Patent-seeking inventors may spend countless hours perfecting that grand idea that sparked its way into their brains while returning from a hunting trip–in the case of that useful adhesive we know as velcro–or while watching a cat pull feathers through a cage–as in Eli Whitney’s cotton gin (read more here). And individual inventors rush to file patents knowing that the system will likely protect their ideas. They may or may not be prepared, however, for the length of time a patent application is pending before issuance. They might end up spending countless more hours negotiating with the patent office.
This is the modern reality for patent holders. The sheer number of patent application filings each year coupled with an insufficient number of qualified examiners means that the USPTO is overburdened. Depending on the field, patent procurement can take several years (See USPTO’s Performance and Accountability Report and Patently-O’s post). The backlog of patent applications at the patent office has even led a prestigious federal judge to declare that the system is broken.
In spite of these problems, the USPTO is attempting to right the ship. The patent office has opened several satellite offices across the country and has hired more examiners to meet the onslaught of application filings, and has churned out record numbers of patent grants each successive year since 2008. So, credit where credit is due–it seems like the patent system is improving after all.
But then it comes to light that the USPTO has granted a patent based on fraudulent work. On February 18th a patent was awarded to Hwang Woo-Suk for his work creating an human embryonic cell line through cloning. In short, Dr. Woo-suk claimed that an individual’s genes – say from a skin cell – when extracted from its differentiated cell could combine with an egg cell to yield a stable embryonic cell line that has the individual’s DNA profile – in effect, a clone. It sounds plausible enough. Plausible enough to get a patent. However, the work was fraudulent. In other words, the science behind the patent was wrong.
While it is true that actual reduction to practice is not necessary to get a patent, the utility requirement should ensure that useless inventions are not patented. The USPTO’s manual further states that fraud is grounds for patent invalidity. It seems clear that Dr. Woo-suk’s patent will be invalidated, but what about the patent office? Is our patent system too lax? Was this just a one time mishap, or is this the cost of increasing the number of patent grants? Hopefully, something like this won’t happen again.