2010
United States - Latest news

October 09 2009

A new survey of corporate counsel at leading US companies projects a 4.3% drop in overall spending on external legal advice next year; this is on top of the 10.8% fall for 2009. The study predicts a sharp contraction in a number of practice areas, with IP transactional work reportedly set to shrink by 8.6%.



DLA Piper のLazar氏は知財協のF2コース(滞在型米国知財コース)で講師も務めていた方で、日本でもおなじみですね。DLA Piperも最近の不景気で多数レイオフがありましたがご無事だったようです。


のDLA Piperで各国の特許ポートフォリオ、審査手続、および出願コストのマネ
DLA Piper の下記Lazar氏がモデレータとなり、Schwaab 氏および Williams 氏

龍華は、各国の審査タイミングを調整する方法とそのメリットを、Schwaab 氏は

Webでの閲覧方法等の詳細については、弊所HP、www.ryuka.com をご参照下さい。

Managing Global IP/Patent Portfolios, Prosecution and Costs
司会: Dale S. Lazar(米国 DLA Piper 法律事務所)
講師: 龍華 明裕(RYUKA 国際特許事務所)
Andrew Schwaab(米国 DLA Piper LLP 法律事務所)
Michael Williams(英国 fJ CLEVELAND 特許事務所)
場所: ワシントンDC、DLA Piper 法律事務所 (Webでも公開)
日時: 2009年10月16日午後4時~6時
(日本時間: 17日午前5時~7時)



高橋是清さんは知っています。CAFCのNewman判事や、(元か?)マイクロソフトのMarshall Phelps氏も殿堂入りしてますね。

The IP Hall of Fame website has a brand new face. It has been fully updated, there is much more content and, as well as allowing you to browse through the biographies of past inductees, you can also read up on the Hall of Fame Academy members and, of course, nominate individuals who you feel should be considered for induction for the IP Hall of Fame in 2010 because of the outstanding contribution they have made to today's global IP system. On top of all of that, you can now also read the latest news on all of our inductees via the live Google results found on each individual's home page, as well as browse through photographs of past induction ceremonies and watch interviews with IP Hall of Fame inductees and Academy members. (LINK)

TIPS PDFファイル カラー・グレー変換

Converting Color PDF to Greyscale PDF (An Update)
Converting Color PDFs to Grayscale or Black and White in Acrobat 9

普通ここまでやりますか (LINK)


米国 懸案の規則改正闘争、終結へ

USPTO Rescinds Controversial Patent Regulations Package Proposed by Previous Administration
Agency Files Joint Motion with Plaintiff GlaxoSmithKline to Dismiss Lawsuit Related to Regulations Affecting the Ability to Secure Patent Protection for Inventions
WASHINGTON — Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and Director of the USPTO David Kappos has signed a new Final Rule rescinding highly controversial regulations, proposed by the previous administration, that patent applicants felt unduly restricted their capacity to protect intellectual property. The regulations, which addressed the number of continuation applications as well as the number of claims that could be included within each application, were published in the Federal Register in August 2007, but were enjoined and never came into effect.
The USPTO also announced that it will file a motion to dismiss and vacate the federal district-court decision in a lawsuit filed against the USPTO that sought to prevent the rules from taking effect. GlaxoSmithKline - one of two plaintiffs in the Tafas v. Kappos lawsuit - will join the USPTO’s motion for dismissal and vacatur. “The USPTO should incentivize innovation, develop rules that are responsive to its applicants’ needs and help bring their products and services to market,” Kappos said. “These regulations have been highly unpopular from the outset and were not well received by the applicant community. In taking the actions we are announcing today, we hope to engage the applicant community more effectively on improvements that will help make the USPTO more efficient, responsive, and transparent to the public.” “We are grateful to GlaxoSmithKline for working with us to file this joint motion to both dismiss the appeal and vacate the district court’s decision. This course of action represents the most efficient way to formally and permanently move on from these regulations and work with the IP community on new ways to take on the challenges these regulations were originally designed to address.”

Background on Rules
In August 2007, the agency published new rules intended to help improve examination efficiency, enhance the quality of examination, and manage the growing backlog of unexamined applications.
Two regulations, commonly referred to as the “Continuation Rule” and the “RCE Rule,” would have permitted an applicant to file only two continuation applications and one request for continued examination (“RCE”) per application family as a matter of right. For a third or subsequent continuation application or RCE, the applicant would have had to make a case to the USPTO to show why the additional filing was needed.
A third regulation, referred to as the “Claims Rule,” would have permitted an applicant to file five independent claims and twenty-five total claims per application. If an applicant desired more than five independent claims or more than twenty-five total claims, then the Claims Rule would have required the applicant to supply information to the USPTO about the claimed invention to assist the Office’s examination. The specific information that would have been required was outlined in another regulation, termed the “ESD Rule.”
Many in the applicant community felt the combination of these new requirements would ultimately have had an effect that was at odds with their intended purposes.

History of Litigation
In the fall of 2007, GlaxoSmithKline and Dr. Tafas brought suit against the USPTO in the U.S. District Court of the Eastern District of Virginia and sought a preliminary injunction to stop the Claims and Continuations Rules from becoming effective, which the district court granted. In April 2008, the district court ruled in favor of GlaxoSmithKline and Dr. Tafas on the merits and permanently enjoined the rules, preventing the agency from implementing them. The agency appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. In March 2009, a panel of the Federal Circuit concluded that the Claims and Continuations Rules were all procedural in nature and within the agency’s rulemaking authority. The Court also concluded that the rules, except for the Continuations Rule, were consistent with the patent law.
In 2009, the Federal Circuit granted rehearing en banc, and ordered additional briefing that would have commenced in the coming weeks.









USPTO カウントシステム改良 アップデート

現役審査官による分析です。(Just a patent examiner)
-- Docket Management
RCEs will now be placed on an examiner's Special New docket, instead of their Amended docket as before.

The requirement that examiners work on their oldest cases first has always been there. The problem is that its enforcement has always been very arbitrary. Some TCs or art units are required to adhere to the rule, while others never have. Enforcing this requirement across the entire Office should ensure that tough applications are not put off.

The new RCE docketing procedure, I think, may well have a very significant impact on the prosecution of applications by attorneys.

Currently, an RCE will be placed on an examiner's Amended docket, requiring them to take action within 2 months.

The new provision treats RCE just like any other continuation or divisional application, placing them on the examiner's Special New docket. This means that there is no fixed deadline for preparing the next action. They will be, of course, subject to the requirement that the oldest new application be worked on every 2 bi-weeks, but that only requires the examiner to do one case from their Special New docket each month. For examiners with large dockets, those RCEs could definitely back up on their Special New docket.

For instance, I averaged about 5 RCEs filed in each quarter last FY. Under the new rules, I'm only required to work on 3 per quarter. You see where I'm going here; this provision could serve as a big disincentive to filing RCEs, because you're going to have to wait longer for your RCE to be examined (although with the backlog at the BPAI, appeal might be an even less attractive alternative).

The provision will certainly serve to address first action pendency, because it will reduce the number of applications on an examiner's Amended docket, thereby giving them more time to work on new applications. It's possible that some examiners may continue to work on their RCEs as they come in, since they're still getting counts for the first action (as they would for any continuation or divisional). The point is, they are no longer required to send out that first action after RCE within 2 months.




(USPTO Press release), (Proposal)

USPTO Joint Labor-Management Task Force Proposes Significant Changes to Examiner Count System

WASHINGTON —Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) David Kappos has unveiled a series of proposals to bring significant change to the examiner “count system” – the methodology for determining the time a patent examiner has to complete a patent examination and how much credit is given for each stage of an examination. The proposal was developed by a task force comprised of senior managers in the Patents organization and leadership of the Patent Office Professional Association (POPA), the union that represents patent examiners.


(Juat a patent examiner) (PatentlyO)



The count system serves multiple purposes. In an ideal world (yes, I am well aware that this one is far from ideal), it would encourage compact prosecution, in that examiners do not receive any credit for 2nd actions which are non-final (or any subsequent actions). It also serves as a guide for the amount of work an examiner has to do. Each examiner is required, on a per fiscal-quarter basis, to produce a number of counts. The goal varies depending on technology. In theory, simpler technologies require less time to search and write up (fewer 112 issues, for example). Additionally, the goal depends on an examiner's rank. GS-14 (primary examiners, with full signatory authority) are required to produce 35% more than a GS-12 (someone with a PhD who has been at the office a year, for example).
As an examiner, the count system is useful to me because I am acutely aware of how much work I need to do in order to keep my job (several consecutive quarters of not meeting your goal can lead to firing) and how much more I need to push myself in order to receive a bonus. Furthermore, the count system does force us to work on new cases, albeit probably not as many as applicants would like. I can look at my amended docket (cases due in the next 2 months) and see how many first actions I have coming up, and how many are allowable (or might be close, i.e. if attorney is willing to take what I consider to be allowable subject matter as opposed to argue for broader scope) and look at my list of rejected cases and try to guess which cases will go abandoned. Knowing that, I know how many new cases I have to work on.

Every round of examination is allotted two counts: a "new" count, and a "disposal" count. A request for RCE ends the current round, and begins the next round. An examiner gets a "new" count when he or she does a first non-final office action (per round) or a first-action allowance. An examiner gets a "disposal" count for an allowance, abandonment, examiner's answer, an RCE request, and I think a couple of other relatively rare things. An examiner gets no counts for finals, 2nd or subsequent non-finals (per round), advisory actions, or other tasks (312s, misc. communications, etc.).
If the sequence of the case is NF, FINAL, ADV, RCE, NF, FINAL, ALLOW, the examiner gets a "new" count for each of the two NFs, and gets a "disposal" for each of the RCE request and the allowance. The examiner gets no counts for any of the other actions. If the case sequence is NF, 2ND NF, FINAL, ADV, ALLOW, the examiner got counts for the first NF and the allowance. For a first action allowance, the examiner gets both a "new" and a "disposal" count, so the examiner gets 2 counts. This also holds true after RCE. That is, for the sequence NF, FINAL, RCE, ALLOW, the examiner got a new count for the NF, a disposal for the RCE, and both new and disposal counts for the allowance.
Based on the art unit and the examiner's GS level (GS-12 is the middle examining level; most examiners start at GS-7, GS-13 is partial signatory authority, GS-14 is a primary, and GS-15 is a SPE), each examiner has to do a certain number of counts each bi-week. The number of counts is based on the GS-12 expectancy, which is different for each art unit. If a GS-12 in a particular art unit is expected to complete a round of examination in 25 hours, then a GS-12 in that art unit is expected to turn in a count for every 12.5 hours that they work. Requirements for examiners at other grade levels are determined by multiplying that by particular factors (for example if a GS-12 has to do a count every 12.5 hours, then a GS-7 in that art unit has to do a count every approximately 18 hours).


中国 特許全文テキスト入手法 アップデート

一方、発明通信社のHypat-i 中国検索が11月から正式サービス開始とのアナウンスがありましたのでこちらの契約を考慮中です。
過去記事に埋もれさせておくのはもったいないので記事をアップデートいたします。しばらく前にCNIPRで中国特許のテキストをダウンロードしようとしたところ、メニューからテキスト表示ボタン([代码化] )が消えていました。有料メニューへ変更してしまったのかとあきらめていたのですが、以下の赤壁さんのコメントを見てCNIPRに再チャレンジしました。
[代码化] のボタンは表示されるようになっており、テキスト表示できそうな雰囲気です。ただ、残念ながら、このボタンを押しても、反応がめちゃくちゃ遅いせいなのか、テキストが表示されるまでには至っていません。でも、画面が出てきますので調子の良いときにはテキストが表示されるだろうと期待しています。
  •     コメント引用
  • CNIPRの中文全文表示ですが、今日は有料部でも無料部でも表示可になっていました。
  • 9/8にJPDS知財寺子屋でお話した頃には、無料部で 「全文表示」のボタンを押すと「ログインが必要です」的なメッセージが出てきて、ID、パスワードを入力すると表示されるという現象があり、昨日はこれま で表示が可能だった出願の「全文表示」ボタンさえ消えていたのですが・・。
  • CNIPRはまだ不安定なDBなので、こういうことはよくあるようですが・・・
JPDSからダイレクトメールがあり注文していた書籍「ここがポイント! 中国特許調査」が今日手元に届きました。



定 価:1,500円(本体価格1,429円、消費税71円)送 料:300円



-- PatentLens OCR 00030000.txt
WO 2006/010331 PCT/CN2005/001135
本发明涉及移动通信技术领域,特别涉及一种无线自组织(Adhoc) 网络中,移动终端的通信方法。
5 发明背景在移动通信技术领域,常见的移动网络通常以蜂窝网络或无线局域网等形式出现。在蜂窝网络中,移动终端之间的通信必须借助于基站和/或移动交换机的转接未完成;在无线局域网中,移动终端需要通过元线接入点连接到现有的固定网络。与此同时,蓝牙(Bluetooth)、家庭元
10 线网(HomeRF)等移动通信新技术也纷纷涌现。上述这些移动通信网 络及移动通信技术是对固定有线网络的补充和发展,它们也需要固定基础设施的支持。但是,上述这些依赖于固定基础设施的移动通信技术并不能满足特殊环境或紧急情况的通信要求。例如,军队在战场上快速推进和部署过程中、发生地震等自然灾害时投索和救援过程中、以及野外
15 科考过程中等等,由于地理条件的限制,利用上述移动通信技术元法灵活并且快速地建立移动通信网络,实现通信。因此,为满足特殊的通信要求,迫切需要一种不依赖固定的基础设施就能够快速并且灵活配置的移动通信网络。