4 ms·

>Now what did she say she'd do versus what she actually did that led to this change under the new administration Well, usually USPTO director changes at the st

by sigmar 9y ago

>Now what did she say she'd do versus what she actually did that led to this change under the new administration Well, usually USPTO director changes at the start of a new administration. So the better question is: why was she kept on until now? what changed?

jaboutboul 9y ago
They were most likely waiting for the Commerce Secretary to pick and vet a replacement. Lee's demise was a long time coming. Many small businesses and independent inventors absolutely couldn't stand how the USPTO had pretty much turned against them and become a monster.
- sigmar 9y ago
  >They were most likely waiting for the Commerce Secretary to pick and vet a replacement. The first two paragraphs of this article seems to suggest this is not the case. >Many small businesses and independent inventors absolutely couldn't stand how the USPTO had pretty much turned against them and become a monster. Lee is pro patent reform. Small companies and Google like her. Large companies and the Innovation Alliance don't like her, as they are anti-reform.
  - prbuckley 9y ago
    As a small business owner inventor, and patent owner I think what the parent is talking about is the PTAB and the Inter Partes Review (IPR) process that is very expensive for a patent owner to defend against and. Lee is seen as someone who could place more limits on IPR's but has not. This directly benefits large companies at the expense of small patent holders. For example, say you as a small time inventor have a valid patent on some great new widget. Big company X starts selling the widget you invented, you approach them and ask if they would license your patent, Big company X can afford to keep filing IPR's against your patent and it will cost you ~$200,000 each time. Big company X can milk you dry and draw things out for years so it becomes much more difficult as a small business to defend and license your patent. Lee seems to have really helped large tech companies at the expense of small inventors.
    - PatentTroll 9y ago
      You are wrong. IPRs are much quicker and less expensive that district court litigation, which is what it replaces. If you're afraid of Big. Co.'s deep pockets, they're much scarier in district court! The PTAB is designed to be more efficient, quicker, and cheaper than district court, and it is by a long shot. And no, they can't file serial IPRs for the most part, there is strong estoppel that comes with an IPR proceeding to prevent just that very thing from happening. So if your patent is valid, then in less than a year and about $200k you can have that sucker gold plated and anointed by the PTAB and then enforce it to your hearts delight! Much better than several million $ and at least 2-3 years for a district court if you ask me. And if your patent is garbage, well you'll find that out quicker too and free up resources to go do something else.
      - prbuckley 9y ago
        Here are some articles explaining how IPR's hurt small business's and sole inventors... http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/a21181/greatest-american-invention/ http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/a21181/greatest-a... http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2016/06/26/cuozzo-ipr-death-american-inventor/id=70382/ http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2016/06/26/cuozzo-ipr-death-americ... and one in particular that explains how Lee's management of USPTO policy has hurt small business patent owners... "The AIA also allows the Director discretion to stop harassment of patent owners, but Lee has never once used that power despite the fact that at least several patent owners have had seven or eight inter partes review challenges filed against the same patent. The PTAB itself has finally started to consider harassment as grounds to refuse to institute. So bad and lopsided are the PTAB proceedings, that the Federal Circuit has found PTAB decisions to be arbitrary and capricious, and with respect to covered business method (CBM) challenges, the Federal Circuit has slammed the PTAB for creating its own definition and standard while ignoring the statute and regulations. So if Lee was referring to the PTAB and post grant challenges the most honest assessment is that the Office has utterly and completely failed patent owners and the patent system." http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2017/02/02/michelle-lees-patent-quality-reality/id=77158/ http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2017/02/02/michelle-lees-patent-qu...
        9y ago

by sigmar 9y ago

jaboutboul 9y ago

They were most likely waiting for the Commerce Secretary to pick and vet a replacement. Lee's demise was a long time coming. Many small businesses and independent inventors absolutely couldn't stand how the USPTO had pretty much turned against them and become a monster.

sigmar 9y ago
>They were most likely waiting for the Commerce Secretary to pick and vet a replacement. The first two paragraphs of this article seems to suggest this is not the case. >Many small businesses and independent inventors absolutely couldn't stand how the USPTO had pretty much turned against them and become a monster. Lee is pro patent reform. Small companies and Google like her. Large companies and the Innovation Alliance don't like her, as they are anti-reform.
- prbuckley 9y ago
  As a small business owner inventor, and patent owner I think what the parent is talking about is the PTAB and the Inter Partes Review (IPR) process that is very expensive for a patent owner to defend against and. Lee is seen as someone who could place more limits on IPR's but has not. This directly benefits large companies at the expense of small patent holders. For example, say you as a small time inventor have a valid patent on some great new widget. Big company X starts selling the widget you invented, you approach them and ask if they would license your patent, Big company X can afford to keep filing IPR's against your patent and it will cost you ~$200,000 each time. Big company X can milk you dry and draw things out for years so it becomes much more difficult as a small business to defend and license your patent. Lee seems to have really helped large tech companies at the expense of small inventors.
  - PatentTroll 9y ago
    You are wrong. IPRs are much quicker and less expensive that district court litigation, which is what it replaces. If you're afraid of Big. Co.'s deep pockets, they're much scarier in district court! The PTAB is designed to be more efficient, quicker, and cheaper than district court, and it is by a long shot. And no, they can't file serial IPRs for the most part, there is strong estoppel that comes with an IPR proceeding to prevent just that very thing from happening. So if your patent is valid, then in less than a year and about $200k you can have that sucker gold plated and anointed by the PTAB and then enforce it to your hearts delight! Much better than several million $ and at least 2-3 years for a district court if you ask me. And if your patent is garbage, well you'll find that out quicker too and free up resources to go do something else.
    - prbuckley 9y ago
      Here are some articles explaining how IPR's hurt small business's and sole inventors... http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/a21181/greatest-american-invention/ http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/a21181/greatest-a... http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2016/06/26/cuozzo-ipr-death-american-inventor/id=70382/ http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2016/06/26/cuozzo-ipr-death-americ... and one in particular that explains how Lee's management of USPTO policy has hurt small business patent owners... "The AIA also allows the Director discretion to stop harassment of patent owners, but Lee has never once used that power despite the fact that at least several patent owners have had seven or eight inter partes review challenges filed against the same patent. The PTAB itself has finally started to consider harassment as grounds to refuse to institute. So bad and lopsided are the PTAB proceedings, that the Federal Circuit has found PTAB decisions to be arbitrary and capricious, and with respect to covered business method (CBM) challenges, the Federal Circuit has slammed the PTAB for creating its own definition and standard while ignoring the statute and regulations. So if Lee was referring to the PTAB and post grant challenges the most honest assessment is that the Office has utterly and completely failed patent owners and the patent system." http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2017/02/02/michelle-lees-patent-quality-reality/id=77158/ http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2017/02/02/michelle-lees-patent-qu...
      - 9y ago