USPTO Patent Fees To Go Up January 2018

20 November 2017 PharmaPatents Blog
Author(s): Courtenay C. Brinckerhoff

While Congress is trying to pass a tax reform bill that would cut corporate taxes, USPTO patent fees will increase effective January 16, 2018. The 72% jump in the Inter Partes Review request fee has gotten the most attention, but a number of prosecution fee increases are notable. As stakeholders consider the impact these higher USPTO fees will have on their intellectual property budgets, they can try to be thankful that the fees did not take effect with the new fiscal year on October 1, 2017.

Setting And Adjusting Patent Fees

Although the new fees take effect in early 2018, the title of the November 14, 2017 Federal Register Notice is “Setting and Adjusting Patent Fees in 2017.” The fees originally were published as proposed fees on October 3, 2016, and build on a 2015 proposal to the Patent Public Advisory Committee (PPAC).

According to the Notice:

The fee adjustments are needed to provide the Office with a sufficient amount of aggregate revenue to recover its aggregate cost of patent operations (based on current projections), while maintaining momentum towards achieving strategic goals.

The “Slight” Patent Fee Increases

The USPTO characterizes fee increases of less than 10% or less than $20 as “slight” increases. These include filing, search and examination fees (which will increases by a total of $120 for a large entity), excess claim fees (which will rise to $460 for each excess independent claim and $100 for each excess dependent claim), and issue fees (which will go up by $40 to $1000).

The “Signficant” Patent Fee Increases

The Federal Register Notice provides more explanation for “significant” fee increases, which include RCE and patent trial fees. According to the Notice, the patent trial fees are higher than proposed because they now reflect three years of historic costs.

Public Comments Keep Appeal Fees Down

In contrast to the higher patent trial fees, the Notice reports lower increases to ex parte appeal fees than originally proposed. According to the Notice:

One commenter specifically expressed concern over passing a large portion of the appeal unit costs as increased fee rates borne by an appellant. …. Another commenter questioned whether increasing appeal fees would discourage meritorious appeals, noting that, the reversal rate by the PTAB indicates that a large number of appeals are pursued to correct invalid rejections.

In response, the USPTO decided not to increase the notice of appeal fee and reduced the proposed increase to the appeal forwarding fee to $2,240 for a large entity instead of $2,500. According to the Notice, current appeal fees cover 58% of the USPTO’s appeal costs, while the increased fees will cover 63% of its costs.

Should The USPTO Balance The Incentives For Allowance?

Stakeholders often lament the fact that examiners have little incentive to allow an application. The same credit towards performance goals (“counts”) is awarded for allowance or abandonment, but examiners face more performance review consequences for allowing an application that should not have been allowed than for rejecting an application inappropriately. On the other hand, according to this Notice, “[a]pproximately half of all patent fee collections are from issue and maintenance fees, which subsidize the cost of filing, search, and examination activities.” If the USPTO relies on post-allowance fees to balance its budget, shouldn’t it ensure that examiners are appropriately motivated to allow allowable cases?

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.