USPTO Pilots Expedited Patent Appeal Program But at What Price?

18 June 2015 PharmaPatents Blog

In a June 15, 2015 Federal Register Notice, the USPTO announced the Expedited Patent Appeal Pilot program, which will run until 2,000 ex parte patent appeals are expedited under the program, or until June 20, 2016, whichever occurs first. This program is more like the old “Dump One, Bump One” program that permitted an applicant to obtain expedited examination of one application by abandoning another than the fee-based Track I prioritized examination program, although an appellant can file an RCE in the “dumped” appeal instead of completely abandoning the application. Other “costs” of the program are outlined below. 

The Expedited Patent Appeal Pilot Program

As explained in the Federal Register Notice (“FRN”), appeals generally are taken up for review by the Board in the order in which they were docketed to the Board. This chart from the FRN shows that pharmaceutical and biotechnology applications, which typically are examined in Technology Center 1600, face the longest wait. 

According to the FRN, the program “will allow appellants having multiple ex parte appeals currently pending before the Board to have greater control over the priority with which their appeals are decided and reduce the backlog of appeals pending before the Board.” However, instead of letting appellants select applications to trade places in the appeal queue, the program requires that a pending appeal be withdrawn in one application in order to expedite review of another. The program also requires that oral hearing be waived in the expedited appeal.

The basic requirements for the program are as follows:

  • both applications must be either owned by the same party as of June 19, 2015, or name at least one inventor in common.
  • both applications must have had docketing notices mailed no later than June 19, 2015.
  • any request for oral hearing in the appeal to be expedited must be withdrawn, and the appellant must agree not to request a refund of any oral hearing fees that were paid . 
  • the appellant must agree not to request a refund of any appeal fees, including oral hearing fees, paid with respect to the appeal to be withdrawn.
  • no other fee is required

The FRN cautions that if the application of the appeal to be withdrawn is not to be abandoned, an RCE should be filed in that application at the same time the petition to expedite is filed, and reminds applicants that an RCE must include a “submission,” such as a paper reiterating or incorporating by reference the arguments presented in the appeal brief.

The FRN sets forth the following goals for expedited appeals:

  • Rendering a decision on the petition to make the appeal special no later than 2 months from filing.
  • Rendering a decision on the appeal no later than 4 months from the date the petition was granted.

Costs of the Expedited Patent Appeal Pilot Program

Although the FRN states that the usual $400 fee for a petition to make special is “waived” under the program, because the USPTO will not refund the appeal fees paid for the withdrawn appeal or any oral hearing fees paid in either appeal, the USPTO will be pocketing far more than $400 per petition. Since March 19, 2013, large entity appellants have paid a $2000 fee to have their applications transferred to the Board and a $1300 fee to support a request for oral hearing. Thus, a petition to make special under the Expedited Patent Appeal Pilot Program could cost an appellant $4600 in lost fees.

A more worrisome cost of the program is the requirement to waive oral hearing. Maybe my concern is misplaced, but I am reluctant to give up an opportunity to explain my position to the Board and answer the judges’ questions in exchange for a quicker decision.

Another cost of the program that is not addressed in the FRN is the impact on Patent Term Adjustment for the application with the withdrawn appeal. An application in which an appeal is decided favorably can earn PTA for the time spent on appeal, but if an appeal is withdrawn prior to a favorable Board decision, all of the time spent on appeal up until that point will be lost.

An Age-Old Alternative to the Patent Appeal Pilot Program

Although not available for every application, applicants should remember that an application can be accorded “special” status through the appeal stage based on the age of the inventor, if any inventor is at least 65  years old. For other cases, a better way to reduce the appeal backlog would be to conduct a more thorough assessment of rejections at the pre-appeal brief review and appeal conference stages, to ensure that only strong rejections are sustained for review by the Board.

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


Hatch Comments on DNC-Related Construction Projects in Milwaukee
14 June 2019
Milwaukee Business Journal
Bernard Quoted on Debt-Relief Settlement with ITT Tech Lender
14 June 2019
Wall Street Journal
Dodd and Daughter Profiled in Wisconsin Golf
13 June 2019
Wisconsin Golf
Brinckerhoff Comments on SCOTUS Ruling in Patent Case
11 June 2019
Intellectual Property Magazine
Review of 2020 Medicare Changes for Telehealth
11 December 2019
Member Call
2019 NDI Executive Exchange
14-15 November 2019
Chicago, IL
Association for Corporate Counsel Annual Meeting 2019
27-30 October 2019
Phoenix, AZ
Foley's Government Contracts Annual Update
16 October 2019
Liviona, MI