[Patentpractice] proposed terminal disclaimer rule withdrawn

[David Boundy]

Here's a letter re terminal disclaimers that many of you signed, that
explains many statutory infirmities

https://downloads.regulations.gov/PTO-P-2024-0003-0259/attachment_1.pdf

Conjecture: the "resource" that the PTO found to be "constrained" is DoJ
lawyers willing to defend.

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
>


-- 


*       [image: Cambridge Technology Law LLC]
<https://www.iam-media.com/strategy300/individuals/david-boundy>*

Listed as one of the world's 300 leading intellectual property strategists
<https://www.iam-media.com/strategy300/individuals/david-boundy>

Articles at http://ssrn.com/author=2936470 <http://ssrn.com/author=2936470>
<https://www.keynect.us/requestCardAccess/USA500DBOUN?>

Click here to add me to your contacts.
<https://www.keynect.us/requestCardAccess/USA500DBOUN?>

* David Boundy
<https://www.iam-media.com/strategy300/individuals/david-boundy>*

DBoundy at cambridgetechlaw.com <dboundy at cambridgetechlaw.com> / +1
646.472.9737 <%2B1%206464729737>

Cambridge Technology Law LLC
686 Massachusetts Avenue #201, Cambridge  MA  02139
http://www.CambridgeTechLaw.com
http://www.linkedin.com/in/DavidBoundy
mailing address
PO Box 590638
Newton MA   02459

This communication is a confidential attorney-client communication intended
only for the person named above or an authorized representative.  Any
dissemination, distribution, or copying of this communication is strictly
prohibited, whether by the author or recipients.  Any legal, business or
tax information contained in this communication, including attachments and
enclosures, is not intended as a thorough, in-depth analysis of specific
issues, nor a substitute for a formal opinion, nor is it sufficient to
avoid legal or other adverse consequences to the recipient. Unless you are
the addressee (or authorized to receive for the addressee), you may not
copy, use, disclose or distribute this communication or attribute to the
Firm any information contained in this communication. If you have received
this communication in error, please advise the sender by replying to this
message or by telephone, and then promptly delete it.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://oppedahl-lists.com/pipermail/patentpractice_oppedahl-lists.com/attachments/20241215/2170c7fe/attachment.html>