In case you missed it, the Supreme Court has not only denied Sigram Schindler's petition for cert in its appeal from the USPTO (you can read the petition here); it's considering sanctions against the attorney who filed the petition.
Here's the question presented:
“Does the US Constitution, in legal decisions based on 35 USC §§ 101/102/103/112,
• require instantly avoiding the inevitable legal errors in construing incomplete and vague classical claim constructions – especially for “emerging technology claim(ed invention)s, ET CIs” – by construing for them the complete/concise refined claim constructions of the Supreme Court’s KSR/Bilski/Mayo/Myriad/Biosig/Alice line of unanimous precedents framework,
or does the US Constitution for such decisions
• entitle any public institution to refrain, for ET CIs, for a time it feels feasible, from proceeding as these Supreme Court precedents require – or meeting its requirements just by some lip-service – and in the meantime to construe incomplete classical claim constructions, notwithstanding their implied legal errors?
Wow.
The US District Court for the District of Nebraska has ruled (decision here) that the state of Nebraska must pay $725,000 in fees and costs to NPE "MPHJ Technology Investment LLC" after the state AG sent cease and desist orders to MPHJ pursuant to a suit filed under the state's anti-patent-trolling statute. According to the Court, the state "violated 42 USC 1983 and the First, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitutuion."
Ouch.
From the FY 2014 USPTO Annual Report (link here):
Average patent pendency is down (to almost 2 1/2 years), but average time to first OA is flat (at about 1 1/2 years).
The backlog of unexamined applications stands at over 605,000, which is down almost 20% (!) from 2009.
Maintenance fees account for over 45% of FY 2014 patent revenue.
Total patent fee collections in FY 2014: $2.9B.
