"On September 16, 2025, I hand delivered a petition for rulemaking to the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) seeking a simple, long-overdue fix: clarify by rule that "cancellation" of a patent claim means the end of rights prospectively, not erasure of decades of hard-earned reliance, contracts, and value. After living this process, I know firsthand how timing and retroactivity can destroy the lives and businesses of those who play by the rules."
"As I wrote in my petition: "I am directing this petition to you because, under 35 U.S.C. §§ 2(b)(2), 318(b), 328(b), 316(b), 326(b), and 307(b), you alone have the authority and responsibility to interpret ambiguous statutory language in USPTO regulations, and to ensure the Office's practices align with the Constitution, the [Administrative Procedure Act] APA, and the [America Invents Act] AIA.""
A petition for rulemaking was hand-delivered to the USPTO on September 16, 2025 requesting that "cancellation" be defined as a prospective termination of rights rather than a retroactive erasure. The petition cites statutory authorities (35 U.S.C. §§ 2(b)(2), 318(b), 328(b), 316(b), 326(b), 307(b)) as the basis for agency authority to clarify ambiguous regulatory language. The petition arises from a factual history of licensing, maintenance fees, ITC and district court settlements, and a later-filed PTAB challenge that, under a retroactive interpretation, nullified relied-upon rights. The petition emphasizes how timing and retroactivity harm businesses and marketplace reliance.
Read at IPWatchdog.com | Patents & Intellectual Property Law
Unable to calculate read time
Collection
[
|
...
]