This site contains information from January 2009-December 2014. Click HERE to go the CURRENT website.

Secretary Locke Addresses Asia-Pacific Patent Cooperation Forum

Secretary Locke Addresses the Asia-Pacific Patent Cooperation in the 21st Century Forum

U.S. Commerce Secretary Gary Locke joined Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and USPTO Director David Kappos today at the Asia-Pacific Patent Cooperation in the 21st Century Forum at the USPTO headquarters in Alexandria, Va. The event featured heads and deputies of Asian-Pacific economies’ patent offices assembled to discuss the urgency of moving forward with patent harmonization in a global process that includes both developed and developing countries.  

Patent harmonization will narrow differences among patent laws, simplify patent applicants’ requirements, and thereby achieve greater efficiency in the global patent system – in turn speeding the movement of innovation from the development phase to the marketplace where it can create new businesses and new jobs.

Locke highlighted the importance of building a better intellectual property infrastructure in our increasingly globalized world and applauded efforts to reduce patent backlogs and produce higher-quality patents, noting the progress made in the U.S. Senate on patent reform legislation that would further these efforts.

“Last week, the U.S. Senate started debating a patent reform bill that would give the patent office the tools it needs to significantly expand its reform efforts,” Locke said.  “Congress has been working for a long time on this issue, and there is strong bipartisan support to get patent reform done this year. So we remain optimistic.”
The forum, which began March 6 and runs through March 8, is being convened at an historic moment for intellectual property systems worldwide as patent filings and backlogs continue to increase. Differences among patent systems cause legal uncertainty, complexity and increased costs.  Remarks

Comments Closed

Due to increased spam, comments have been closed on this content. If you wish to comment about the content, we encourage you to email

Patent Reform is NOT good for America.

Patent Reform is NOT good for the Independent Inventor, the Inventor Community, or the greater US economy.

Large Corporations already have their employees sign over all their intellectual property rights at the time of hiring.

Patent Reform is nothing more than large Corporations expanding their control of markets even further by increasing their control and input to the intellectual property process.

Patent Reform

Strong and clear patent rights are especially vital to small and new businesses, which create 2 out of every 3 American jobs, as successful inventors need to secure patent rights to access capital, hire employees, and lift their companies off the ground. Put simply, patents are critical to creating new jobs, new industries, and new economic opportunities for Americans.

The patent reform bill moving forward (S. 23) is vital to the Administration’s growth-by-innovation strategy and to spurring economic growth and job creation. Patent reform legislation will help create a more efficient and cost-effective patent system by:

o Enabling the USPTO to set its fees and recover the actual cost of the services it provides to inventors at no cost to taxpayers and without adding a dime to the deficit. An adequately funded USPTO is essential to enabling America’s innovators -- the lifeblood of our economy—to bring their inventions more quickly to the marketplace, where they will stimulate growth and reinvigorate our global competitiveness.

o Creating more certain and viable property rights in the innovation marketplace by providing greater legal certainty about the validity and value of patent rights. This is achieved by: (a) adopting the First-Inventor-To-File (FITF) standard and (b) creating an in-house post-grant review process for challenging patents that is a faster and significantly cheaper alternative to costly and protracted periods of litigation. This greater certainty promotes growth by creating an environment that is conducive to investment in businesses based on patented inventions.

o Reducing the likelihood of excessive infringement damages awarded in cases of minor infringement which serve as a very large tax on innovation and an impediment to business development. This is achieved by adopting the “gatekeeper” approach for judges to provide better guidance to juries about the appropriate scope of damages awarded in minor infringement cases. Excessive damages are a market inefficiency that imposes additional costs on innovators and may create disincentives to business formation.

o Establishing faster and more cost-effective alternatives to litigation by revamping the existing inter-partes review system to adjudicate claims within 12 months at a fraction of the cost of litigation – and by making greater use of third-party submissions in establishing prior art. Resolving issues of patentability sooner and at lower-cost strengthens the innovation marketplace by providing inventors with early certainty about the strength of their rights.

Proposal for $1T/year revenue by "FEE FOR SERVICE"

I proposal that the current first to file or the former first to invent cannot generate $1T/year and 40M new jobs for Americans that my suggested changes should be able to make.

I would like an opportunity to discuss the changes that would lead to this increase in government revenues that is not a tax or a tarriff increase, but a fee for service that has not been provide by the USPTO since its inception.

My proposal would further facilitate the American innovation aspect to create jobs that other countries even if they impliment the same legal system could not make.

I hope I will have a chance to discuss this idea in a meaningful context with someone that can.

Louis DiFrancesco
Thinking of new ways to profit.

US Air Force, National Security Agency & Raytheon infringement

I would like to point out that the current laws don't prevent the US Air Force, National Security Agency, and Raytheon acting in concert from producing CLASSIFIED projects (see or "Star Wars" Super Computer called "Brilliant Pebble" LEAP ( with intentional infringing by not paying royalties from the beginning. And when call on that matter with a Formal Administrative Complaint, then the Air Force claims statute of limitations have run out before the paper is discoverable in a non-classified domain. And to add injury to this matter, don't perform an inspection of other projects (classified and unpublished) that can only be produced by the successful usage of the infringed patents lifetime so as to not have a royalty incurring event within the statute of limitations.

I reference the Rebuttal offered to me after they admitted 1992 through 1998 usage and failure to pay royalties to any entity that had the legal rights to receive royalties from the onset:

AFLOA/JACQ April 2, 2008
1501 Wilson Blvd Suite 606
Arlington, VA 22209
Louis DiFrancesco
4008 El Cerrito Road
Palo Alto, CA 94306
RE Patent number 4,804,132,

Neil S. Whiteman, Colonel USAF
Chief, Commercial Litigation Division

To me, getting royalties is more important than the argument of "First to File" vs "First to Invent" question. At least someone gets paid for the invention; which is part of my proposal that generates $1T/year for the government.

I am
Louis DiFrancesco, Inventor
1385 Sangamore St
Hayward, CA 94545
505 515 4700
Thinking of new ways to profit.