[Patentpractice] proposed terminal disclaimer rule withdrawn

[Rick Neifeld]

What, you did not like my comments, Dan?

*"Comments on the proposed rule titled "Terminal Disclaimer Practice to
Obviate Nonstatutory Double Patenting" 89 FR 40439 (5/10/2024).
<https://www.neifeld.com/pubs/Letter_ProposedTDRule.pdf>" Rick Neifeld, May
10, 2024.*



On Tue, Dec 3, 2024 at 1:36 PM Dan Feigelson via Patentpractice <
patentpractice at oppedahl-lists.com> wrote:

> I hadn't looked through the comments on the NPRM earlier, but browsing
> through a few of them now, I found this gem
> <https://gcfagjf.r.bh.d.sendibt3.com/tr/cl/-fzMeaXKOZ9f8l9NdE7JpFF3x4MGSKUU2xvfD7ZPmd33tMpjyhBniIsfktg_hBQ1BOAVIriYIutLveo_lhaNLDcvxyRzRIKJa-LU0jwOTQ63gPp0mIChtNfl57s4j_zsf_U9D8SF6kFJya8_jBRrudPR60dBGzp5DeoGRaKNv78BDEglt0QwyKdphugV0iihUf2hlLKCh0wDzb3iIVwYYp57i3ugV883pRVhiqNC1NySBviTxAs8S5R23J_Prh1khIb88LeD4S5NOt9HnUBKTndyWEzdCFgvmTXLIrSiTM3aJBbCrF61bLIFMJ9kupM4T5eSgBo>
> 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
>> <https://gcfagjf.r.bh.d.sendibt3.com/tr/cl/vX7TKj3AsJYOvhC8y85H3l_csFtQNzMS0_T5LZIxlXRtRLG-hopaM77yYzzYOmjxEr6Kl7c62dLH-6ZoojBnbdERI1vRFYOnwppsG0ir-z3urXXrIM7pf1rSMmucbQi94yfrXv7ucLX82Xz-kj1wkBxgWltaStBQI0_QiYQpS6HFsxpBnD4lwR054ZURDoQNK-lvz1LW_S0pC8pQKaUPH2uwmfC0oLCHgHTxxMqF6VUL0oi-SpPB1X1x3q4oCCQ5TXtsHSWV-DN750V5pyvh1ulo8YQMGN93hGL4377AhaoIPp7mZgqGTKf8IWUfD0uSv_bxtbzu0ec>
>>
>> comments at www.regulations.gov/document/PTO-P-2024-0003-0001
>> <https://gcfagjf.r.bh.d.sendibt3.com/tr/cl/AqcBA4ZbGNadVuvCZ9niIimRy7Umo5iIekRYHgxov8s7UGZ5_qutl2pBWn1X8zHdIedOR5WKxuWPMqgDeIGA_7iKJWIhZXeegp7EUSHcQ994YND2_5B7pLZTKxLLREmJUB4hgquCm55UzY4YIADF9KmRYztrzSLXhB_EQdjBYr0aD2q4SGoTCk60qf7mE-QrM95cN4UXXPpTfc0R7sMqMKfaAEsf0P-_UXbFzUOUZG2diH_YCRgylh35rF0PKzRhIkUHd5wa4SIn_J8YfK36nQ5BmhjGaj8p8NOpeO5GhcozsXfHPw9DDQBDuJGZ4Rhemcsc3cI>
>>
> --
> Patentpractice mailing list
> Patentpractice at oppedahl-lists.com
>
> http://oppedahl-lists.com/mailman/listinfo/patentpractice_oppedahl-lists.com
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://oppedahl-lists.com/pipermail/patentpractice_oppedahl-lists.com/attachments/20241203/2a6e84ed/attachment.html>