By Scott A. McKeown
| October 27, 2010

Narrowing Reissue Applications Seem to Fare No Better than Regular ApplicationsLast week I explained the disappointing state of broadening reissue application pendency over the first 5 years. As shown in the charts above (click to enlarge images), I analyzed the 129 narrowing patent reissues filed since 2005. Not surprisingly,  narrowing reissues applications fare much better in terms of pendency (close to 80% being concluded within 5 years).Apparently, without recapture muddying the waters, and with the more familiar narrowing of claims, the Examining Corps seems to have less difficulty moving these applications along. ...albeit at around the same pace as a routine patent application. With most narrowing reissue applications involving highly valued patents, a shorter pendency or "special dispatch" seems to be in order.As to the low number of narrowing reissues (129) relative to broadening (745), it seems plaintiffs are more willing to try their luck with the heightened invalidity standards of district courts for most "errors made without deceptive intent" rather than revisit the USPTO for several more yea


nreissue



Last week I explained the disappointing state of broadening reissue application pendency over the first 5 years. As shown in the charts above (click to enlarge images), I analyzed the 129 narrowing patent reissues filed since 2005. Not surprisingly,  narrowing reissues applications fare much better in terms of pendency (close to 80% being concluded within 5 years).

Apparently, without recapture muddying the waters, and with the more familiar narrowing of claims, the Examining Corps seems to have less difficulty moving these applications along. ...albeit at around the same pace as a routine patent application. With most narrowing reissue applications involving highly valued patents, a shorter pendency or "special dispatch" seems to be in order.

As to the low number of narrowing reissues (129) relative to broadening (745), it seems plaintiffs are more willing to try their luck with the heightened invalidity standards of district courts for most "errors made without deceptive intent" rather than revisit the USPTO for several more years.
Tags: Reissue
Share