Taking a Stand on USPTO Request for Continued Examination (RCE) Policy

31 January 2013 PharmaPatents Blog

Next week (February 4, 2013) is the deadline for submitting comments in response to the USPTO’s request for feedback on Request for Continued Examination (RCE) practice. (This article provides more information on the request for feedback.) The USPTO’s treatment (or neglect) of RCEs will become even more frustrating after March 19, 2013, when the costs for filing RCEs will increase significantly. I urge stakeholders in the biotechnology and pharmaceutical industry – where RCEs are a normal step in the patent prosecution process – to make their voices heard and urge the USPTO to adopt policies and practices that ensure that Requests for Continued Examination are examined in a timely manner.

The USPTO’s Neglect of RCEs

RCEs used to be placed on an examiner’s “amended” docket, and an examiner was expected to act on RCE applications within two months. That changed on November 15, 2009, since when new RCEs have been placed on an examiner’s “special new” docket (which includes continuation and divisional applications). There is no set time period for an examiner to act on an application on his or her “special new” docket – the only requirement is that he or she act on at least one application every other bi-week (e.g., about one per month).

In addition to moving RCEs to a slower moving docket, the USPTO made changes to its “count” system (which is used to assess examiner productivity) that disincentivizes the examination of RCEs. For example, an examiner earns more credit for issuing a first Office Action in a continuation or divisional application than for issuing an Office Action in an RCE. Thus, to the extent that an examiner has flexibility in selecting cases for examination from the “special new” docket, he or she has concrete reasons to select continuation or divisional applications before RCEs.  

The RCE Backlog

Not surprisingly, these USPTO policies and procedures have led to a constantly growing backlog of RCEs awaiting continued examination. USPTO data from December 2012 (the most recent available on the USPTO website) show that there are over 103,775 RCEs awaiting continued examination (up from 73,464 as of December 2011). While the USPTO reports that the average time from the filing of an RCE to an Office Action is about 6 months, that data is largely meaningless because it only takes into account RCEs where an Office Action has been issued, and ignores all RCEs awaiting examination.

Adding Insult to Injury

The USPTO’s new fee schedule adds further insult to injury by significantly increasing the costs of filing an RCE. (Please see this article for a broader look at the new USPTO fee schedule.) For a large entity, the fee for a first RCE will increase from $930 to $1200, while the fee for a second or subsequent RCE will increase from $930 to $1700.

(The USPTO might as well set the RCE fees at $5200 and $5700, because applicants will have to pay the $4000 fee for prioritized examination (Track 1) if they want to obtain examination of their RCEs.)

A Real-World Example

I am prosecuting an application where an RCE was filed in early 2011. After almost two years, it is about 20th in queue on the examiner’s special new docket. If the examiner follows USPTO policy and examines one case from that docket every other bi-week, it will be late 2014 before this case receives an Office Action. The news is worse for other applications assigned to this examiner, because his current special new docket includes about 50 cases. If the examiner follows USPTO policy and examines 13 cases from that docket every year, the most recent RCEs will wait four years for an Office Action.

I do not understand how the USPTO can accept these extreme delays mid-stream in the examination process, or how the USPTO can fail to appreciate that these extreme delays impede its goals of stimulating investment and innovation. By focusing on the front-end of the examination process (reducing the backlog of unexamined applications) without considering the process as a whole, the USPTO has lost sight of the fact that it is granted patent rights, not first Office Actions, that are valued in the commercial marketplace.

This blog is made available by Foley & Lardner LLP (“Foley” or “the Firm”) for informational purposes only. It is not meant to convey the Firm’s legal position on behalf of any client, nor is it intended to convey specific legal advice. Any opinions expressed in this article do not necessarily reflect the views of Foley & Lardner LLP, its partners, or its clients. Accordingly, do not act upon this information without seeking counsel from a licensed attorney. This blog is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship. Communicating with Foley through this website by email, blog post, or otherwise, does not create an attorney-client relationship for any legal matter. Therefore, any communication or material you transmit to Foley through this blog, whether by email, blog post or any other manner, will not be treated as confidential or proprietary. The information on this blog is published “AS IS” and is not guaranteed to be complete, accurate, and or up-to-date. Foley makes no representations or warranties of any kind, express or implied, as to the operation or content of the site. Foley expressly disclaims all other guarantees, warranties, conditions and representations of any kind, either express or implied, whether arising under any statute, law, commercial use or otherwise, including implied warranties of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Foley or any of its partners, officers, employees, agents or affiliates be liable, directly or indirectly, under any theory of law (contract, tort, negligence or otherwise), to you or anyone else, for any claims, losses or damages, direct, indirect special, incidental, punitive or consequential, resulting from or occasioned by the creation, use of or reliance on this site (including information and other content) or any third party websites or the information, resources or material accessed through any such websites. In some jurisdictions, the contents of this blog may be considered Attorney Advertising. If applicable, please note that prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Photographs are for dramatization purposes only and may include models. Likenesses do not necessarily imply current client, partnership or employee status.

Related Services

Insights

Cryptocurrency in China is like BIG BROTHER in 1984!
20 October 2019
Internet, IT & e-Discovery Blog
California Governor Signs New Telehealth Insurance Law
18 October 2019
Health Care Law Today
Continued Increase in E-Commerce and Online Ordering Changes Landscape of Urban Transportation
17 October 2019
Dashboard Insights
CMS Proposes Revisions to Stark Law
16 October 2019
Health Care Law Today
PATH Summit 2019
18-20 December 2019
Arlington, VA
MedTech Impact Expo & Conference
13-15 December 2019
Las Vegas, NV
Review of 2020 Medicare Changes for Telehealth
11 December 2019
Member Call
BRG Healthcare Leadership Conference
06 December 2019
Washington, D.C.