Effects of backlog and patent infrengement
Research indicates that the number of patent applications awaiting approval process by the examiner is about 718,835. Practically, this is a very large number of workload as compared to the number of manpower available. Therefore, there is need to do something in haste to save or to make USPTO services more convenient and efficient(Hubel, 2012). Basically, delays are caused by long and complicated procedures that designs have to undergo before the inventor can own its right. In the initial stage,design has to be sorted to identify which class of designs it lies. On my point of view,I would request the government to increase the budget of USPTO as this will facilitate the organization’s daily businesses as they will be able to fund most of the operations pertaining to patents verification and approval. By doing so, organization will be able to mange manage and add its work forces and the entire process will be carried out at a relatively time than usual. On the other hand, if USPTO gets the budget increment, then it should check all the loopholes in their structure that is causing the continued backlog delay after another.
On my point of view, the filling fee should not be adjusted. The reason behind this argument is because most of the inventors are just individuals who include pupils, students in the higher level of learning and ordinary persons with distinguished talents. Hence, they will gradually be highly affected as a result of fees increment arguing on the ground that most of them rely on their little income.
In a recent patent infringement case, Apple company which the world leading technological company was in a controversy where by it is requested to recompensate more than $500 million to Smartflash company. Apple was condemned by the smartflash company of deliberately using its protected and patented discoveries in iTunes software devoid of paying appropriate licensing charges (Bird, 2012).
Smartflash’s lawsuit claims Apple of deliberately invading on its patents and rights possessed of a proportion of Apple’s transactions of Macs, iPhones and iPads that each come with iTunes. In its complaint, Smartflash outlines that originator Patrick Racz encountered with officials at Gemalto safekeeping organization, one of whom is Augustin Farrugia, now Apple’s manager of security. Farrugia, Smartflash declares, had been granted an indication of Smartflash’s technology some years back.
Apple lawyer alleged that they cannot recompense fees claimed by smart flash company on the charge of its devices since the copyrights were linked only to one of its own feature. However, Apple was conscious of the copyrights in suit and discerned that the others’ actions, if engaged, would comprise infringement of those copyrights,indicates Smartflash in its litigation. On the other hand, Apple thought there was a high likelihood that others would invade the copyrights in suit but continued intentionally sightless to the invading nature of others’ activities.
In conclusion,as a judge I would have settled on a wise decision by declaring a grant of $532.9 million to the esoteric firm, which alleges that Apple trespassed three of its seven copyrights concerning digital rights organization, managing admission to disbursement systems and data storage. This is because the firm requested for indemnity amounting to $852 million, but then Apple believed the technology was valued only $4.5 million on the higher side. Also, Apple’s intentions were as a result of negligence.
Bird, R., & Jain, S. C. (2012). The global challenge of intellectual property rights. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.
Hubel, A., Schmelcher, T., & Storz, U. (2012). Biopatent law: Patent strategies and patent management. Berlin: Springer.
Get a verified expert to help you with any urgent paper!Hire a Writer
from $10 per-page