Patent pendency dashboard

Last fall, the U.S. Patent & Trademark Office (“USPTO”) unveiled its Data Visualization Center, which is a real-time reporting tool showing the USPTO’s performance in examining patent applications.

The Patent Dashboard feature shows several metrics for pending patent applications. The USPTO currently issues its first substantive action on the average new patent application 25.3 months after the filing date, and is currently issuing patents a little less than 3 years after the filing date.

Over the last several months, the USPTO has added staff and made a concerted effort to reduce the application backlog. The result has been a reduction in the total pendency time for new applications.

These figures are great for people (especially new clients) who are thinking about filing a new patent application. Once an application is filed, the USPTO will provide an estimate of time to the first office action for that particular application. Clients who want to know this information can call and ask for this estimate, which we can retrieve quickly through the USPTO’s Private PAIR system.

Send in your Clark County retail liquor permit applications

The reality of liquor stores in Clark County, and the jobs and tax revenue they bring, is close at hand. Today’s the first day of a 60-day window when the ABC will be accepting applications for new retail liquor permits. Five permits will be issued in the county, which is keyed off the new 2010 census figure of 22,995.

June 6 is the final deadline. The application is fairly involved, so anyone who’s interested should get started early. Any deficiencies can be corrected during the 60-day window.

After June 6, the ABC will invite everyone with a completed application to Little Rock for two drawings. The first drawing will determine position for the second drawing (think of it as a qualifying race). The second drawing will determine the order in which the ABC will examine completed applications. Anyone in the top five of the second drawing has an excellent chance of getting one of the five retail liquor permits.

The application fee runs $2,000, half of which the ABC will return to applicants who do not receive a permit.

Of course, I’d love to help anyone with the application process. Feel free to give me a call anytime.

Is big pharma in trouble as patents expire?

The New York Times published an article earlier this month on the financial problems some drug companies are facing due to the expiration of the patents on blockbuster drugs. Once a patent expires, competitors can begin selling generic drugs at a fraction of the cost. These generics eat into the profits of the name-brand, patented drug.

Should we feel sorry for the drug companies? Consider three things: first, the article reports that “Americans fueled the research engine, spending much more per capita on prescriptions than in any other nation, and paying the highest prices for prescribed medicines.” Second, the pharmaceutical companies have billions in cash reserves, much of that borne on the back of regular Americans. And third, U.S. law gives pharmaceutical companies up to 5 additional years of exclusive use beyond the term all other patent owners get. Ordinary Americans have struggled through the latest recession, and few of us have $20 billion in cash lying around to get us through the rough times. I see families every day who have to choose between paying a light bill or buying much-needed prescription medications. So, pardon me if I don’t feel too sorry for the drug companies that gouge American families for hundreds or thousands of dollars a month for medication yet virtually give that same medication away to Canadian and European citizens.

With all the billions the drug companies have lying around, they have plenty to spend lobbying Congress to pay for expensive drugs. Problem is, Congress helped fund the development of many of these drugs. It seems like to me that federal deficits could be substantially reduced if we did two things. First, we could invoke the Bayh-Dole Act so the government pays less for prescription drugs for which it sponsored research. And two, we could reduce the patent terms for prescription drugs so they don’t get preferential treatment. These things will be tough given big pharma’s lobbying power, but they would help get our government out of debt and help the wallets of ordinary Americans.

Nathan teaches class on victory in recent appeal

Nathan Chaney taught a CLE hosted by the Arkansas Trial Lawyers Association last Friday. The theme of the day of CLE was insurance coverage issues, and Nathan taught about his recent appeal in which he disqualified a lawyer employed by an insurance company.

The seminar followed the format of the one Nathan gave last summer to the Arkanas Bar Association. However, this seminar focused more on the fallout surrounding the disqualification of the Farmers Insurance Company lawyer (you can download the presentation here). Essentially, Farmers will have to fulfill its bargain with its policyholders by hiring independent lawyers to represent them. Furthermore, Farmers may have defaulted its policyholders on many cases in which its employee-attorneys answered lawsuits. Fortunately, Farmers alone will be the responsibility of taking this calculated risk, not the policyholders.

One question at the CLE was, “why do you care what the insurance companies do? After all, wouldn’t it be better for an plaintiff’s lawyer to have a 9-to-5 in-house lawyer on the other side, rather than a skilled lawyer in a big firm?” My answer to that question was this: all people who have a contractual right to a lawyer deserve skilled representation given with undivided loyalty. If I get sued, I want the best lawyer my insurance company can find to represent me — don’t we all feel that way?

We, as lawyers, take an oath to uphold the justice system. And at the heart of our justice system are lawyers who exercise independent, professional judgment. Here at the Chaney Law Firm, we take our oath seriously, even when it’s inconvenient. That’s why we objected to Farmers appointing its own lawyer, and that’s why I gave a CLE on the topic last week.

Update on America Invents Act of 2011

In a rare showing of bipartisanship, the Senate passed the America Invents Act last week. Since I last reported on the Act (when it had a different name), I sent a letter to my congressional team containing the analysis I shared here several weeks ago. Before the Senate’s vote last week, I was honored to receive a call from Senator Boozeman’s office requesting my input on several provisions in the Act. His office told me only two patent attorneys in the state wrote to the Senator to comment on the Act, and his staff appreciated the help in understanding the sometimes-esoteric patent laws.