Patent and Trademark Office: Difference between revisions

For many years, [[United States Congress|Congress]] has "diverted" about 10% of the fees that the USPTO collected into the general treasury of the United States.  In effect, this took money collected from the patent system to use for the general budget. This fee diversion has been generally opposed by patent practitioners (e.g., [[patent attorney]]s and [[patent attorney|patent agent]]s), inventors, the USPTO,<ref>{{cite press release |publisher  = United States Patent and Trademark Office |date        = February 2, 2004 |url        = http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/com/speeches/04-03.htm |title      = President's proposed budget ends USPTO fee diversion in FY 2005 |access-date  = November 24, 2006 |url-status    = live |archive-url  = https://web.archive.org/web/20070106082244/http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/com/speeches/04-03.htm |archive-date = January 6, 2007 }}</ref> as well as former federal judge [[Paul R. Michel]].<ref>[http://www.ip-watch.org/weblog/2011/07/14/interview-with-chief-judge-paul-r-michel-on-us-patent-reform/ Interview With Chief Judge Paul R. Michel On US Patent Reform] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110820180554/http://www.ip-watch.org/weblog/2011/07/14/interview-with-chief-judge-paul-r-michel-on-us-patent-reform/ |date=August 20, 2011 }}, Intellectual Property Watch, July 19, 2011. Consulted on August 8, 2011.</ref> These stakeholders would rather use the funds to improve the patent office and patent system, such as by implementing the USPTO's 21st Century Strategic Plan.<ref>{{cite web |url        = http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/com/strat21/ |title      = Strategic Plan for the 21st Century |access-date  = November 24, 2006 |date        = February 24, 2006 |publisher  = United States Patent and Trademark Office |url-status    = dead |archive-url  = https://web.archive.org/web/20061225041141/http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/com/strat21/ |archive-date = December 25, 2006 }}</ref> The last six annual budgets of the George W. Bush administration did not propose to divert any USPTO fees, and the first budget of the [[Barack Obama]] administration continued this practice,<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.patentdocs.org/2009/05/docs-at-bio-panel-offers-suggestions-for-fixing-the-uspto.html |title=Docs at BIO: Panel Offers Suggestions for Fixing the USPTO – Updated |first=Donald |last=Zuhn |publisher=PatentDocs.org |date=May 20, 2009 |access-date=May 24, 2009 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090523210937/http://www.patentdocs.org/2009/05/docs-at-bio-panel-offers-suggestions-for-fixing-the-uspto.html |archive-date=May 23, 2009 }}</ref> as well as the second budget of the Trump administration;<ref>{{Cite web |date=May 23, 2017 |title=USPTO gets $3.6 billion in President's FY 2018 budget, avoids fee diversion |url=https://www.ipwatchdog.com/2017/05/23/uspto-3-6-billion-presidents-fy-2018-budget-avoids-fee-diversion/id=83633/ |access-date=May 27, 2022 |website=IPWatchdog.com {{!}} Patents & Patent Law |language=en}}</ref> however, stakeholders continue to press for a permanent end to fee diversion.<ref>{{Cite web |date=May 17, 2016 |title=Diversion of USPTO user fees is a tax on innovation |url=https://www.ipwatchdog.com/2016/05/17/diversion-uspto-user-fees-tax-innovation/id=69070/ |access-date=May 27, 2022 |website=IPWatchdog.com {{!}} Patents & Patent Law |language=en}}</ref>