Insights: Publications Navigating The USPTO First Action Interview Pilot Program
Law360
Most options for expediting U.S. patent prosecution require the applicant to incur additional expenses. For instance, the Track One program requires payment of additional fees to the U.S. patent office, and even the Patent Prosecution Highway, which lacks any fee requirement, involves the expense of submitting an application to an office of first filing. By contrast, the First Action Interview pilot program (FAIPP) provides a low-cost alternative that often results in faster consideration of applications. And, unlike other options for expediting prosecution, the FAIPP often provides an opportunity to shape the examiner’s opinions early in the examination process, thereby smoothing the path to allowance for certain applications.
Practitioners who are well versed in the procedures and strategic considerations of the FAIPP can fully leverage its advantages on behalf of clients. In this article Kilpatrick Townsend's Robert Curylo guides applicants through each phase of the FAIPP, including enrollment, pre-interview considerations, and various outcomes following the interview.
Related Industries
Disclaimer
While we are pleased to have you contact us by telephone, surface mail, electronic mail, or by facsimile transmission, contacting Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP or any of its attorneys does not create an attorney-client relationship. The formation of an attorney-client relationship requires consideration of multiple factors, including possible conflicts of interest. An attorney-client relationship is formed only when both you and the Firm have agreed to proceed with a defined engagement.
DO NOT CONVEY TO US ANY INFORMATION YOU REGARD AS CONFIDENTIAL UNTIL A FORMAL CLIENT-ATTORNEY RELATIONSHIP HAS BEEN ESTABLISHED.
If you do convey information, you recognize that we may review and disclose the information, and you agree that even if you regard the information as highly confidential and even if it is transmitted in a good faith effort to retain us, such a review does not preclude us from representing another client directly adverse to you, even in a matter where that information could be used against you.
