scholarly journals Cancer Immunotherapy Pilot Program- extended to June 30, 2022 – Launch your patent application under the Cancer Moon Shot Program before it is too late!

2021 ◽  
Vol 9 (4) ◽  
Author(s):  
Joseph Kovarik

Patent protection for cancer treatments is critical to safeguard the considerable time, effort and expenses involved in such endeavors. The United States Patent Office has a special program that enables cancer researchers to obtain patent protection for their inventions with unprecedented speed (less than one year!) and without any additional fees required. The Cancer Immunotherapy Pilot Program has been extended to June 30, 2022. This program has proven to be exceptionally useful in advancing the protection and commercialization of cancer treatments and should be employed by everyone in the cancer research field. Andre Gide once said, “One doesn't discover new lands without consenting to lose sight of the shore for a very long time.” The journey every single inventor makes through the patenting process is admittedly uncertain, with no assurances that it will result in an issued patent. But a terrific program implemented by the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) makes such a journey far shorter than it would otherwise be. The “Patents 4 Patients” program, also known as the “Cancer Moon Shot” program, was introduced in 2016 and has now been extended until June 30, 2022, now entitled “Cancer Immunotherapy Pilot Program.” This program permits patent applications pertaining to cancer immunotherapy to be advanced out of turn for examination and reviewed earlier (accorded special status). It provides for the extremely prompt examination of qualifying patent applications – without any additional fees – and has resulted in the issuance of over 400 patents in the last few years – which otherwise would not have issued for years to come.

Author(s):  
Fred. W. Brearey

The remarks made in this paper are due to the action of the United States Patent Laws, as interpreted by one of the examiners, whose duty it was to adjudicate upon the practicability of an invention submitted to him, and whose decision was adverse to the granting of a patent. Protection was solicited for an improvement upon a previously patented mechanical aërial machine, the success of which had been proved by the inventor through the action of a model. The patent was refused on account of the alleged impracticability of the invention owing to the absence of gas as a supporting, or partly supporting, medium. Total misapprehension of the principles of flight is displayed whenever the balloon is recommended to take off part of the weight of any mechanical arrangement. However successfully the pure mechanical action may have proved itself in the conveyance of weights in the air whilst in the model form, the principle seems to be distrusted by some when proposed for extreme weight. But it fortunately happens that the resistance of the air to a body in motion, upon which we depend for success, bears a greatly increasing ratio to the extent of surface which that body assumes.


2021 ◽  
pp. 1-24
Author(s):  
Jeffrey Kuhn ◽  
Kenneth Younge ◽  
Alan Marco

Abstract The United States patent system is unique in that it requires applicants to cite documents they know to be relevant to the examination of their patent applications. Lampe (2012) presents evidence that applicants strategically withhold 21-33% of relevant citations from patent examiners, suggesting that many patents are fraudulently obtained. We challenge this view. We first show that that Lampe's empirical design is inconsistent with both legal standards and standard operating procedures, including how courts identify strategic withholding. We then compile comprehensive data to reassess the empirical basis for Lampe's main claim. We find no evidence that applicants withhold citations.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document