1. 1 USPTO Experiences with the Patent Prosecution Highway (PPH) Paolo Trevisan Patent Attorney Office of Policy and International Affairs United States Patent and Trademark Office

2. History of the PPH Program Applications today are filed globally 2

3. 3 History of the PPH Program Backlogs in offices around the world began to explode in the late 1990s The number of applications filed in multiple offices also started to steadily increase Offices began discussing potential ways to improve efficiencies – focusing on worksharing PPH began as a pilot in between the JPO and USPTO in 2006 Today - 30 offices worldwide; 26 with USPTO

4. Why Worksharing? Offices seek ways to re-use the search and examination results completed on related or cross-filed applications in an another Office to: Minimize duplication of work Enhance examination efficiency and quality Deliver real benefits to end users 4

5. 5 The PPH Program Benefits to applicant of using the PPH program: –Significantly lower prosecution costs Higher allowance rate Fewer actions per disposal Reduced rates of RCE filing and Appeal –Fast-tracked examination improving timeliness of patent issuance –Potentially higher quality than can be delivered by any single office acting individually

6. 6 PPH Basics What is PPH? –When claims are determined to be allowable in one Office, a related application with corresponding claims filed in another PPH office is fast-tracked for examination –Paris Route PPH and PCT PPH

7. PPH Basics Two types: Paris Route and PCT 7

8. Some PPH Requirements in the USPTO All the claims in each U.S. application for which a request for participation in the PPH pilot program is made must sufficiently correspond to or be amended to sufficiently correspond to the allowable/patentable claims in the OEE application(s). Claims will be considered to sufficiently correspond where, accounting for differences due to translations and claim format requirements, the claims are of the same or similar scope, or narrower. Examination of the U.S. application for which participation in the PPH pilot program is requested has not begun. Provisional applications, plant applications, design applications, reissue applications, reexamination proceedings cannot take part. http://www.uspto.gov/patents/init_events/pph/ 8

9. 9 PPH Statistics at a Glance Number of petitions as of February 28, 2014: 12 monthsCumulative Paris-PPH3,87515,377 PCT-PPH4,49411,313 Total8,36926,690

10. PPH Program Growth – New Requests 10 Average number of new applications with PPH petitions per month at the USPTO Program20102011201220132014* Paris-Route150186234263296 PCT63153221294284 Total213339455557580 *2014 Average to date – March 31, 2014

11. 11 PPH Statistics at a Glance Cumulative Applications with PPH Petitions by Month

12. 12 PPH Efficiency Benefits PPH continues to deliver benefits to the offices and users PPH results compared with all cases Paris-PPHPCT-PPHAll Cases Grant Rate (Allowances/Total Number of Disposals) 82%87%53% First Action Allowance Rate 26%20%17% Actions per Disposal 2.31.62.6

13. 13 PPH Cost Savings Benefits Assuming reply/amendment of minimal complexity Average Cost Savings per Action = $2086 (Source: AIPLA Report of the Economic Survey, 2011) So— For each non-PPH application: ($2086/action x 2.6 actions) = $5424 in costs For a Paris-route PPH application: ($2086 x 2.3 actions) = $4798  $626 SAVINGS For a PCT-PPH application: ($2086 x 1.6 actions) = $3338  $2086 SAVINGS Notes: Does not include client overhead savings or local law firm fee savings for response to Action Does not consider fewer RCEs and Appeals (see later slide) Does not consider Fees/Costs for requesting PPH Assumes request fees are equal to savings of client overhead Assumes no government fee (USPTO eliminated fee) Assumes for foreign applicants that the total local and US attorney costs equal the above average of $2086 per action Thanks to Hung Bui and Alan Kasper of AIPLA for compiling cost savings data (Source: AIPLA Report of the Economic Survey, 2011) http://www.buigarcia.com/docs/AIPLA-PPH(HHB).pdf

14. 14 PPH Cost Savings Data: Office Actions For replies/amendments of relative complexity Average Cost Savings per Action = $894- $3889 So— Non-PPH applications: Min: (2.6 x $2978/action) = $7743 Max: (2.6 x $3889/action) = $10,111 Paris-route PPH applications: Min: (2.3 x $2978) = $6849 Max: (2.3 x $3889) = $8945  SAVINGS = $894 - $1166/case PCT-PPH applications: Min: (1.6 x $2978) = $4765 Max: (1.6 x $3889) = $6222  SAVINGS = $2978 - $3889/case

15. 15 PPH Cost Savings Data: After Final Average Added Cost Savings for RCEs and Appeals from Fees Avoided Relevant USPTO Statistics (from prior slide) RCE filing rates: 11% for PPH vs. 31% for non-PPH Appeal rates: 0.3% for PPH vs. 2.5% for non-PPH Applicable USPTO Fees RCEs - $810 Appeals - $1000 ($500 Appeal and $500 Brief) (pre AIA) Cost savings – government fees only RCEs – on average 20% (31% - 11%) of $810 = $162 Appeals – on average 2.2% (2.5% - 0.3%) of $1000 = $22 Total added savings on average = $184

16. PPH Quality Benefits Analysis of 155 First Action Allowances –98% - Examiner recorded a new search –84% - Additional art cited –40% - Examiner amendment and/or interview Serial examination process yields quality, defensible patent rights. 16

17. 17 MOTTAINAI MOTTAINAI - Expanded eligibility by de-linking priority Original Approach: PPH framework based on unidirectional work flow OFF  OSF New approach: –Eligibility based on available work from any participating office on a patent family member, regardless of order of filing –Gives applicants greater flexibility and increase pool of potentially eligible applications –OEE  OLE

18. MOTTAINAI Participating Offices: Pilot began July 15, 2011, now made permanent in most cases –Australia -Canada -Finland -Japan -Russia -Spain -United Kingdom -European Patent Office –USPTO 18

19. 19 PPH 2.0 PPH 2.0 Further simplifies requirements to be more user friendly PPH 2.0 retains MOTTAINAI’s expanded eligibility by de-linking priority. Eligibility based on work available from any Participating Office, uses OEE – OLE concept, if the applications in question are members of the same patent family and the disclosures support the claimed subject matter. Should lead to further reduced costs for applicants while retaining worksharing benefits for the Offices.

20. PPH 2.0 Key improvements are: –Applicant self-certification of claims correspondence** –Machine translations of Office actions accepted –Examiner use of electronic dossier systems, where available, to access the work done in earlier office Carried over form Mottainai: –Claim correspondence will be interpreted and applied as agreed to by the PPPH Working Group (Jan 2011) –Participating Offices must allow at least one opportunity to correct a defect in the PPH request 20

21. PPH 2.0 EPO and USPTO began the pilot effective January 29, 2012 USPTO in discussion with other MOTTAINI partners to flexibly implement 2.0 in their offices Including Russia, Korea and Germany 21

22. PPH Agreement Offices 22 Total Agreement Offices with the USPTO = 27 Global = 17 IP5 = 5 PPH 2.0 = 11 PCT = 10 Paris = 17 Mottainai = 7 * As of March 2014 *

23. GLOBAL PPH pilot 23

24. Global PPH Pilot –Based on Global PPH Principles drafted by the USPTO –Test out a common framework based largely on PPH 2.0 –Goals: Standardizes PPH program requirements and guidelines across participating offices Replace various bilateral agreements in place among the participating PPH offices with a Plurilateral framework

25. Global PPH pilot Global PPH Principles –Eligibility based on work available from any participating office, regardless of OFF/OSF status, so long as the applications share the same effective date (priority or filing)….. –Participating offices will accept any substantive search and examination product that explicitly indicates the patentability of claims … done by another office under any filing scenario (Paris Convention or as PCT ISA/IPEA). Common Guidelines Substantially same for all offices. Machine translation, electronic dossier, at least one correction. Simple to Join Letter to secretariat (UKIPO) 25

26. Global PPH and IP5 PPH 26

27. PCT 20/20 12 proposals developed in cooperation with UKIPO 20/20 reference to the year 2020 goal and clarity of vision Focus on: Increasing quality; Increasing transparency; Simplification Presented first to the PCT WG5 in 2012 Document PCT/MIA/21/7 and 9 DATE: JANUARY 15, 2014 27

28. 20/20 Formal Integration of the PPH into the PCT The Patent Prosecution Highway (PPH) has shown that work sharing, or work leveraging, has tangible benefits for both Offices and applicants. At the applicant’s option, national and regional Offices be required to fast track (or make special) national phase applications which are presented with only claims which were indicated a s meeting the criteria of PCT Article 33 (2)–(4) by the ISA or IPEA. 28

29. 20/20 Formal Integration of the PPH into the PCT MIA 21:Strong interest by many delegations, but concern by some over: Accept work from specific rather than all authorities Perceived national sovereignty issues –All PPH Offices carry out search and examination according to national laws –No automatic acceptance of patentability decisions reached by another office 29

30. Information on PPH Programs USPTO’s Website http://www.uspto.gov/patents/init_events/pph/in dex.jsp Japan Patent Office’s PPH Portal http://www.jpo.go.jp/cgi/linke.cgi?url=/torikumi_ e/t_torikumi_e/patent_highway_e.htm 30

31. 31 Thank you! Paolo Trevisan paolo.trevisan@uspto.gov