[Patentpractice] proposed terminal disclaimer rule withdrawn

[Dan Feigelson]

I hadn't looked through the comments on the NPRM earlier, but browsing
through a few of them now, I found this gem
<https://www.regulations.gov/comment/PTO-P-2024-0003-0214> signed by Drew
Hirschfeld, Andre Iancu, Dave Kappos, Laura Peter and Russel Slifer.  It's
the first one I came across that states that this would be a substantive
rule that the PTO doesn't have authority to promulgate.

The last two paragraphs read,

"Combined with another recent proposal to increase fees for continuations
and terminal disclaimers, some over 700%, the Office is evidently
attempting to significantly deter, if not eliminate, continuations practice
– a right that inventors are given by statute. It is not for the USPTO, an
administrative agency
with no substantive rulemaking authority, to make such an important
decision for the United States on its own.
"At a time when America is losing its technological edge to China and other
nations and needs to maximize its creative output in order to compete in
artificial intelligence, 5/6G, quantum, energy, biotechnology, and so much
more, the USPTO’s NPRM destabilizes the patent system and advances
anti-innovation policies. The terminal disclaimer and continuations
proposal creates uncertainty every day that it remains under consideration,
disrupting the innovation economy even if the rules are ultimately not
adopted. The USPTO should withdraw this proposed rules package immediately
and work to restore stability and predictability in the American patent
system."

Ouch.

Dan

On Tue, Dec 3, 2024 at 8:18 PM Dan Feigelson <djf at iliplaw.com> wrote:

> Even a stopped clock is right twice a day.
>
> https://cdn.patentlyo.com/media/2024/12/2024-282631.pdf
>
> comments at www.regulations.gov/document/PTO-P-2024-0003-0001
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://oppedahl-lists.com/pipermail/patentpractice_oppedahl-lists.com/attachments/20241203/16a30830/attachment.html>