Title 37 published on 2011-07-01
The following are only the Rules published in the Federal Register after the published date of Title 37.
For a complete list of all Rules, Proposed Rules, and Notices view the Rulemaking tab.
The Copyright Office of the Library of Congress is publishing a final rule establishing an additional fee for a particular service: Travel expenses in connection with educational activities.
The United States Copyright Office is amending its regulations in order to discontinue use of the Form CO application as an option for applying for copyright registration, and in order to remove references to CON 1 and CON 2 continuation sheets. The removal of Form CO leaves applicants a choice of filing an application for registration electronically or by using the appropriate printed application form relating to the subject matter of the application. The amendment also removes the references to CON 1 and CON 2 continuation sheets, which were never developed or made available to the public; the regulations instead now refer only to the continuation sheets currently available for applicants filing paper applications and makes other housekeeping amendments relating to applications for copyright registration.
The Leahy-Smith America Invents Act includes provisions for prioritized examination of patent applications. The United States Patent and Trademark Office (Office) implemented the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act prioritized examination provision following the prioritized examination track (Track I) of the proposed 3-Track examination process in a previous final rule. The final rule was made applicable to newly filed patent applications. In order to provide patent applicants with the flexibility to accelerate processing of their applications in which a request for continued examination has been filed, the Office is now permitting applicants to request prioritized examination for applications after the filing of a request for continued examination.
The United States Patent and Trademark Office (Office) is revising the patent term adjustment provisions of the rules of practice in patent cases. The patent term adjustment provisions of the American Inventors Protection Act of 1999 (AIPA) provide for a reduction of any patent term adjustment if the applicant failed to engage in reasonable efforts to conclude prosecution of the application. The Office is revising the rules of practice pertaining to the reduction of patent term adjustment for applicant delays to exclude information disclosure statements resulting from the citation of information in a counterpart application that are promptly filed with the Office. The rule change allows the diligent applicant to avoid patent term adjustment reduction for an IDS submission that results from a communication from the Office. Presently, the rule only provides relief if the IDS was cited as a result of a communication from a foreign patent office. Under this final rule, there will be no reduction of patent term adjustment in the following situations: when applicant promptly submits a reference in an information disclosure statement after the mailing of a notice of allowance if the reference was cited by the Office in another application, or when applicant promptly submits a copy of an Office communication ( e.g., an Office action) in an information disclosure statement after the mailing of a notice of allowance if the Office communication was issued by the Office in another application or by a foreign patent office in a counterpart foreign application. The above changes are intended to ensure compliance with AIPA in light of the evolving case law.
The Copyright Royalty Judges announce a cost of living adjustment (“COLA”) of 3.5% in the royalty rates paid by satellite carriers under the satellite carrier compulsory license of the Copyright Act. The COLA is based on the change in the Consumer Price Index from October 2010 to October 2011.
The Copyright Royalty Judges announce a cost of living adjustment (“COLA”) of 3.5% in the royalty rates that colleges, universities, and other educational institutions that are not affiliated with National Public Radio pay for the use of published nondramatic musical compositions in the ASCAP, BMI and SESAC repertories. The COLA is based on the change in the Consumer Price Index from October 2010 to October 2011.
The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO or Office) amends the rules governing practice before the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences (Board or BPAI) in ex parte patent appeals. The Office amends the rules to: Remove several of the briefing requirements for an appeal brief, provide for the Board to take jurisdiction over the appeal earlier in the appeal process, no longer require examiners to acknowledge receipt of reply briefs, create specified procedures under which an appellant can seek review of an undesignated new ground of rejection in either an examiner's answer or in a Board decision, provide that the Board will presume that the appeal is taken from the rejection of all claims under rejection unless cancelled by an applicant's amendment, and clarify that, for purposes of the examiner's answer, any rejection that relies upon Evidence not relied upon in the Office action from which the appeal is taken shall be designated as a new ground of rejection. The Office also withdraws a previously published final rule that never went into effect.
The Leahy-Smith America Invents Act provides an additional fee of $400 for applications not filed electronically. This final rule revises the rules of practice to include the fee for applications not filed electronically.
The United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) is adopting as a final rule, with minor changes, an interim final rule amending the Rules of Practice in Trademark Cases and the Rules of Practice in Filings Pursuant to the Protocol Relating to the Madrid Agreement Concerning the International Registration of Marks (“Madrid Rules”) to implement the Trademark Technical and Conforming Amendment Act of 2010. The interim final rule was published in the Federal Register on June 24, 2010. This final rule makes minor changes to the interim final rule to incorporate additional statutory language being implemented.
On April 4, 2011, the United States Patent and Trademark Office (Office) published a final rule that revised the rules of practice in patent cases to implement a procedure under which applicants may request prioritized examination at the time of filing of an application upon payment of appropriate fees and compliance with certain requirements (Track I final rule). The prioritized examination procedure is the first track (Track I) of a 3-Track examination process designed to provide applicants with greater control over when their utility and plant applications are examined and to promote greater efficiency in the patent examination process. The Office subsequently published a final rule on April 29, 2011, indicating that the effective date of the Track I final rule was delayed until further notice due to funding limitations. The Leahy-Smith America Invents Act includes provisions for prioritized examination that emulate the requirements of the Office's Track I final rule, with revised fee amounts for prioritized examination (including a small entity discount) and a provision that addresses the funding limitations that required a delay in the implementation of the Track I final rule. This final rule implements the prioritized examination provisions of section 11(h) of the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act.
The United States Patent and Trademark Office (Office) is revising the rules of practice governing inter partes reexamination to implement a transition provision of the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act that changes the standard for granting a request for inter partes reexamination. The Office is also revising the rules governing inter partes reexamination to reflect the termination of inter partes reexamination effective September 16, 2012, which is provided for in the Act. The Leahy-Smith America Invents Act replaces inter partes reexamination by a new inter partes review process effective one year after the date of enactment of the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act ( i.e., September 16, 2012), and provides that any request for inter partes reexamination filed on or after September 16, 2011, will not be granted unless the information presented in the request establishes that there is a reasonable likelihood that the requester will prevail with respect to at least one of the claims challenged in the request. This replaces the prior standard for granting a request for inter partes reexamination that required a substantial new question of patentability (SNQ) affecting any claim of the patent raised by the request. The Leahy-Smith America Invents Act does not revise the SNQ standard for granting an ex parte reexamination request.
The Copyright Royalty Judges are amending their regulations to authorize the use of proxy reports of use to permit distribution of royalties collected for the period April 1, 2004, through December 31, 2009, for the public performance of sound recordings by means of digital audio transmissions pursuant to statutory license. Proxy reports of use will be used for those services for which no reports of use were submitted or for which the reports of use were unusable.
The Copyright Office is making an amendment to its regulations by removing Part 251 Copyright Arbitration Royalty Panel Rules of Procedure. In 2004, Congress replaced the Copyright Arbitration Royalty Panels with three Copyright Royalty Judges who operate under separate regulations.
The following are ALL rules, proposed rules, and notices (chronologically) published in the Federal Register relating to Title 37
The Copyright Office is proposing the adoption of new fees for the registration of claims, recordation of documents, special services, Licensing Division services, and processing of FOIA requests. The proposed fees would recover a significant part of the costs to the Office for services that benefit both copyright owners and the public, and provide full cost recovery for many services which benefit only or primarily the user of that service. As part of the fee setting process, the Office is providing an opportunity to the public to comment on the proposed changes before submitting the fee schedule to Congress for review.
The Copyright Office of the Library of Congress (“Office”) will be holding public hearings on the possible exemptions to the prohibition against circumvention of technological measures that control access to copyrighted works. In accordance with the Copyright Act, as amended by the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, the Office is conducting its triennial rulemaking proceeding to determine whether there are particular “classes of works” as to which users are, or are likely to be, adversely affected in their ability to make noninfringing uses if they are prohibited from circumventing such technological measures. The first day of hearings will be dedicated to demonstrations of technology relevant to the rulemaking proceeding.
The United States Patent and Trademark Office (Office or USPTO) proposes new rules to implement the provisions of the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act that create a new derivation proceeding to be conducted before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (Board). These provisions of the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act will take effect on March 16, 2013, eighteen months after the date of enactment, and apply to applications for patent, and any patent issuing thereon, that are subject to first-inventor-to-file provisions of the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act.
The United States Patent and Trademark Office (Office or USPTO) proposes new rules to implement the provisions of the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act that create a new inter partes review proceeding to be conducted before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (Board). These provisions of the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act will take effect on September 16, 2012, one year after the date of enactment, and apply to any patent issued before, on, or after the effective date.
The United States Patent and Trademark Office (Office or USPTO) proposes new rules to implement the provisions of the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act that create a new post-grant review proceeding to be conducted before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (Board). These provisions of the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act will take effect on September 16, 2012, one year after the date of enactment, and generally apply to patents issuing from applications subject to first-inventor-to-file provisions of the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act.
The United States Patent and Trademark Office (Office or USPTO) proposes new rules to implement the provisions of the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act that create a new transitional post-grant review proceeding for covered business method patents to be conducted before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (Board). These provisions of the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act will take effect on September 16, 2012, one year after the date of enactment. These provisions and any regulations issued under these provisions will be repealed on September 16, 2020, with respect to any new petitions under the transitional program.
The United States Patent and Trademark Office (Office or USPTO) proposes a new rule to implement the provision of the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act that requires the Office to issue regulations for determining whether a patent is for a technological invention in a transitional post-grant review proceeding for covered business method patents. The provision of the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act will take effect on September 16, 2012, one year after the date of enactment. The provision and any regulations issued under the provision will be repealed on September 16, 2020, with respect to any new petitions under the transitional program.
The Leahy-Smith America Invents Act establishes several new trial proceedings to be conducted by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (Board) including inter partes review, post-grant review, the transitional program for covered business method patents, and derivation proceedings. The Leahy-Smith America Invents Act also requires the United States Patent and Trademark Office (Office or USPTO) to promulgate rules specific to each proceeding. In separate rulemakings elsewhere in this issue and in the February 10, 2012, issue of the Federal Register , the Office proposes rules relating to Board trial practice for the new proceedings. The Office publishes in this document a practice guide for the proposed trial rules to advise the public on the general framework of the proposed regulations, including the structure and times for taking action in each of the new proceedings.
The United States Patent and Trademark Office (Office or USPTO) proposes new rules of practice to implement the provisions of the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act that provide for trials before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (Board). The proposed rules would provide a consolidated set of rules relating to Board trial practice for inter partes review, post-grant review, the transitional program for covered business method patents, and derivation proceedings. The proposed rules would also provide a consolidated set of rules to implement the provisions of the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act related to seeking judicial review of Board decisions.
The United States Patent and Trademark Office (Office) is proposing to amend the rules of practice in patent cases to implement the supplemental examination provisions of the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act. The supplemental examination provisions permit a patent owner to request supplemental examination of a patent by the Office to consider, reconsider, or correct information believed to be relevant to the patent. These provisions could assist the patent owner in addressing certain challenges to the enforceability of the patent during litigation. The Office is also proposing to adjust the fee for filing a request for ex parte reexamination and to set a fee for petitions filed in ex parte and inter partes reexamination proceedings to more accurately reflect the cost of these processes.
The United States Patent and Trademark Office (Office) proposes changes to the existing rules of practice to implement the inventor's oath or declaration provisions of the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act. The Office proposes to revise and clarify the rules of practice relating to the inventor's oath or declaration, including reissue oaths or declarations, assignments containing oath or declaration statements from inventors, and oaths or declarations signed by parties other than the inventors. In order to better facilitate processing of patent applications, the Office further proposes to revise and clarify the rules of practice for power of attorney and prosecution of an application by an assignee.
The Leahy-Smith America Invents Act expands the scope of information that any party may cite in a patent file, to include written statements made by a patent owner before a Federal court or the United States Patent and Trademark Office (Office) regarding the scope of any claim of the patent, and it provides for how such information may be considered in ex parte reexamination, inter partes review, and post grant review. The Leahy-Smith America Invents Act also provides for an estoppel that may attach with respect to ex parte reexamination based on an inter partes review or post grant review proceeding. The Office is revising the rules of practice to implement these post-patent provisions, as well as other miscellaneous provisions of the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act.
The United States Patent and Trademark Office (Office) is proposing changes to the rules of patent practice to implement the preissuance submissions by third parties provision of the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act. This provision provides a mechanism for third parties to contribute to the quality of issued patents by submitting to the Office, for consideration and inclusion in the record of patent applications, any patents, published patent applications, or other printed publications of potential relevance to the examination of the applications. A preissuance submission may be made in any non- provisional utility, design, and plant application, as well as in any continuing or reissue application. A third-party preissuance submission must include a concise description of the asserted relevance of each document submitted and be submitted within a certain statutorily specified time period. The third party must submit a fee as prescribed by the Director and a statement that the submission complies with all of the statutory requirements. The third-party preissuance submission provision of the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act is effective on September 16, 2012, and applies to any application filed before, on, or after September 16, 2012. Comment Deadline: Written comments must be received on or before March 5, 2012.
The Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (AIA) requires that disciplinary proceedings be commenced not later than the earlier of the date that is 10 years after the date on which the misconduct forming the basis of the proceeding occurred, or one year from the date on which the misconduct forming the basis of the proceeding was made known to an officer or employee of the United States Patent and Trademark Office (Office or USPTO), as prescribed in the regulations governing disciplinary proceedings. The Office initiates disciplinary proceedings via three types of disciplinary complaints: complaints predicated on the receipt of a probable cause determination from the Committee on Discipline; complaints seeking reciprocal discipline; and complaints seeking interim suspension based on a serious crime conviction. This notice proposes that the one-year statute of limitations commences, with respect to complaints predicated on the receipt of a probable cause determination from the Committee on Discipline, the date on which the Director, Office of Enrollment and Discipline (OED Director) receives from the practitioner a complete, written response to a request for information and evidence; with respect to complaints based on reciprocal discipline, the date on which the OED Director receives a certified copy of the record or order regarding the practitioner being publicly censured, publicly reprimanded, subjected to probation, disbarred, suspended, or disciplinarily disqualified; and, with respect to complaints for interim suspension based on a serious crime conviction, the date on which the OED Director receives a certified copy of the record, docket entry, or judgment demonstrating that the practitioner has been convicted of a serious crime.
The United States Patent and Trademark Office (Office) is proposing to revise the patent term adjustment provisions of the rules of practice in patent cases. The patent term adjustment provisions of the American Inventors Protection Act of 1999 (AIPA) provide for patent term adjustment if, inter alia, the issuance of the patent was delayed due to appellate review by the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences (BPAI) or by a Federal court and the patent was issued under a decision in the review reversing an adverse determination of patentability. The Office is proposing to change the rules of practice to indicate that the period of appellate review under the patent term adjustment provisions of the AIPA begins when jurisdiction over the application passes to the BPAI rather than the date on which a notice of appeal to the BPAI is filed. The Office recently published the final rule (eff. date Jan 23, 2012) concerning practice before the BPAI in ex parte appeals and defined that jurisdiction of the appeal passes to the BPAI at the earlier of the filing of the reply brief or upon the expiration of the time in which to file a reply brief. See Rules Of Practice Before the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences in Ex Parte Appeals 76 FR 72270, 72273 (November 22, 2011). Accordingly, for purposes of calculating patent term adjustment based upon appellate review, the impact of the rule change would be to reduce the amount of patent term adjustment awarded for successful appeal under 35 USC 154(b)(1)(C)(iii). However, the impact may be offset by potentially increasing the amount of patent term adjustment awarded for failing to issue the patent within three years of the actual filing date in the United States under 35 USC 154(b)(1)(B). The patent term adjustment award for the three year provision may increase when the examiner reopens prosecution after a notice of appeal is filed (e.g., following a pre-appeal conference or an appeal conference) and the patent issues thereafter, because the period of time between the filing of the notice of appeal and the examiner's reopening of prosecution would no longer be deducted under 35 USC 154(b)(1)(B)(ii).
The United States Copyright Office (“Office”) seeks comments on proposals to exempt certain classes of works from the prohibition on circumvention of technological measures that control access to copyrighted works. The Office has initiated a rulemaking proceeding in accordance with provisions added by the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (“DMCA”) which provide that the Librarian of Congress (“Librarian”), upon the recommendation of the Register of Copyrights, may exempt certain classes of works from the prohibition against circumvention. The purpose of this proceeding is to determine whether there are particular classes of works as to which users are, or are likely to be, adversely affected in their ability to make noninfringing uses due to the prohibition on circumvention. This notice publishes the classes of works received by the Office, which were proposed by several parties in the comment period that ended on December 1, 2011.
The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) is considering several changes in practice designed to encourage a more complete record at the USPTO of patent assignments. The USPTO invites the public to provide comments on methods the USPTO can employ to collect more timely and accurate patent assignment information both during prosecution and after issuance.
The United States Copyright Office is proposing to amend its regulations to discontinue use of the Form CO application as an option for applying for copyright registration; and remove the references to CON 1 and CON 2 sheets. Form CO applications comprise only a small percentage of all applications submitted but they contain a significant number of errors, thus requiring a disproportionate amount of the Office's time, effort and resources to process. The proposed amendments would remove references to Form CO and would instead allow applicants a choice to file an application for registration either by filing the application electronically or by using the appropriate printed application form that relates to the subject matter of the application (i.e., Form TX for nondramatic literary works, Form PA for works of the performing arts, Form VA for works of visual art, Form SR for sound recordings, and Form SE for serials). Additionally, the proposed amendment would remove the references to CON 1 and CON 2 sheets, which were never developed or made available to the public, and would instead refer only to the continuation sheets currently available for applicants filing paper applications.
The United States Copyright Office is preparing to conduct proceedings in accordance with provisions added by the Digital Millennium Copyright Act which provide that the Librarian of Congress, upon the recommendation of the Register of Copyrights, may exempt certain classes of works from the prohibition against circumvention of technological measures that control access to copyrighted works. The purpose of this rulemaking proceeding is to determine whether there are particular classes of works as to which users are, or are likely to be, adversely affected in their ability to make noninfringing uses due to the prohibition on circumvention. This notice requests written comments from all interested parties, including representatives of copyright owners, educational institutions, libraries and archives, scholars, researchers and members of the public, in order to elicit evidence on whether noninfringing uses of certain classes of works are, or are likely to be, adversely affected by this prohibition on the circumvention of measures that control access to copyrighted works.
The Copyright Office is issuing this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking to solicit public comment on proposals to update its interim regulations governing the designation by online service providers of agents to receive notifications of claimed copyright infringement as provided for in the Copyright Act.
The United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) is extending until September 23, 2011, the period for public comment on the proposal to revise the Trademark Rules of Practice and the Rules of Practice for Filings Pursuant to the Madrid Protocol to permit the USPTO to require: any information, exhibits, and affidavits or declarations deemed reasonably necessary to examine an affidavit or declaration of continued use or excusable nonuse in trademark cases, or for the USPTO to assess the accuracy and integrity of the register; and upon request, more than one specimen in connection with a use-based trademark application, an allegation of use, an amendment to a registered mark, or an affidavit or declaration of continued use in trademark cases.
The United States Patent and Trademark Office (Office or PTO) is proposing to revise the standard for materiality for the duty to disclose information in patent applications and reexamination proceedings in light of the decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (Federal Circuit or Court) in Therasense, Inc. v. Becton, Dickinson & Co. Specifically, the Office is proposing to revise the materiality standard for the duty to disclose to match the materiality standard, as defined in Therasense, for the inequitable conduct doctrine. While Therasense does not require the Office to harmonize the materiality standards underlying the duty of disclosure and the inequitable conduct doctrine, the Office believes that there are important reasons to do so. The materiality standard set forth in Therasense should reduce the frequency with which applicants and practitioners are being charged with inequitable conduct, consequently reducing the incentive to submit information disclosure statements containing marginally relevant information and enabling applicants to be more forthcoming and helpful to the Office. At the same time, it should also continue to prevent fraud on the Office and other egregious forms of misconduct. Additionally, harmonization of the materiality standards is simpler for the patent system as a whole.
In order to help assess and ensure the accuracy of the trademark register, the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) proposes to revise the Trademark Rules of Practice and the Rules of Practice for Filings Pursuant to the Madrid Protocol to provide for the USPTO to require: any information, exhibits, and affidavits or declarations deemed reasonably necessary to examine an affidavit or declaration of continued use or excusable nonuse in trademark cases, or for the USPTO to assess the accuracy and integrity of the register; and upon request, more than one specimen in connection with a use-based trademark application, an allegation of use, an amendment to a registered mark, or an affidavit or declaration of continued use in trademark cases. A lack of ability to rely on the trademark register as an accurate reflection of marks that are actually in use in the United States for the goods/services identified in the registration imposes costs and burdens on the public. The proposed rules will allow the USPTO to require additional proof of use of a mark to verify the accuracy of claims that a trademark is in use on particular goods/services. The USPTO anticipates issuing requirements for such proof in a relatively small number of cases to assess the accuracy of the identifications. The proposed rules will facilitate an assessment of the reliability of the trademark register in this regard, so that the USPTO and stakeholders may determine whether and to what extent a general problem may exist and consider measures to address it, if necessary.
The Copyright Office is extending for one year the interim rule relating to fees for special handling of registration claims that have been pending for at least six months. Currently, the interim rule is set to expire on July 1, 2011, and this extension will change the expiration date to July 1, 2012.
The United States Patent and Trademark Office (Office) is proposing to adjust certain patent fee amounts for fiscal year 2012 to reflect fluctuations in the Consumer Price Index (CPI). The patent statute provides for the annual CPI adjustment of patent fees set by statute to recover the higher costs associated with doing business.
The Copyright Office is amending its regulations governing notices of termination of certain grants of transfers and licenses of copyright under section 203 of the Copyright Act. The amendments are intended to clarify the recordation practices of the Copyright Office regarding the content of certain notices of termination, and the circumstances under which such notices will be accepted by the Office. In particular, they clarify that the Copyright Office will record section 203 notices of termination of grants for works created after 1977 even when the agreement to make a grant was made before 1978.
The Copyright Office is making non-substantive amendments to its regulations to reflect a reorganization that has moved the Recordation function from the Visual Arts and Recordation Division of the Registration and Recordation Program to the Information and Records Division. As a result of this reorganization, the name of the Registration and Recordation Program has been changed to the Registration Program.
On April 4, 2011, the United States Patent and Trademark Office (Office) published a final rule that revises the rules of practice in patent cases to implement a procedure under which applicants may request prioritized examination at the time of filing of an application upon payment of appropriate fees and compliance with certain requirements (Track I final rule). The prioritized examination procedure is the first track (Track I) of a 3-Track examination process designed to provide applicants with greater control over when their nonprovisional utility and plant applications are examined and to promote greater efficiency in the patent examination process. The Track I final rule states that the effective date is May 4, 2011, and that a request for prioritized examination may be submitted with any original utility or plant application filed on or after May 4, 2011. The Office is hereby notifying the public that the Track I final rule effective date and applicability date have been delayed until further notice.
The Copyright Royalty Judges are proposing to amend their regulations to provide reporting of uses of sound recordings performed by means of digital audio transmissions pursuant to statutory license for the period April 1, 2004, through December 1, 2009.
The United States Patent and Trademark Office (Office) is proposing to revise the patent term adjustment and extension provisions of the rules of practice in patent cases. The patent term adjustment provisions of the American Inventors Protection Act of 1999 (AIPA) and the patent term extension provisions of the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (URAA) each provide for patent term extension or adjustment if the issuance of the patent was delayed due to appellate review by the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences (BPAI) or by a Federal court and the patent was issued pursuant to or under a decision in the review reversing an adverse determination of patentability. The Office is proposing to change the rules of practice to indicate that in most circumstances an examiner reopening prosecution of the application after a notice of appeal has been filed will be considered a decision in the review reversing an adverse determination of patentability for purposes of patent term adjustment or extension purposes. Therefore, in such situations, patentees would be entitled to patent term extension or adjustment. In addition, the AIPA provides for a reduction of any patent term adjustment if the applicant failed to engage in reasonable efforts to conclude prosecution of the application. The Office is also proposing to change the rules of practice pertaining to the reduction of patent term adjustment for applicant delays to exclude information disclosure statements resulting from the citation of information by a foreign patent office in a counterpart application that are promptly filed with the Office. For example, under the proposed rule, there would not be a reduction of patent term adjustment in the following situations: When applicant promptly submits a reference in an information disclosure statement after the mailing of a notice of allowance if the reference was cited by the Office in another application, or when applicant promptly submits a copy of an Office communication ( e.g., an Office action) in an information disclosure statement after the mailing of a notice of allowance if the Office communication was issued by the Office in another application or by a foreign patent office in a counterpart foreign application.
The United States Patent and Trademark Office (Office) is revising the rules of practice in patent cases to implement a procedure under which applicants may request prioritized examination at the time of filing of an application upon payment of appropriate fees and compliance with certain requirements. In June of 2010, the Office requested comments on a proposal to provide applicants with greater control over when their utility and plant applications are examined and to promote greater efficiency in the patent examination process (3-Track). The Office, in addition to requesting written comments, conducted a public meeting to collect input from the public. The vast majority of public comments and input that the Office received were supportive of the prioritized examination track (Track I) portion of the 3-Track proposal. While the Office is in the process of considering and revising the other portions of the 3-Track proposal in view of the public comments and input, the Office wishes to implement the prioritized examination track (Track I) now to provide the procedure for prioritized examination to applicants as quickly as possible. In February of 2011, the Office published a notice of proposed rule making to set forth the proposed procedure for prioritized examination and to seek public comments on the proposed procedure. The Office considered the public comments and revised the proposed procedure in view of the public comments. The Office, in this final rule, is revising the rules of practice to implement the optional procedure for prioritized examination. The aggregate goal for processing applications under prioritized examination is to provide a final disposition within twelve months of prioritized status being granted. The Office is initially limiting requests for prioritized examination to a maximum of 10,000 applications during the remainder of fiscal year 2011.
The Copyright Royalty Judges are announcing their final determination of the rates and terms for two statutory licenses, permitting certain digital performances of sound recordings and the making of ephemeral recordings, for the period beginning January 1, 2011, and ending on December 31, 2015.
The Copyright Office is amending its regulations to set the minimum level of activity required to hold a deposit account at 12 transactions per year; require deposit account holders to maintain a minimum balance in that account; require the closure of a deposit account the second time it is overdrawn within any 12-month period; and offer deposit account holders the option of automatic replenishment of their account via their bank account or credit card.
The United States Patent and Trademark Office (Office) requested comments on a proposal to provide applicants with greater control over when their utility and plant applications are examined and to promote greater efficiency in the patent examination process (3-Track). The Office, in addition to requesting written comments, conducted a public meeting to collect input, and has subsequently considered the wide range of comments received. The Office is in the process of refining the 3-Track proposal in light of the input. While that process continues, and in light of the fact that the vast majority of public input was supportive of the Track I portion of the 3-Track proposal, the Office proposes by this Notice to proceed with immediate implementation of the Prioritized Examination Track (Track I), providing fast examination for applicants desiring it, upon payment of the applicable fee and compliance with the additional requirements as described below.
The Copyright Office is proposing to amend its regulations, including the recently published interim regulations regarding electronic registration of automated databases that consist predominantly of photographs and group registration of published photographs (the “Interim Regulations”), governing the deposit requirements for applications for automated databases that consist predominantly of photographs. The proposed amendments would require that, in addition to providing material relating to claimed compilation authorship, the deposits for such databases include the image of each photograph in which copyright is claimed. The Office believes that this amendment will align the deposit requirements for such databases with the deposit requirements for published or unpublished photographs as a single work or group registration of published photographs and provide a better public record identifying the scope of the copyright claim.
The Copyright Office is adopting interim regulations governing the electronic submission of applications for registration of automated databases that predominantly consist of photographs, and applications for group registration of published photographs. This interim rule establishes a testing period and pilot program during which the Copyright Office will assess the desirability and feasibility of permanently allowing such applications to be submitted through the Copyright Office's electronic filing system (“eCO”). Persons wishing to submit electronic applications to register copyrights of such photographic databases or of groups of published photographs should contact the Visual Arts Division for permission and guidance on electronic registration. Notwithstanding the ordinary deposit requirements for group registration of automated databases, an electronic application for group registration of an automated database that consists predominantly of photographic authorship must include the image of each claimed photograph in the database. The interim regulations also allow applicants to use forms other than Form TX, as appropriate, when submitting paper applications to register group automated databases.
