As a source of amusement, Modern Mechanix has a piece about how the Patent Office has become a national disgrace (in June 1930!).

In the article, written for Popular Science Monthly, the author relates how, at the time it was written, there were nearly 118,000 applications for patents piled up in Washington in the greatest jam of history.  And new ones were pouring in at the rate of approximately 2,000 a week.

In the previous four years, the number of applications awaiting action had leaped from about 41,000 to nearly three times that number, about 118,000.  These piled-up applications contained more than twenty-three acres of paper.

At present, the staff of examiners is gaining on this accumulated mass of applications at the slow rate of about 250 a week.  Even if they continue to work at top speed, without vacations, it is estimated that it will take the present staff until 1942 to catch up with their work so they can give the inventor a reasonably prompt decision upon his application.  As it is now, forty-five percent of all patents, or approximately every other one, take longer than two years to obtain. Some take several times that period.

And, talk of patent anarchy was abundant as the “flood” of applications poured in and comparisons are made back 100 years:

During the last ten years, more patents have been granted in the United States than during the 100 years from President Washington’s inaugural in 1789 to President Harrison’s inaugural in 1889.  In 1929, 114,496 applications for patents, trade-marks, and designs poured into the Washington office.  And thus far in 1930, there has been a twelve percent increase over the record-breaking flood of last year.  Besides mechanical inventions, the Patent Office passes on about 5,000 designs and 20,000 trade-marks a year. Recently, the requests for trade-marks has increased 100 percent.

Sound familiar?

It is interesting to note that even then, the Patent Office collected more fees than it spent:

Yet, while the Patent Office has been giving poorer and poorer service and has been losing money for American inventors, it has been piling up for the Government a profit of more than six million dollars!

In fact, it is one of the few Federal bureaus that operates at a profit. Over a long period of years, its income has far surpassed its expenditures, although recently it has been running behind. However, from fees paid by inventors alone, $3,000,000 was collected by this office last year.

If the Patent Office is making money, why doesn’t it hire enough men to do its work? That is a natural question, one of many mystifying angles of this patent muddle for which I have sought the answer.  I have talked with the Commissioner of Patents, Thomas E. Robertson. I have discussed the situation with many men employed at the Patent Office.  I have interviewed lawmakers who have investigated the work of the Office and patent attorneys who have been dealing with it for years. And the result is the belief that the present disgraceful conditions will continue indefinitely unless the readers of Popular Science Monthly and others who are interested demand Congressional action that will give American inventors the service to which they are entitled.

In answer to the question above, I found that not one penny of the millions of dollars profit made by the Patent Office has been available for improving the service of the organization or for providing better equipment.  The law provides that any money surplus at the end of the year must be turned over to the United States Treasury. Thus the Patent Office has never been able to put its profits to work.  It has been dependent upon the whim of Congress for the amount of money it could spend.

The Patent and Trademark Office would receive $1.9 billion in fiscal 2008 under the budget plan by President Bush. This is the fourth year in a row the White House has recommended the Congress allow the agency keep fees collected from patent and trademark applications instead of diverting funding to other government programs.

In fiscal year 2006, the Patent Office received a total of 452,633 applications and granted a total of 196,404 patents. According to PTO, examiners examined 332,000 patent applications — the largest number ever — while achieving the lowest patent allowance error rate (3.5 percent) in more than two decades. At 54 percent, the amount of applications reviewed and approved also was the lowest on record.

All things old are new … again.

See the entire story here.

Posted January 18th, 2008 by Stephen Albainy-Jenei in Patent Reform, Patent News
| | 1 Comment »

On Friday, Merck & Co.’s Zocor (simvastatin) will lose U.S. patent protection, and health plans are aggressively trying to promote low-cost generic versions of the drug for patients who don’t require a major cut in their cholesterol levels. The makers of Lipitor, Crestor and Vytorin will be battling more fiercely. You may have already noticed a large amount of DTC marketing efforts sprinkled among the commercials during your favorite TV programming. My personal favorite is Vytorin with Aunt Flo …. but I digress.

The makers of Vytorin announced at a medical meeting Sunday that their product lowers cholesterol better than Crestor. Vytorin is a combination of Zetia (ezetimibe) and Zocor (simvastatin), which has been proven to lower the risk of heart attack and stroke. Meanwhile, Crestor’s manufacturer said that when taken in combination with another drug, its product achieves unprecedented cholesterol reduction.

While it is clear that Merck will take a hit, another drug and the top cholesterol lowring drug on the market, Lipitor from Pfizer Inc.’s may suffer most in the new environment because many patients on low doses of Lipitor medicine could reach the necessary cholesterol level at a high dose of Zocor.

Lipitor’s share of new prescriptions fell to 50.5 percent in January 2006 from 52.7 percent in the year-ago period, according to Verispan LLC, a pharmaceutical information company. By April Lipitor’s share of new prescriptions had dropped to 48.5 percent.

Meanwhile, Zocor’s share of new prescriptions rose to 20.4 percent in January 2006 from 19.4 percent a year earlier. It was 21.3 percent in April.

Pfizer insists there’s abundant data proving Lipitor’s superiority over Zocor that will keep physicians loyal. In more DTC advertising, you may have noticed that Pfizer also recently launched their new ad campaign for Lipitor, featuring the doctor who invented the artificial heart (I think I counted seeing this ad over 5 times one eveing last week in just 2 hours of programming). But, Pfizer’s overall strategy remains the same: highlighting Lipitor’s ability to lower cholesterol and protect against heart attacks and strokes.

Lipitor’s share of new prescriptions fell to 50.5 percent in January 2006, down from 52.7 percent in the same period a year before, according to Verispan LLC, a pharmaceutical information company. By April, Lipitor’s share of new prescriptions fell to 48.5 percent.

Meanwhile, Zocor’s share of new prescriptions rose to 20.4 percent in January 2006, up from 19.4 percent in the year-ago period. It was 21.3 percent in April.

It is still unclear how much cheaper generic Zocor will be because of a legal battle over how many companies will be allowed to promote their versions. If there are only two during the first six months, as many believe, the price won’t drop dramatically until the end of the year.

Posted June 20th, 2006 by Karlyn in Patent News
| | Comments Off

Matt Buchanan, at Promote the Progress, has written about an op-ed piece in today’s edition of the Wall Street Journal. You can view the article here (subscription required).

The piece is labeled with the very unoriginal title “Patently Absurd” - just like a lot of other tired articles - and appears to be another in a long line of Blackberry addict-induced hysteria over the threatened loss of their favorite gadget. Matt takes issue with the fact that the Editors have determined the source of the problem - the lawyers.

How they get to that conclusion I’ll leave to others but it is surprising that they claim that the rise in patent applications has “less to due with genuine innovation than it does with innovative lawyers filing a patent on anything that moves.” I think a lot of technology companies would take issue with that statement. The article does make a good point that it is easier to get a patent issued than to get one invalidated due to the the higher standard of clear and convincing evidence.

There’s really nothing new in the reports of patent anarchy, all decrying that the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) issues too many “unworthy” patents, which then fall into the hands of the evil Patent Trolls. Legislators and lobbyists for the high-tech industry define the patent troll as an individual or company holding a patent without any designs on marketing an idea. They wait for another company to make a product and then hit them with a patent infringement suit.

But it’s never that simple, is it? Large companies receive far more patents than they utilize in products (IBM received 2,941 patents last year) and they often license others. No one ever mentions how large companies use patents as a hammer to prevent start-up ventures (David’s to their Goliath) from ever breaking into a market.

Critics claim that overpatenting creates a drag on innovation, which sounds reasonable, but it would seem that one person’s overpatenting is another’s claim to rightful ownership. While the ongoing BlackBerry battle between Research In Motion and NTP Inc. has produced calls for a reform of the patent laws, you have to be careful what you wish for.

Posted March 1st, 2006 by Stephen Albainy-Jenei in Patent News
| | Comments Off

Yes, its been somewhat of a slow week on the bio/pharma patent news front. So what to write about that is still patent related?

Boeing Co. engineers have found a way to increase the size of those claustrophobia-inducing aircraft lavatories. Yes, a more spacious bathroom on airplanes. Mind you, I am a petite 5 feet 4 inches, and I felt cramped, so given the size of the general population, wasn’t this obvious? How did they get a patent on this? Where’s the patent quality police. Come to think of it, there was a long-felt yet unfulfilled need.

This past Tuesday, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office granted Boeing Co., a patent for a bathroom that expands into passenger doorways between cabins when a plane is in flight.

This extreme makeover/airplane bathroom edition promises to provide passengers more room for changing clothes, diapers and “refreshing themselves,” the patent says, without taking up more room in the passenger cabin — a concern for many nearly bankrupt airlines which need to squeeze in every possible “seat,” so to speak.

During take-off, landing and while a plane is on the ground, the lavatories would be locked into tight compartments to give passengers and crew ample room to board and exit the aircraft.
Once in flight, the lavatories would rotate into the emergency doorways via giant turntables, their sinks connected to the aircraft’s innards via flexible plumbing lines.

The patent also addresses one likely passenger fear: that the giant lazy susan might accidentally swing shut, trapping an occupant. “(D)uring a turbulent flight, a suitable locking mechanism (e.g., latches, etc.) can be provided,” the patent states. Can’t wait to try this one…..

Posted May 12th, 2005 by Karlyn in Patent News
| | 1 Comment »

I thought since its an absolutely beautiful Friday here in Cincinnati, I’d write about a lighter topic and focus today’s post on two of my favorite things – animals (and dogs in particular for this post) along with patents and patent reform. (Okay, so this post is about one of my favorite things.) Now, what you might ask do these two things have in common? Personally, I have two retriever rescues and I am a patent attorney, so that might be enough for some. But……..

Much has been said about patent reform lately. Last month, Stephen discussed some of the more substantative changes to U.S. patent law that are sorely needed and the efforts to reform this patch-work patent system we use on a daily basis.

In fact, just last week (April 28, 2005), The Honorable John W. Dudas made a statement before the House Subcommittee on Courts, Internet and Intellectual Property addressing “Patent Quality Improvement.” (Do you think this may be in response to the PB&J patent brouhaha?). Secretary Dudas proposed as a part of a strategic plan, a post-grant review addressing patent quality issues. What I would like to know since beauty is in the eye of the inventor, how does one address such a subjective issue?

I raise this point purely for my own interests since I stumbled across a news item about a dog-washing machine that could be part of a doggie spa. Its touted as “the latest canine grooming craze to hit pet spas across the country.” So, first I thought of my two dogs, Sadie and Sam, when I saw what appeared to be a dog smiling (or at least its human was) in the picture that accompanied the article. Then I saw the machine itself and began to ponder the obvious question to any patent attorney. Sure enough, there was an issued patent, (February 2004) so presumably this machine is safe and secure and patent-protected.

This brings me back to the quality issues Secretary Dudas spoke of as I tried to picture the Secretary attempting to subdue and then wash my 60 pound retriever with a hose and bucket, or picture him placing my spastic retriever in the dog-washer as a part of Sammy’s “spa experience.” This is pure quality to me.

Now, I did also have some kid put a flyer under my windshield the other day advertising his services to pick up dog “excrement” from my yard, priced out by the poundage of the dog, or was it poundage of excrement…. Maybe there’s another patent here just waiting to be drafted.

Posted May 6th, 2005 by Karlyn in Patent News
| | 1 Comment »

Its so nice to see Kos and Barr deciding to kiss and make-up and come to an agreement over the generic versions of Niaspan and Advicor. I am not taking sides in this dispute. Rather, I feel that this settlement agreement is in the best interest of the patients that need these drugs, and that should be the bottom line here, with issues of patent validity and infringement aside. So, regardless of how these two companies were brought to the negotiating table to come up with this three-part agreement, it would appear to be an equitable solution without court intervention and both parties should be applauded for their efforts at constructing this settlement agreement.

The Settlement and License Agreement permits Barr Laboratories to launch generic versions of Niaspan and Advicor, as well as future dosage formulations, strengths or modified versions of the Products, under terms of an exclusive license commencing on September 20, 2013, approximately four years earlier than the last-to-expire Kos patent. In other words, what this settlement agreement provides for is the certainty of generic entry by Barr four years before the Kos patents expire, or potentially earlier in certain circumstances.

Upon launch, Barr would pay Kos a royalty equal to a portion of profits generated from the sales of generic versions of the Products. As part of the settlement, Barr admits that Kos’ patents are valid and enforceable and that Barr infringes the Kos patents.
Read the rest of this entry »

Posted April 13th, 2005 by Karlyn in Patent News
| | Comments Off

Well, I am now back from a rather somewhat self-imposed hiatus from the Barista blawg site. The events of the past 2 weeks in my life, ranging from my toddler having surgery to selling my house, finding a new place to live for the entire herd, and having to move in 2 weeks time, all have taken a toll on any extra time I might have had to devote to any extraneous mental meanderings which I could have posted to this site.

That being said, anyone who knows me, also knows I am a die-hard animal-lover. So should it come as any surprise that since scientists have engineered a variety of barnyard animals to produce human proteins, they can now do the same trick in plants? (I love it - leave those furry creatures alone!)

Biolex, Inc., a privately held protein therapeutics company, today announced the issuance of a patent that broadly claims methods for immunizing a human or non-human animal against an antigen by administering an antibody produced by transgenic plants. This is the first patent ever awarded for the use of “plantibodies” (plant-made antibodies) to treat humans. Biolex now has exclusive rights to five U.S. patents in its Plantibodies portfolio, giving the company coverage for the production of antibodies in transgenic plants and their use to treat humans.

The specific patent issued from the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office is USP 6,852,319, entitled, “Method of Use of Transgenic Plant Expressed Antibodies.” It was issued to The Scripps Research Institute, where the technology was developed, and exclusively licensed to Epicyte Pharmaceutical which was acquired by Biolex in 2004.

Biolex would now appear to have a pretty big patent “stick” they can wield and it will be interesting to see how they choose to and can actually use it.
Read the rest of this entry »

Posted March 31st, 2005 by Karlyn in Patent News
| | Comments Off

This week in Science Magazine, a team led by Dr Mary Higby Schweitzer of North Carolina State University and the North Carolina Museum of Natural Sciences reports finding a 68-million year old Tyrannosaurus rex fossil that appears to contain elastic soft tissues, blood vessels and cells and it’s still transparent and pliable. This goes against the conventional wisdom that soft tissue should not last beyond 100,000 years.

This presents the possibility of extracting its DNA and, through the miracle of science, growing your own T. Rex. I’ve been dreaming of this my whole life and now it’s a step closer due to U.S. Pat. No. 6,872,552, “A Method of Reconstituting Nucleic Acid Molecules” issued today to Burt D. Ensley, Ph.D, Chairman of MatrixDesign, and CEO of DermaPlus, Inc. This patent covers methods for recovering and reconstituting genes from “degraded” DNA samples, and could allow scientists to reassemble everything from prehistoric, extinct animals to unsolved crime scenes. See Press Release here.

While there’s a bit of rhetoric to the press release, Dr. Ensley stated that “by stringing together the pieces of aged DNA, we should be able to reconstruct genes from animals such as the wooly mammoth, giant sloth, saber-toothed cat or even from tissues of the Tyrannosaurus rex that was described last Friday in the journal Science.”

What could be cooler than this?

Posted March 29th, 2005 by Stephen Albainy-Jenei in Patent News
| | Comments Off