10

Patent applications jumped up during recession

David Kappos, director of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office.

To view this content, Javascript must be enabled and Adobe Flash Player must be installed.

Get Adobe Flash player

TEXT OF INTERVIEW

Tess Vigeland: Facebook is one of the more high-profile inventions of the last couple of years. No doubt they've got all kinds of patents on their business model and technology, which would make them the lucky ones. Right now, applicants for patent protection are waiting an average of three years to get their papers reviewed. Each and every one of them represents an idea that could turn into a business, a business that could create jobs.

So the head of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, David Kappos, is trying to grease the wheels. He joins us now. Welcome.

David Kappos: Thank you very much for having me on, Tess.

Vigeland: So talk to us a little bit about why there is such an enormous back log there at the patent office.

Kappos: Americans are very creative, very inventive. And for the last more than 10 years have filed an incredible and increasing number of patent applications. And unfortunately, our agency here, the United States Patent and Trademark Office, just literally has not been able to keep up. Our backlog is currently about double what it should be. So we've gone to where we've had a backlog as high as over 750,000 applications here.

Vigeland: Sounds like you need somebody to invent a new system for you.

Kappos: Yeah, that's right. What we need and what we're doing is we turned overtime on to let our examiners, who are very productive people, help get on top of our backlog. We have provided new IT equipment to our examiners immediately to enable them to work more effectively. And we've done really simple things, also. Simply turning the air conditioning on here at the USPTO on weekends, so people could come in and work. And we're making good progress in that regard. We're starting to get some signs that it's dropping significantly for the first time since about 2006.

Vigeland: Now, the patent process actually is not that expensive. It's what $500 to $1,000. Have you thought about raising that maybe to raise some money?

Kappos: Yes, the patent process is relatively modestly priced. For a large entity like a business, it costs about $1,000 to file a patent application. Individuals and small businesses cost them about $500. That is intended to incent applicants to enter the system. We want people to come and work with the USPTO, we want to see patent applications, and we don't want to discourage filings. So while we could potentially raise the filing rate, we certainly want to keep it modest enough and reasonable enough that American innovators will feel that our fees are not an impediment to entering the patent system.

Vigeland: Now, you have been talking quite a bit about how this is actually affecting the country's ability to recover from the unemployment problem. Explain for us why that is.

Kappos: Well, that's exactly right. The reason is because patents create jobs. Patents enable innovators to put products and services in the marketplace and to hire people. They create opportunity and they put Americans to work. And so every patent application that's sitting here in our agency is potentially American jobs that aren't being created.

Vigeland: Obviously, there are issues that you are trying to rectify within the patent office itself. But you always hear that one of the good things that come out of tough economic times is that people do come up with new and different ways of doing things out of almost desperation. So are you finding that the last couple of years have been particularly fruitful for you?

Kappos: We are what you might call a fairly recession-proof agency, in the sense that even during the recession, our filing rate dropped only very slightly. Which I think, Tess, is an indicator of the point that you're on. This year, our application filing has gone up a little over 4 percent, which is quite a bounce back. Again, an indication that Americans are double down on their investments and innovation.

Vigeland: David Kappos is director of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. Thank you so much for your time today.

Kappos: You bet. Thank you very much Tess.

Daniel MacMichael's picture
Daniel MacMichael - Aug 25, 2010

Well I just received an e-mail from the USPTO hiring office saying I met the minimum qualifications for a Patent Examiner position in Chemistry (I have a Ph.D). Hopefully I hear some good news soon!

Sam Mandke's picture
Sam Mandke - Aug 20, 2010

Interesting interview. There is a glaring overstatement by Mr. Kappos, however, namely that patents "create jobs." The fundamentals of any good business is a good underlying business plan. Intellectual property may form a portion of that plan, but it is hardly the end-all-be-all of entrepreneurship. In fact, patents are NOT particularly useful for the average inventor, namely because the cost of litigation is around $3 Million and rising. Marketplace should investigate exactly who the patent system benefits through an examination of patent litigation, because a patent, after all, is only as good as it can be defended in court.

Junho yang's picture
Junho yang - Aug 19, 2010

Dear international peoples,

Don't work with U.S. people or companies. USPTO will steal your patent. How?
http://blog.naver.com/jhyang2006

J Rey's picture
J Rey - Aug 19, 2010

Tess Vigeland got away VERY easily, did he write the questions he got asked?

-Filling a patent (the right way) is much more expensive than just the fees, you have to contract a law firm to get a patent through (and get it right). This makes it VERY difficult for a particular person/inventor, but OK for a company. Many individuals get money sucked out of them by unscrupulous "invention consultants".

-It is very easy for those outside the US to file a patent here, but very expensive and difficult for a US person/company to file in EU for example. So basically you will patent something in the US and you can only protect it in the US. The document you have submitted to the USPTO becomes a blueprint for somebody outside the US to produce it and market it (purportedly outside the US).

So, the USPTO has a lot of work and not enough people to get it done. Why aren't they hiring?

There should be whole series on this subject; some ideas:
- Business plan / invention competitions
- Kauffman foundation initiatives (they happen to be one of your sponsors)
- Patents in the US and outside
- Intellectual property theft
- How patents are managed successfully by Universities (the incentives that they have for students/faculty to produce IP)
- Patents that come out of the national labs, NASA, EPA, DOD, etc, etc. Are there incentives for their scientists to produce these?
- SBIR/STTR Grants, what their purpose is, and how they are used correctly by small businesses AND incorrectly by SBIR-farming companies that just live to suck taxpayer money using these grants. Of course, SBIR-farming companies hire people, but the value they produce is marginal in comparison with what they suck out of the government through federal, state, local government, and pork channels.

So much you could do with the subject.

Robert Manley's picture
Robert Manley - Aug 19, 2010

Apparently, "incent" and "incentivize" are both relatively recent back-constructions from "incentive". "Incentivize" has been traced to the 1970s, then "incent" arrived in the 1980s.

As there's little chance of eliminating both words from common speech, I choose to support "incent," rather than the longer, even-more-awkward "incentivize."

Janice Dewey's picture
Janice Dewey - Aug 19, 2010

I was shocked by this interview with the patent office. Hello! If new patents are "market drivers" and job creators, why didn't the interviewer ask the most obvious question: why isn't the Patent Office hiring more people and training them? There are certainly enough qualified people out there looking who could be trained....with a backlog at one time of 750,000 patent applications and a 3 year wait, excuse me but we can't wait. This country needs jobs. How about some stimulus pointed right here? And why didn't the interviewer ask this?

Jonathan Lovelace's picture
Jonathan Lovelace - Aug 19, 2010

Funny you should mention Facebook. Because while patents on machines, chemical processes, and the like do have the benefits you mentioned, patents on software actually have the opposite effect, for at least three reasons. First, while it's possible to build a machine that works differently to produce a similar effect, in software it's often not possible to write the software differently---mechanical patents prevent copycats, while software patents often prevent competition. Second, while someone holding a patent for a machine can only sue someone who builds that machine without a license for infrincment, companies holding software patents have sued *users* who merely *ran* the infringing programs without a license for the infringement. And third, the we're already *getting* those benefits in the software sector thanks largely to the free software movement, which simply could not exist if software patents were valid.

Jon Patrick's picture
Jon Patrick - Aug 19, 2010

This was a good piece, especially referring to American's creative spirit even during down times, and how we can help invent our way out of a recession.
Millions are discovering their creative bent, and have the entrapreneural spirit to try to make it a money earning and job-creating business.
That spirit helped lead me to Personal Franchising - not inventing, but re-inventing myself!
http://JonRPatrick.com

Steve Cannon's picture
Steve Cannon - Aug 19, 2010

This was an interesting story and as a small business owner, I do hope that the bureaucrats can move things ahead. But I was disappointed to hear the head of a U.S.Agency use a word that does not exist in the English language ("incent"????!!!)

jim boakes's picture
jim boakes - Aug 19, 2010

WHAT A JOKE!

#1 - totally softball questions. why no mention of the disparity between US and Foreign Patents?

#2 - encourage applications - Are you kidding me? Why not for all initial filing: (a) advance placement and (b) 50% off? (so take your best shot, because your 2nd patent application will just be in the hopper with all of the others)