For patent applicants looking to move quickly, the USPTO's Track One program is a seemingly obvious choice. But does the program, which was instituted in 2011, still work? The answer is yes – but not like it used to.

We often use allowance rate as a quick and simple way to quantify success at the USPTO -- and we know law firms use it too. However, that is just one of many indicators in-house counsel can use to evaluate firm performance. 

In the world of patent applications, timing is key. When your firm receives an office action, a quick and thorough response helps ensure smooth communication with your examiner and calms your anxious client.

Pfizer and Mylan, the maker of EpiPens, are merging. Pfizer will offload Upjohn, its portfolio of drugs that are no longer protected by patents, including Viagra, Lipitor and Celebrex, combining with rival Mylan to create a new company that will have a new, yet-to-be-announced name.

The USPTO recently hosted a webinar about the general approach to interpreting claims and how the specification interacts with and modifies those claims. With the goal of providing answers to common examiner questions, the webinar specifically discussed the importance of the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) of each claim, how to handle claim limitations, and the added difficulty of limitations related to 35 USC 112(f) (aka “Means-or-Step-Plus-Function” Limitations). The hope is to create consistent examination guidance that ensures all claims will be interpreted similarly by anyone of ordinary skill in the art. 

United Technologies, an American multinational conglomerate, recently agreed to combine its aerospace business with military contractor Raytheon, creating a new manufacturing giant in the aerospace and defense sectors. Under the new name of Raytheon Technologies, the merged company would have about $74 billion in expected sales for 2019. 

When looking for outside counsel, companies are likely hearing similar pitches from all law firms. Business intelligence can be a powerful differentiator, a tool that helps law firms identify areas of strength and discover new pathways to success. It can lead to more focused marketing efforts and a general uptick in client buy-in.

If the first six months of 2019 are any indication, this year will be a year of reform. 

In June, we marked the fifth anniversary of the Supreme Court’s landmark decision in Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International, 573 U.S. 208 (2014). Far from being settled law, questions of subject matter eligibility have dominated the conversation about patents in the courts, Congress, and the USPTO during the first half of the year. The continued controversy surrounding the Alice case half a decade after it was decided vividly demonstrates its unpopularity and underscores the broad consensus that the time for reform is now.

Elsewhere, the Supreme Court also issued two decisions focusing on provisions of the America Invents Act (AIA), while theft of IP assets by Chinese firms continues to plague U.S. businesses..

In 2013, the USPTO enacted the After Final Consideration Pilot (AFCP) 2.0 program as an alternative response to a final rejection. The goal of the program was to increase communication between examiners and applicants and take those applications that are close to allowance across the finish line, without requiring the time and cost inevitably associated with an RCE.

Over the last two weeks, patent practitioners, former judges, consultants, and law professors have testified in front of the Senate on the subject of patent eligibility law. Here's a recap of the hearings: