Индикаторы Cse 4254 Eg
Vol. 78 Friday,
No. 13 January 18,
Part II
Department of Commerce Patent and Trademark Office 37 CFR Parts 1, 41, and 42 Setting and Adjusting Patent Fees; Final Rule
VerDate Mar<15> Jan 17, Jkt PO Frm Fmt Sfmt E:\FR\FM\eunic-brussels.eu 18JAR2TK E
LL E
Y on
D S
K 3S
P T
V N
1P R
O D
w ith
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 13 / Friday, January 18, / Rules and Regulations
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
Patent and Trademark Office
37 CFR Parts 1, 41, and 42
[Docket No. PTO–C––]
RIN –AC54
Setting and Adjusting Patent Fees
AGENCY: United States Patent and Trademark Office, Department of Commerce. ACTION: Final rule.
SUMMARY: The United States Patent and Trademark Office (Office or USPTO) sets or adjusts patent fees in this rulemaking as authorized by the Leahy- Smith America Invents Act (Act or AIA). The fees will provide the Office with a sufficient amount of aggregate revenue to recover its aggregate cost of patent operations, while helping the Office implement a sustainable funding model, reduce the current patent application backlog, decrease patent application pendency, improve patent quality, and upgrade the Office’s patent business information technology (IT) capability and infrastructure. The fees also will further key policy considerations. The Office also reduces fees for micro entities under section 10(b) of the Act by 75 percent in this rulemaking and extends the existing fee discount of 50 percent for small entities to additional fees in this rulemaking. DATES: This rule is effective on March 19, , except for amendments to § (a)(1), (b)(1), (c)(1), and (d)(1) (patent issue and publication fees); § (h)(1) (fee for recording a patent assignment electronically); § (a)(1)(i)(A), (a)(1)(ii)(A), and (a)(2)(i) (international application filing, processing and search fees); and § (a)(1)(i)(A), (a)(2)(i), (a)(3)(i), and (a)(4)(i) (international application transmittal and search fees), which will be effective on January 1, FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michelle Picard, Office of the Chief Financial Officer, by telephone at () – or by email at [email protected]; or Dianne Buie, Office of Planning and Budget, by telephone at () – or by email at [email protected]. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This rule was proposed in a notice of proposed rulemaking published at 77 FR (Sept. 6, ) (hereinafter NPRM).
Table of Contents
I. Executive Summary II. Legal Framework III. Rulemaking Goals and Strategies
IV. Fee Setting Methodology V. Individual Fee Rationale VI. Discussion of Comments VII. Discussion of Specific Rules VIII. Rulemaking Considerations
I. Executive Summary
A. Purpose of This Action Section 10 of the Leahy-Smith
America Invents Act authorizes the Director of the USPTO to set or adjust by rule any patent fee established, authorized, or charged under Title 35, United States Code (U.S.C.) for any services performed by, or materials furnished by, the Office. Section 10 prescribes that fees may be set or adjusted only to recover the aggregate estimated costs to the Office for processing, activities, services, and materials relating to patents, including administrative costs to the Office with respect to such patent operations. Section 10 authority includes flexibility to set individual fees in a way that furthers key policy considerations, while taking into account the cost of the respective services. See Section 10 of the Act, Public Law –29, Stat. at – Section 10 also establishes certain procedural requirements for setting or adjusting fee regulations, such as public hearings and input from the Patent Public Advisory Committee and oversight by Congress.
The fee schedule in this final rule will recover the aggregate estimated costs of the Office while achieving strategic and operational goals, such as implementing a sustainable funding model, reducing the current patent application backlog, decreasing patent application pendency, improving patent quality, and upgrading the patent IT business capability and infrastructure.
The United States economy depends on high quality and timely patents to protect new ideas and investments for business and job growth. To reduce the backlog and decrease patent application pendency, the USPTO must examine significantly more patent applications than it receives each year for the next several years. Bringing the number of applications in the backlog down to a manageable level, while at the same time keeping pace with the new patent applications expected to be filed each year, requires the Office to collect more aggregate revenue than it estimates that it will collect at existing fee rates. The Office estimates that the additional aggregate revenue derived from this fee schedule will enable a decrease in total patent application pendency by months during the five-year planning horizon (fiscal year (FY) –FY ), thus permitting a patentee to obtain a patent sooner than he or she would have
under the status quo fee schedule. The additional revenue from this fee schedule also will recover the cost to begin building a three-month patent operating reserve. The Office estimates that the patent operating reserve will accumulate almost two months of patent operating expenses by the end of the five-year planning horizon (FY –FY ) and will reach the three-month target in FY , thereby continuing to build a sustainable funding model that will aid the Office in maintaining shorter pendency and an optimal patent application inventory.
Additionally, the fee schedule in this final rule will advance key policy considerations while taking into account the cost of individual services. For example, the rule includes multipart and staged fees for requests for continued examination (RCEs), appeals, and contested cases, all of which aim to increase patent prosecution options for applicants. Also, this rule includes a new 75 percent fee reduction for micro entities and expands the availability of the 50 percent fee reduction for small entities as required under section 10, providing small entities a discount on more than 25 patent fees that do not currently qualify for a small entity discount.
B. Summary of Provisions Impacted by This Action
This final rule sets or adjusts patent fees—93 apply to large entities (any reference herein to ‘‘large entity’’ includes all entities other than small or micro entities), 94 to small entities, 93 to micro entities, and 71 are not entity- specific. Of the 93 large entity fees, 71 are adjusted, 18 are set at existing fee amounts, and 4 were first proposed in the preceding NPRM. Of the 94 small entity fees, 85 are adjusted, 5 are set at existing fee amounts, and 4 were first proposed in the NPRM. There are 93 new micro entity fees first proposed in the NPRM that are set at a reduction of 75 percent from the large entity fee amounts. Of the 71 fees that are not entity-specific, 9 are adjusted in this rule, and 62 are set at existing fee amounts.
In all, once effective, the routine fees to obtain a patent (i.e., filing, search, examination, publication, and issue fees) will decrease by at least 23 percent under this final rule relative to the current fee schedule. Also, despite increases in some fees, applicants who meet the new micro entity definition will pay less than the amount paid for small entity fees under the current fee schedule for 87 percent of the fees eligible for a discount under section 10(b). Additional information describing
VerDate Mar<15> Jan 17, Jkt PO Frm Fmt Sfmt E:\FR\FM\eunic-brussels.eu 18JAR2TK E
LL E
Y on
D S
K 3S
P T
V N
1P R
O D
w ith
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 13 / Friday, January 18, / Rules and Regulations
the adjustments is included in Part V. Individual Fee Rationale section of Supplementary Information for this final rulemaking.
C. Summary of Costs and Benefits of This Action
The Office prepared a Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA) to consider the costs and benefits of this final rule over a five-year period (FY –FY ). In the RIA developed for the NPRM, the Office offered a discussion of monetized and qualitative costs that could be derived from the proposed patent fee schedule. The Office made several inferences using internal data and relevant academic literature. Upon further review of the proposed rulemaking and source materials, and consistent with OMB Circular A–4, Regulatory Analysis, as discussed further in the RIA, the USPTO no longer monetizes costs and benefits in the final rule or the RIA. Rather, this final rule for the purposes of regulatory review is considered to be a transfer payment from one group to another, and discussion of all costs and benefits is qualitative in nature. Thus, the RIA for this final rule outlines the transfer and assesses the qualitative benefits and costs that accrue to patent applicants, patent holders, and other patent stakeholders in the United States. The RIA includes a qualitative comparison of the final fee schedule to the current fee schedule (Baseline) and to three other alternatives considered. The RIA assesses the change in qualitative costs or benefits related to the changes in the final fee schedule using certain key indicators when comparing the Baseline. The RIA concludes that the patent fee schedule set forth in this final rule has the most significant net benefit among the alternatives considered. See Table 1. The complete RIA is available for review at eunic-brussels.eu aia_implementation/eunic-brussels.eu#heading-1.
TABLE 1—FINAL PATENT FEE SCHED- ULE COSTS AND BENEFITS, CUMU- LATIVE FY —FY
Transfers
Transfers $13, mil- lion
Qualitative Costs and Benefits
Costs: Cost of patent operations Minimal Lost patent value from a
decrease in patent ap- plications.
Minimal
Benefit:
TABLE 1—FINAL PATENT FEE SCHED- ULE COSTS AND BENEFITS, CUMU- LATIVE FY —FY —Con- tinued
Increase in private pat- ent value from a de- crease in pendency.
Significant
Fee Schedule Design Benefits.
(Significant, Moderate, Not Significant).
Moderate
Decreased Uncertainty Effect.
(Significant, Moderate, Not Significant).
Significant
Net Benefit Significant
To assess the qualitative benefits of the final fee schedule, the Office considered how the value of a patent would increase under the final fee schedule, as well as benefits from improving the fee schedule design and benefits from decreased uncertainty. When patent application pendency decreases, a patentee holds the exclusive right to the invention sooner, which increases the private value of that patent. Because the outcomes of this final rule will decrease patent application pendency, the Office expects that the private patent value will increase considerably, relative to the Baseline. Likewise, the design of the final fee schedule offers benefits relating to the three policy factors considered for setting individual fees as described in Part III of this final rule, namely, fostering innovation, facilitating effective administration of the patent system, and offering patent prosecution options to applicants. By maintaining the current fee setting philosophy of keeping front-end fees below the cost of application processing and recovering revenue from back-end fees, the final fee schedule continues to foster innovation and ease access to the patent system. The final fee schedule also continues to offer incentives and disincentives to engage in certain activities that facilitate effective administration of the patent system and help reduce the amount of time it takes to have a patent application examined. For example, application size fees, extension of time fees, and excess claims fees remain in place to facilitate the prompt conclusion of prosecution of an application. The final fee schedule likewise includes multipart and staged fees for RCEs, appeals, and contested cases, all of which aim to increase patent prosecution options for applicants. The qualitative benefits of the fee schedule design include new options for applicants to reduce their front-end costs for some services (e.g., appeals) until they have more
information to determine the best prosecution option for their innovation. Lastly, shortening pendency reduces uncertainty regarding the claimed invention and scope of patent rights for patentees, competitors, and new entrants. Reducing uncertainty has a significant benefit in terms of clarity of patent rights, freedom to innovate, and the efficient operation of markets for technology.
To assess the qualitative costs of the final fee schedule, the Office assessed the costs of its patent operations. The Office’s cost of patent operations varies depending on the number of incoming patent applications and the amount of resources available. As discussed in Part IV. Fee Setting Methodology (see Step 1), the cost of operations included in this final rule also reduced slightly from that estimated in the NPRM. See Table 1.
For FY —FY , the Office continues to project an annual increase in the number of serialized patent application filings, though the increases to some fees in the new fee structure may result in a slightly slower growth rate than that estimated under the Baseline. Nevertheless, the Office estimated that new patent application filings would return to the same annual growth rate anticipated in the absence of fee increases beginning in FY Overall, the demand for patent application services is generally inelastic (see USPTO Section 10 Fee Setting—Description of Elasticity Estimates,’’ at eunic-brussels.eu aia_implementation/eunic-brussels.eu#heading- 1), and even with these slight decreases, the total number of patent applications filed is projected to grow year-after-year. The Office considered the cost associated with this slight reduction in patent applications filed as a reduction to the benefit of the increased patent value when assessing the overall net benefit of the final fee schedule. See Table 1.
Additional details describing the benefits and costs of the final fee schedule are available in the RIA at eunic-brussels.eu aia_implementation/eunic-brussels.eu#heading-1.
II. Legal Framework
A. Leahy-Smith America Invents Act— Section 10
The Leahy-Smith America Invents Act was enacted into law on September 16, See Public Law –29, Stat. Section 10(a) of the Act authorizes the Director of the Office to set or adjust by rule any patent fee established, authorized, or charged under Title 35, U.S.C. for any services performed by, or
VerDate Mar<15> Jan 17, Jkt PO Frm Fmt Sfmt E:\FR\FM\eunic-brussels.eu 18JAR2TK E
LL E
Y on
D S
K 3S
P T
V N
1P R
O D
w ith
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 13 / Friday, January 18, / Rules and Regulations
materials furnished by, the Office. Fees under 35 U.S.C. may be set or adjusted only to recover the aggregate estimated cost to the Office for processing, activities, services, and materials related to patents, including administrative costs to the Office with respect to such patent operations. See Stat. at Provided that the fees in the aggregate achieve overall aggregate cost recovery, the Director may set individual fees under section 10 at, below, or above their respective cost. The Office’s current fee structure includes statutory fees (set by Congress) that provide lower, below cost fees on the front end of the patent process (e.g., filing, searching, and examination fees), which are in turn balanced out by higher, above cost fees on the back end (i.e., issue and maintenance fees). This balance enables the Office to provide lower costs to enter the patent system, making it easier for inventors to pursue patents for their innovations, and these lower front-end fees are off-set by higher back-end fees. Congress set this balance when it established the existing statutory fee structure, and the Office continues to follow this model with the fee structure in this final rule, because a key policy consideration is to foster innovation by facilitating access to the patent system. Section 10(e) of the Act requires the Director to publish the final fee rule in the Federal Register and the Official Gazette of the Patent and Trademark Office at least 45 days before the final fees become effective. Section 10(i) terminates the Director’s authority to prospectively set or adjust any fee under section 10(a) upon the expiration of the seven-year period that began on September 16,
B. Small Entity Fee Reduction Section 10(b) of the AIA requires the
Office to reduce by 50 percent the fees for small entities that are set or adjusted under section 10(a) for filing, searching, examining, issuing, appealing, and maintaining patent applications and patents.
C. Micro Entity Fee Reduction Section 10(g) of the AIA amends
Chapter 11 of Title 35, U.S.C. to add section concerning micro entities. Section 10(b) of the Act requires the Office to reduce by 75 percent the fees for micro entities that are set or adjusted under Section 10(a) for filing, searching, examining, issuing, appealing, and maintaining patent applications and patents. In a separate rulemaking, pursuant to 35 U.S.C. , the Office implemented the micro entity provisions of the AIA. See 77 FR (Dec. 19, ).
D. Patent Public Advisory Committee Role
The Secretary of Commerce established the Patent Public Advisory Committee (PPAC) under the American Inventors Protection Act of 35 U.S.C. 5. The PPAC advises the Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and Director of the USPTO on the management, policies, goals, performance, budget, and user fees of patent operations.
When adopting patent fees under section 10 of the Act, the Director must provide the PPAC with the proposed fees at least 45 days prior to publishing the proposed fees in the Federal Register. The PPAC then has at least 30 days within which to deliberate, consider, and comment on the proposal, as well as to hold public hearing(s) on the proposed fees. The PPAC must make a written report available to the public of the comments, advice, and recommendations of the committee regarding the proposed fees before the Office issues any final fees. The Office will consider and analyze any comments, advice, or recommendations received from the PPAC before finally setting or adjusting fees.
Consistent with this framework, on February 7, , the Director notified the PPAC of the Office’s intent to set or adjust patent fees and submitted a preliminary patent fee proposal with supporting materials. The preliminary patent fee proposal and associated materials are available at http:// eunic-brussels.eu. The PPAC held two public hearings: one in Alexandria, Virginia, on February 15, , and another in Sunnyvale, California, on February 23, Transcripts of these hearings and comments submitted to the PPAC in writing are available for review at http:// eunic-brussels.eu.
The PPAC submitted a written report on September 24, , setting forth in detail the comments, advice, and recommendations of the committee regarding the proposed fees. The report is available for review at http:// eunic-brussels.eu_implementation/ eunic-brussels.eu#heading-1. The Office considered and analyzed the comments, advice, and recommendations received from the PPAC before publishing this final rule. The Office’s response to the PPAC’s report is available in the Discussion of Comments at Part VI of this rulemaking.
III. Rulemaking Goals and Strategies
Consistent with the Office’s goals and obligations under the AIA, the overall strategy of this rulemaking is to ensure
that the fee schedule generates sufficient revenue to recover aggregate costs. Another strategy is to set individual fees to further key policy considerations while taking into account the cost of the particular service. As to the strategy of balancing aggregate revenue and aggregate cost, this rule will provide sufficient revenue for two significant USPTO goals: (1) Implement a sustainable funding model for operations; and (2) optimize patent timeliness and quality. As to the strategy of setting individual fees to further key policy considerations, the policy factors contemplated are: (1) Fostering innovation; (2) facilitating effective administration of the patent system; and (3) offering patent prosecution options to applicants.
These fee schedule goals and strategies are consistent with strategic goals and objectives detailed in the USPTO – Strategic Plan (Strategic Plan) that is available at eunic-brussels.eu USPTO_–_Strategic_eunic-brussels.eu, as amended by Appendix #1 of the FY President’s Budget, available at eunic-brussels.eu budget/eunic-brussels.eu (collectively referred to herein as ‘‘Strategic Goals’’). The Strategic Plan defines the USPTO’s mission and long-term goals and presents the actions the Office will take to realize those goals. The significant actions the Office describes in the Strategic Plan that are specific to the goals of this rulemaking are implementing a sustainable funding model, reducing the patent application backlog, decreasing patent application pendency, improving patent quality, and upgrading the Office’s patent IT business capability and infrastructure.
Likewise, the fee schedule goals and strategies also support the Strategy for American Innovation—an Administration initiative first released in September , and updated in February , that is available at eunic-brussels.eu strategy. The Strategy for American Innovation recognizes innovation as the foundation of American economic growth and national competitiveness. Economic growth in advanced economies like the United States is driven by creating new and better ways of producing goods and services, a process that triggers new and productive investments, which is the cornerstone of economic growth. Achieving the Strategy for American Innovation depends, in part, on the USPTO’s success in reducing the patent application backlog and in decreasing patent application pendency—both of which stall the delivery of innovative
VerDate Mar<15> Jan 17, Jkt PO Frm Fmt Sfmt E:\FR\FM\eunic-brussels.eu 18JAR2TK E
LL E
Y on
D S
K 3S
P T
V N
1P R
O D
w ith
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 13 / Friday, January 18, / Rules and Regulations
goods and services to market and impede economic growth and the creation of high-paying jobs. This rule positions the USPTO to reduce the patent application backlog and decrease patent application pendency.
A. Ensure the Overall Fee Schedule Generates Sufficient Revenue To Recover Aggregate Cost
The first fee setting strategy is to ensure that the fee schedule generates sufficient aggregate revenue to recover the aggregate cost to maintain USPTO operations and accomplish USPTO strategic goals. Two overriding principles motivate the Office in this regard: (1) Operating with a more sustainable funding model than in the past to avoid disruptions caused by fluctuations in the economy; and (2) accomplishing strategic goals, including the imperatives of reducing the patent application backlog and decreasing patent application pendency. Each principle is discussed in greater detail below.
1. Implement a Sustainable Funding Model for Operations
As explained in the Strategic Plan, the Office’s objective of implementing a sustainable funding model for operations will facilitate USPTO’s long- term operational and financial planning and enable the Office to adapt to changes in the economy and in operational workload.
Since , patent fees that generate most of the patent revenue (e.g., filing, search, examination, issue, and maintenance fees) have been set by statute, and the Office could adjust these fees only to reflect changes in the Consumer Price Index (CPI) for All Urban Consumers, as determined by the Secretary of Labor. Because these fees were set by statute, the USPTO could not realign or adjust them to quickly and effectively respond to market demand or changes in processing costs other than for the CPI. Over the years, these constraints led to funding variations and shortfalls. Section 10 of the AIA changed this fee adjustment model and authorized the USPTO to set or adjust patent fees within the regulatory process so that the Office will be better able to respond to its rapidly growing workload.
The Budgets (see FY and FY President’s Budget Requests at eunic-brussels.eu budget/eunic-brussels.eu) delineate the annual plans and prospective aggregate costs to execute the initiatives in the Strategic Plan. One of these costs is the growth of a three-month patent operating reserve to allow effective management of the
U.S. patent system and responsiveness to changes in the economy, unanticipated production workload, and revenue changes, while maintaining operations and effectuating long-term strategies. The Office evaluated the optimal size of the operating reserve by examining specific risk factors. There are two main factors that create a risk of volatility in patent operations— spending levels and revenue streams. After reviewing other organizations’ operating reserves, the Office found that a fully fee-funded organization such as the USPTO should maintain a minimum of a three-month operating reserve. The fee schedule in this final rule will gradually build the three-month operating reserve. The USPTO will assess the patent operating reserve balance against its target balance annually and, at least every two years, will evaluate whether the target balance continues to be sufficient to provide the stability in funding needed by the Office. By implementing this fee schedule, the USPTO anticipates that the three-month patent operating reserve will be achieved in FY
The fees in this final rule will provide the USPTO with sufficient aggregate revenue to recover the aggregate cost to operate the Office while improving the patent system. During FY , patent operations will cost $ billion after accounting for an offset to spending from other income of $23 million and a withdrawal from the operating reserve of $28 million. The final fee schedule should generate $ billion in aggregate revenue to offset these costs. Once the Office transitions to the fee levels set forth in this final rule, it estimates an additional $ billion in aggregate revenue will be generated from FY through FY to recover the total aggregate cost over the same time period—$ billion in operating costs and $ billion in a three-month operating reserve. (See Table 3 in Part IV, Step 2 of this rule.)
Under the new fee structure, as in the past, the Office will continue to regularly review its operating budgets and long-range plans to ensure that the USPTO uses patent fees prudently.
2. Optimize Patent Quality and Timeliness
The Office developed the strategic goal of optimizing patent quality and timeliness in response to intellectual property (IP) community feedback, the Strategy for American Innovation, and in recognition that a sound, efficient, and effective IP system is essential for technological innovation and for patent holders to reap the benefits of patent protection.
In past years, a steady increase in incoming patent applications and insufficient patent examiner hiring due to multi-year funding shortfalls has led to a large patent application backlog and long patent application pendency. Decreasing pendency increases the private value of a patent because the faster a patent is granted, the more quickly the patent owner can commercialize the innovation. Shorter pendency also allows for earlier disclosure of the scope of the patent, which reduces uncertainty for the patentee, potential competitors, and additional innovators regarding patent rights and the validity of the patentee’s claims.
To reduce the backlog and decrease patent application pendency, the USPTO must examine significantly more patent applications than it receives each year for the next several years. Bringing the applications in the backlog down to a manageable level, while at the same time keeping pace with the new patent applications expected to be filed each year, requires the Office to collect more aggregate revenue than it estimates that it will collect at existing fee rates. The Office needs this additional revenue to hire additional patent examiners, improve the patent business IT capability and infrastructure, and implement other programs to optimize the timeliness of patent examination. This final rule will result in an average first action patent application pendency of 10 months in FY , an average total pendency of 20 months in FY , and a reduced patent application backlog and inventory of approximately , patent applications by FY This would be a significant improvement over the months and months for average first action patent application pendency and average total pendency, respectively, at the end of FY Under this final rule, the patent application backlog is also expected to decrease significantly from the , applications in inventory as of the end of FY
In addition to timeliness of patent protection, the quality of application review is critical to ensure that the value of an issued patent is high. Quality issuance of patents provides certainty in the market and allows businesses and innovators to make informed and timely decisions on product and service development. Through this final rule, the Office will continue to improve patent quality through comprehensive training for new and experienced examiners, an expanded and enhanced ombudsmen program to help resolve questions about
VerDate Mar<15> Jan 17, Jkt PO Frm Fmt Sfmt E:\FR\FM\eunic-brussels.eu 18JAR2TK E
LL E
Y on
D S
K 3S
P T
V N
1P R
O D
w ith
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 13 / Friday, January 18, / Rules and Regulations
applications, improved hiring processes, and guidelines for examiners to address clarity issues in patent applications. The Office also will continue to encourage interviews between applicants and examiners to help clarify allowable subject matter early in the examination process and to encourage interviews later in prosecution to resolve outstanding issues. Lastly, the Office will continue to reengineer the examination process, and to monitor and measure examination using a comprehensive set of metrics that analyze the quality of the entire process.
In addition to direct improvements to patent quality and timeliness, the USPTO’s development and implementation of the patent end-to-end processing system using the revenue generated from this fee structure will improve the efficiency of the patent system. The IT architecture and systems in place currently are obsolete and difficult to maintain, leaving the USPTO highly vulnerable to disruptions in patent operations. Additionally, the current IT systems require patent employees and external stakeholders to perform labor-intensive business processes manually, decreasing the efficiency of the patent system. This final rule provides the Office with sufficient revenue to modernize its IT systems so that the majority of applications are submitted, handled, and prosecuted electronically. Improved automation will benefit both the Office and innovation community.
B. Set Individual Fees To Further Key Policy Considerations, While Taking Into Account the Costs of the Particular Service
The second fee setting strategy is to set individual fees to further key policy considerations, while taking into account the cost of the associated service or activity. This fee schedule recovers the aggregate cost to the Office of operations, while also considering the individual cost of each service provided. This includes consideration that some applicants may use particular services in a more costly manner than other applicants (e.g., patent applications cost more to process when more claims are filed). The final fee schedule considers three key policy factors: (1) Fostering innovation; (2) facilitating effective administration of the patent system; and (3) offering patent prosecution options to applicants. The Office focused on these policy factors because each promotes particular aspects of the U.S. patent system. Fostering innovation is an important policy factor to ensure that access to the U.S. patent system is
without significant barriers to entry, and innovation is incentivized by granting inventors certain short-term exclusive rights to stimulate additional inventive activity. Facilitating effective administration of the patent system is important to influence efficient patent prosecution, resulting in compact prosecution and a decrease in the time it takes to obtain a patent. In addition, the Office recognizes that patent prosecution is not a one-size-fits-all process and therefore, where feasible, the Office endeavors to fulfill its third policy factor of offering patent prosecution options to applicants. Each of these policy factors is discussed in greater detail below.
1. Fostering Innovation To encourage innovators to take
advantage of patent protection, the Office sets basic ‘‘front-end’’ fees (e.g., filing, search, and examination) below the actual cost of carrying out these activities. Likewise, consistent with the requirements in the Act, the Office provides fee reductions for small and micro entity innovators to facilitate access to the patent system. Setting front-end and small and micro entity fees below cost requires, however, that other fees be set above cost. To that end, the Office sets basic ‘‘back-end’’ fees (e.g., issue and maintenance) in excess of costs to recoup revenue not collected by front-end and small and micro entity fees. Charging higher back-end fees also fosters innovation and benefits the overall patent system. After a patent is granted, a patent owner is better positioned, as opposed to at the time of filing a patent application, to more closely assess the expected value of an invention, which is a consideration in determining whether to pay maintenance fees to keep the patent protecting the invention in force. Expiration of a patent makes the subject matter of the patent available in the public domain for subsequent commercialization. Determining the appropriate balance between front-end and back-end fees is a critical component of aligning the Office’s costs and revenues.
2. Facilitating Effective Administration of the Patent System
The fee structure in this final rule helps facilitate effective administration of the patent system by encouraging applicants or patent holders to engage in certain activities that facilitate an effective patent system. In particular, setting fees at the particular levels will: (1) Encourage the submission of applications or other actions that enable examiners to provide prompt, quality
interim and final decisions; (2) encourage the prompt conclusion of prosecution of an application, which results in pendency reduction, faster dissemination of information, and certainty in patented inventions; and (3) help recover the additional costs imposed by some applicants’ more intensive use of certain services that strain the patent system than other applicants.
3. Offering Patent Prosecution Options to Applicants
The final fee schedule provides applicants with flexible and cost- effective options for seeking patent protection. For example, the Office is setting multipart and staged fees for RCEs, appeals, and contested cases. The Office breaks the RCE fee into two parts. The fee for a first RCE is set more than 30 percent below cost to facilitate access to the service and in recognition that most applicants using RCEs only require one per application. The fee for a second and subsequent RCE is set only slightly below cost as an option for those who require multiple RCEs. Likewise, the staging of appeal fees allows applicants to pay less in situations when an application under appeal is either allowed or reopened rather than being forwarded to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB). Finally, the establishment of multipart and staged fees for contested cases improves access to these proceedings while removing low quality patents from the patent system.
Summary of Rationale and Purpose of the Final Rule
The final patent fee schedule will produce aggregate revenues to recover the aggregate costs of the USPTO, including for its management of strategic goals, objectives, and initiatives in FY and beyond. Using the two Strategic Plan goals (implementing a sustainable funding model for operations and optimizing patent quality and timeliness) as a foundation, the final rule provides sufficient aggregate revenue to recover the aggregate cost of patent operations, including implementing a sustainable funding model, reducing the current patent application backlog, decreasing patent application pendency, improving patent quality, and upgrading the patent business IT capability and infrastructure. Additionally, in this final rule, the Office considered individual fees by evaluating its historical cost (where available) and considering the policy factors of fostering innovation, facilitating effective administration of
VerDate Mar<15> Jan 17, Jkt PO Frm Fmt Sfmt E:\FR\FM\eunic-brussels.eu 18JAR2TK E
LL E
Y on
D S
K 3S
P T
V N
1P R
O D
w ith
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 13 / Friday, January 18, / Rules and Regulations
the patent system, and offering patent prosecution options to applicants.
IV. Fee Setting Methodology As explained in the NPRM, there are
three iterative and interrelated steps involved in developing the fees:
Step 1: Determine the prospective aggregate costs of patent operations over the five-year period, including the cost of implementing new initiatives to achieve strategic goals and objectives.
Step 2: Calculate the prospective revenue streams derived from the individual fee amounts (from Step 3) that will collectively recover the prospective aggregate cost over the five- year period.
Step 3: Set or adjust individual fee amounts to collectively (through executing Step 2) recover projected aggregate cost over the five-year period, while furthering key policy considerations.
A description of how the USPTO carries out these three steps is set forth in turn. Where key projections or inputs have changed since the NPRM, the Office explains the reasons underlying the revised estimates.
Step 1: Determine Prospective Aggregate Costs
Calculating aggregate costs is accomplished primarily through the routine USPTO budget planning and formulation process. The Budget is a five-year plan (that the Office prepares and updates annually) for carrying out base programs and implementing the strategic goals and objectives.
The first activity performed to determine prospective aggregate cost is to project the level of demand for patent products and services. Demand for products and services depends on many factors, including domestic and global economic activity. The USPTO also takes into account overseas patenting activities, policies and legislation, and known process efficiencies. Because examination costs are approximately 70 percent of the total patent operating cost, a primary production workload driver is the number of patent application filings (i.e., incoming work to the Office). The Office looks at indicators such as the expected growth in Real Gross Domestic Product (RGDP), the leading indicator to incoming patent applications, to estimate prospective workload. RGDP is reported by the Bureau of Economic Analysis (eunic-brussels.eu), and is forecasted each February by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) (eunic-brussels.eu) in the Economic and Budget Analyses section of the Analytical Perspectives, and each January by the Congressional
Budget Office (CBO) (eunic-brussels.eu) in the Budget and Economic Outlook. A description of the Office’s methodology for using RGDP can be found in the section of the annual budget entitled, ‘‘USPTO Fee Collection Estimates/ Ranges.’’ See annual budget available at eunic-brussels.eu budget/eunic-brussels.eu. The expected change in the required production workload must then be compared to the current examination production capacity to determine any required staffing and operating cost (e.g., salaries, workload processing contracts, and printing) adjustments. The Office uses a patent application pendency model that estimates patent production output based on actual historical data and input assumptions, such as incoming patent applications, examiner attrition rates, and overtime hours. An overview of the model and a simulation tool is available at eunic-brussels.eu patents/stats/patent_pend_eunic-brussels.eu. Further information, including a more detailed description of inputs, outputs, and key data relationships, is available from the Office upon request.
The second activity is to calculate the aggregate costs to execute the requirements. In developing its annual budgets, the Office first looks at the cost of status quo operations (the base requirements). The base requirements (e.g., salaries for employees on-board) are adjusted for anticipated pay raises and inflationary increases for the periods FY –FY (examples of the detailed calculations and assumptions for this adjustment to base are available in the annual Budgets). The Office then estimates the prospective cost for expected changes in production workload and new initiatives over the same period of time (refer to ‘‘Program Changes by Sub- Activity’’ sections of the Budget). The Office reduces cost estimates for completed initiatives and known cost savings expected over the same five-year horizon (see page 9 of the FY President’s Budget). Finally, the Office estimates its three-month target operating reserve level based on this aggregate cost calculation for the year to determine if operating reserve adjustments are necessary.
The estimate for the FY aggregate costs contained in this final rule ($ billion) is $ million less than the estimate contained in the NPRM ($ billion). The Office lowered its aggregate cost estimate in response to public comments expressing a desire for the Office to achieve its goals over a longer timeframe and to incorporate additional efficiencies into operations. In some instances, the Office
was also able to use more recent data. The most significant factors affecting the reduction in aggregate costs include: (1) Decreasing the amount deposited into the operating reserve as well as extending the timeframe for reaching the target amount of the operating reserve, and (2) lengthening the timeframe for achieving pendency goals and optimal inventory levels, and accounting for other changes related to operational costs and efficiencies. Each is discussed in turn.
First, the Office decided to slow the growth of the operating reserve, as well as reduce the amount of fees deposited into the operating reserve during FY , in response to public and PPAC comments. See response to PPAC Comment 6 and Public Comments 18 and The Office is slowing the growth of the operating reserve due to a reduction in aggregate revenue, as explained in more detail in Step 2, below. In the NPRM, the Office estimated reaching a target operating reserve level of three months in FY In this final rule, the adjustments to aggregate revenue and fee amounts have slowed the pace for reaching the three month operating reserve target to beyond the five-year planning period (approximately FY ). (See PPAC Comments 6, 7, 11, 14, 16, and 23; and Public Comments 2, 18, 41, 42, 43, and 45 for additional information). When estimating aggregate costs for the NPRM, the Office planned to deposit $73 million in the operating reserve in FY In the updated estimate of aggregate costs calculated for this final rule, the Office plans to use $28 million of operating reserve funds in FY The net change of activity results in a decrease of aggregate costs associated with the operating reserve of $ million.
The Office is using funds from the operating reserve in FY due to two main components of aggregate cost—an increase in the cost of existing base requirements and the timing of implementing the fees included in the final rule. As discussed in more detail below, the Office experienced historically low examiner attrition rates (the rate at which examiners left the Office). This lower than planned attrition rate resulted in additional higher paid examiners on board during FY , increasing the aggregate cost of base requirements of patent examination (existing examiners on board). Additionally, the Office will publish this final rule one month later than originally anticipated in the NPRM (April instead of March ). This later publication date reduces the amount of revenue originally estimated to be
VerDate Mar<15> Jan 17, Jkt PO Frm Fmt Sfmt E:\FR\FM\eunic-brussels.eu 18JAR2TK E
LL E
Y on
D S
K 3S
P T
V N
1P R
O D
w ith
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 13 / Friday, January 18, / Rules and Regulations
collected during FY Further, the Office anticipates a ‘‘bubble’’ of fee payments paid at the current fee rates, prior to the effective date of the fees in this final rule. This ‘‘bubble’’ is typical in years with fee changes. Therefore, these situations require the Office to use the operating reserve in FY , whereas in FY through FY , the Office estimates it will deposit funds in the operating reserve.
Second, many public comments and the PPAC report strongly urged the Office to achieve the 10 month first action patent application pendency and the 20 month total patent application pendency goals more gradually than proposed, and to achieve a ‘‘soft landing’’ to reach the optimal patent application inventory and workforce levels at a slower rate than proposed. See PPAC Comment 7 and Public Comment 2. During FY , the Office examined more patent applications than it initially anticipated, in part because of historically low attrition rates. In the NPRM, the Office anticipated an attrition of percent in FY , but in the final rule, the Office now anticipates an attrition rate of percent in FY (the same attrition rate the Office experienced in FY ).
In response to comments and to capitalize on the historically low attrition rates, the Office is recalibrating its examination capacity during the five- year planning period of this final rule by reducing the number of examiners that are hired, increasing the amount of overtime allotted for production, and hiring more experienced examiners. Instead of planning to hire 1, patent examiners in FY (as the NPRM estimated), the Office now plans to hire 1, patent examiners in FY The Office also reevaluated its hiring plans in FY to include hiring more patent examiners with greater IP experience and knowledge, thus making this smaller number of hires more productive sooner than originally expected. This recalibration results in a
more costly examiner production capacity (because the more experienced hires are paid a higher salary) in the beginning (FY and FY ) of the five-year planning period when comparing the net operating requirements (see Table 3) per production unit (see Table 2) in the final rule to that in the NPRM. However, as the Office begins reaping the benefits of the overtime and hiring recalibration, the examiner production capacity begins to cost less in FY , so that the total net operating cost per production unit over the five-year planning period is less in the final rule than in the NPRM. For example, in FY , the net operating requirements per production unit are approximately $4, in this final rule ($ billion divided by , production units) compared to approximately $4, in the NPRM. In FY , the net operating requirements per production unit are approximately $4, in this final rule ($ billion divided by , production units) compared to approximately $4, in the NPRM. This initial increase in aggregate cost is necessary to establish the examination capacity needed to achieve the ‘‘soft landing’’ referred to in the comments from the PPAC and the public.
The ‘‘soft landing’’ is evident when looking at the more gradual increase in production units over four years (, in FY increasing to , in FY ) in this final rule (see Table 2) compared to the rapid increase in the NPRM over three years (, in FY increasing to , in FY ). Also, maintaining fewer examiners on board throughout and at the end of the five-year planning horizon (7, in FY in the final rule compared to 8, in FY in the NPRM) permits the Office to use production overtime as a lever to arrive at the future ‘‘soft landing’’ when evaluating actual inputs impacting the production modeling (application filing
levels, examiner attrition rates, and production levels).
While the examination costs marginally increase in the early years due to the higher cost of base examination capacity (because the Office has greater expenses associated with having more examiners than initially projected from lower attrition rates and more experienced examiners), the Office has more than offset this increase by reducing patent operational costs in other areas such as deferring slightly some IT investment plans and leveraging operational efficiencies, consistent with public comments and a routine annual review and update of the patent operating and budget plans. See PPAC Comment 7 and Public Comment 2. In addition, in the time between the publication of the NPRM and the formulation of this final rule, additional information concerning key inputs to the patent application pendency model became available, so the Office revised certain projections as discussed below.
For example, after reviewing FY filing data and RGDP information available after the NPRM published (see Step 2: Calculate Prospective Aggregate Revenue), the Office lowered its estimates for the level of demand of patent products and services (application filing levels). In the NPRM, the Office projected a growth rate of percent in FY –FY ; percent in FY –FY ; and percent in FY Based on actual filing data from FY , the Office now believes that a projected growth rate of percent for each of FY –FY is appropriate in this final rule. This means that examiner production capacity and aggregate costs are reduced because somewhat fewer patent applications are projected to be filed, and the work associated with those applications is less, as compared to the NRPM projections.
Many of the key inputs affecting lower aggregate costs and revenue are summarized in Table 2.
TABLE 2—PATENT PRODUCTION WORKLOAD PROJECTIONS—FY –FY
Utility, Plant, and Reissue (UPR) FY FY FY FY FY
Applications * , , , , , Growth Rate ** % % % % % Production Units , , , , , End of Year Backlog , , , , , Examination Capacity ** 8, 8, 8, 8, 7, Performance Measures (UPR):
Avg. First Action Pendency (Months) Avg. Total Pendency (Months)
* In this table, the patent application filing data includes requests for continued examination (RCEs). ** In this table, demand for patent examination services, which is used to calculate aggregate cost, is not adjusted for price elasticity.
VerDate Mar<15> Jan 17, Jkt PO Frm Fmt Sfmt E:\FR\FM\eunic-brussels.eu 18JAR2TK E
LL E
Y on
D S
K 3S
P T
V N
1P R
O D
w ith
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 13 / Friday, January 18, / Rules and Regulations
Overall, the Office estimates that during FY , patent operations will cost $ billion, including $ billion for patent examination activities; $ million for IT systems, support, and infrastructure contributing to patent operations; $58 million for activities related to patent appeals and the new AIA inter partes dispute actions; $48 million for activities related to IP protection, policy, and enforcement;
and $ million for general support costs necessary for patent operations (e.g., rent, utilities, legal, financial, human resources, and other administrative services). In addition, the Office estimates collecting $23 million in other income associated with reimbursable agreements (offsets to spending) and using $28 million from the operating reserve during FY to sustain operations. Detailed
descriptions of operating requirements are located in the USPTO annual budgets (see eunic-brussels.eu about/stratplan/budget/eunic-brussels.eu). Table 2 above provides key underlying production workload projections and assumptions used to calculate aggregate cost. Table 3 presents the total budgetary requirements (prospective aggregate cost) for FY through FY
TABLE 3—ESTIMATED ANNUAL AGGREGATE COSTS AND FINAL FEE SCHEDULE AGGREGATE REVENUES
(In millions)
FY FY FY FY FY
Aggregate Cost Estimate: Planned Operating Requirements $2, $2, $2, $2, $2,
Less Other Income * (23) (23) (23) (23) (23) Net Operating Requirements 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, Planned Deposit in Operating Reserve (28) 90 92 98
Total Aggregate Cost Estimate 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, Aggregate Revenue Estimate ** 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, Cumulative Operating Reserve Balance.
Target Operating Reserve Operating Reserve Ending FY Balance $ 84 Over/(Under) Target Balance*** () () () () ()
* The Office collects other income associated with reimbursable agreements (offsets to spending) and recoveries of funds obligated in prior years in the amount of approximately $23 million each year.
** The proposed fee schedule will generate less revenue compared to the FY President’s Budget in an effort to slow the growth of the operating reserve over the next five years.
*** The Office estimates that it will meet the three-month operating reserve target in FY
Step 2: Calculate Prospective Aggregate Revenue
As described in Step 1, the USPTO’s annual requirements-based budgets include the aggregate prospective cost of planned production, new initiatives, and an operating reserve planned for the Office to realize its strategic goals and objectives for the next five years. The aggregate prospective cost becomes the target aggregate revenue level that the new fee schedule must generate in a given year and over the five-year planning horizon. The estimate for the FY aggregate revenue contained in this final rule ($ billion) is $ million less than the estimate contained in the NPRM ($ billion). As discussed in more detail in Step 1, the Office has lowered its aggregate cost estimate in response to public comments expressing a desire for the Office to achieve its goals over a longer timeframe and to incorporate additional efficiencies into operations. This reduction in aggregate costs requires a corresponding reduction in aggregate revenue. The most significant factors affecting the reduction in aggregate revenues include: (1) Decreasing fee amounts (see PPAC Comments 6, 7, 11, 14, 16, and 23; and Public Comments 2, 18, 41, 42, 43, and 45 for additional information); (2) publishing this final
rule one month later than originally anticipated in the NPRM (April instead of March ) and thereby reducing the amount of revenue originally estimated to be collected during FY ; and (3) lengthening the timeframe for achieving pendency goals and optimal inventory levels (see Step 1, above for additional information). Following is a discussion of the methodology used to calculate aggregate revenue.
As explained in the NPRM, to calculate the aggregate revenue estimates, the Office first analyzes relevant factors and indicators to determine prospective fee workload volumes (e.g., number of applications and requests for services and products) for the five-year planning horizon. Economic activity is an important consideration when developing workload and revenue forecasts for the USPTO’s products and services because economic conditions affect patenting activity, as most recently exhibited in the recession of when incoming workloads and renewal rates declined.
Major economic indicators include the overall condition of the U.S. and global economies, spending on research and development activities, and investments that lead to the commercialization of new products and services. The most relevant economic
indicator that the Office uses is the RGDP, which is the broadest measure of economic activity. RGDP growth is factored into estimates of patent application levels. RGDP is anticipated to grow approximately three percent for FY based on OMB and CBO estimates provided in February and January of , respectively. CBO prepared updated economic guidance in August , temporarily altering its projection methodology to reflect heightened uncertainty over fiscal policy conditions and concerns. The August CBO estimates envision various economic scenarios instead of a single point estimate as CBO typically prepared. Nonetheless, the Office made calculations based on CBO’s August estimates and they had a negligible impact on forecasts of the Office’s workloads given the +/¥ 5 percent outer bounds discussed below.
Economic indicators also provide insight into market conditions and the management of IP portfolios, which influence application processing requests and post-issuance decisions to maintain patent protection. When developing fee workload forecasts, the Office considers other influential factors including overseas activity, policies and legislation, process efficiencies, and anticipated applicant behavior.
VerDate Mar<15> Jan 17, Jkt PO Frm Fmt Sfmt E:\FR\FM\eunic-brussels.eu 18JAR2TK E
LL E
Y on
D S
K 3S
P T
V N
1P R
O D
w ith
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 13 / Friday, January 18, / Rules and Regulations
The Office’s methodology to estimate aggregate revenue was updated to consider two new elements related setting and adjusting fees using the new section 10 fee setting authority. The first includes adjustments to fee workload estimates as a result of changes in demand for services. In the past, fees that comprise a majority of the Office’s aggregate revenue (e.g., filing, search, examination, issue, and maintenance) were adjusted based on minimal CPI increases. In this rule, the Office is both increasing and decreasing fees by amounts larger than it experienced with CPI increases in the past. Therefore, the Office considered impacts of applicant and patentee behavior in response to the fee changes. The second incorporates the new discount for micro entity applicants and patentees. The introduction of the new micro entity fees required the Office to estimate how many small entity applicants and patentees would pay fees at micro entity rates. Each of these elements is discussed in turn below.
Elasticity and Application Filing Levels The economic indicators discussed
previously correlate with patent application filings, which, with adjustments for elasticity, are a key driver of patent fees. As discussed previously, in the NPRM, the Office projected an application filing growth rate of percent in FY —FY , percent in FY —FY , and percent in FY After reviewing actual FY filing data and other economic indicators discussed herein, the Office lowered its estimates for the level of demand of patent products and services (application filing levels). The Office now believes that a projected growth rate of percent for each of FY —FY is appropriate in this final rule.
The Office also considered how applicant behavior in response to fee (price) changes included in this final rule would impact the application filing demand referenced above. Anticipated applicant behavior in response to fee changes is measured using an economic principle known as elasticity which for the purpose of this action means how sensitive applicants and patentees are to fee amounts or price changes. If elasticity is low enough (i.e., demand is inelastic), when fees increase, patent activities will decrease only slightly in response thereto, and overall revenues will still increase. Conversely, if elasticity is high enough (i.e., demand is elastic), when fees increase, patenting activities will decrease significantly enough in response thereto such that overall revenues will decrease. When
developing fee forecasts, the Office accounts for how applicant behavior will change at different fee amounts projected for the various patent services. Additional detail about the Office’s elasticity estimates is available in ‘‘USPTO Section 10 Fee Setting— Description of Elasticity Estimates,’’ at eunic-brussels.eu aia_implementation/eunic-brussels.eu#heading-1. Some of the information on which the Office based its elasticity estimates are copyrighted materials and are available for inspection at the USPTO.
Using the information contained in the ‘‘Description of Elasticity Estimates’’ document, the Office estimated that percent fewer new (serialized) applications than the number estimated to be filed in the absence of a fee increase would be filed during FY as patent filers adjusted to the new fees, specifically the increase in the total filing, search, and examination fees for most applicants. The Office further estimated that percent fewer new patent applications would be filed during FY , and percent fewer new patent applications would be filed during FY However, the Office estimated that new (serialized) patent application filings would return to the same annual growth rate anticipated in the absence of a fee increase beginning in FY Overall, the demand for patent application services is generally inelastic, and even with these slight decreases, the total aggregate revenue received from patent applications filed is projected to grow year-after-year.
Micro Entity Applicants The introduction of a new class of
applicants, called micro entities, requires a change to aggregate revenue estimations, and the Office refined its workload and fee collection estimates to include this new applicant class. See 35 U.S.C. ; see also Changes to Implement Micro Entity Status for Paying Patent Fees, 77 FR (Dec. 19, ). 35 U.S.C. , which sets forth the requirements that must be met in order for an applicant to claim the micro entity discount, provides two bases under which an applicant may establish micro entity status.
First, section (a) provides that the term ‘‘micro entity’’ means an applicant who makes a certification that the applicant: (1) Qualifies as a small entity as defined in 37 CFR ; (2) has not been named as an inventor on more than four previously filed patent applications, other than applications filed in another country, provisional applications under 35 U.S.C. (b), or international applications for which the basic national fee under 35 U.S.C. 41(a)
was not paid (except for applications resulting from prior employment as defined in section (b)); (3) did not, in the calendar year preceding the calendar year in which the applicable fee is being paid, have a gross income exceeding three times the median household income for that preceding calendar year; and (4) has not assigned, granted, or conveyed, and is not under an obligation by contract or law to assign, grant, or convey, a license or other ownership interest in the application concerned to an entity that had a gross income exceeding the income limit described in (3).
Second, 35 U.S.C. (d) provides that a micro entity also shall include an applicant who certifies that: (1) The applicant’s employer, from which the applicant obtains the majority of the applicant’s income, is an institution of higher education as defined in section (a) of the Higher Education Act of (20 U.S.C. (a)); or (2) the applicant has assigned, granted, conveyed, or is under an obligation by contract or law, to assign, grant, or convey, a license or other ownership interest in the particular applications to such an institution of higher education.
The Office revised the rules of practice in patent cases to implement these micro entity provisions of the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act in a separate rulemaking. See 77 FR (Dec. 19, ).
The Office estimates that when micro entity discounts on patent fees are available, 31 percent of small entity applications will be micro entity applications, under the criteria set forth in section (a) and (d). In making this estimate, the Office considered several factors, including historical data on patents granted. The Office began with patent grant data, because the best available biographic data on applicant type (e.g., independent inventor and domestic universities) comes from patent grant data in the Office’s database. A series of computations led to the estimate that 31 percent of small entity applicants will be micro entities. The first set of computations estimated the number of persons who would qualify for micro entity status under Section (a). The Office began by estimating the number of individuals who were granted patents in FY There were , utility patents granted in FY as reported in the FY USPTO Performance and Accountability Report (PAR). The PAR is available for review at http:// eunic-brussels.eu /eunic-brussels.eu. The Office’s Patent Technology Monitoring Team (PTMT) provides data showing the split between
VerDate Mar<15> Jan 17, Jkt PO Frm Fmt Sfmt E:\FR\FM\eunic-brussels.eu 18JAR2TK E
LL E
Y on
D S
K 3S
P T
V N
1P R
O D
w ith
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 13 / Friday, January 18, / Rules and Regulations
domestic and foreign patent grants. (It should be noted that PTMT’s data is based on the calendar year not the fiscal year.) PTMT’s data is available at http:// eunic-brussels.eu taf/all_eunic-brussels.eu#PartA1_1b. From this data, the Office found that percent of utility patents granted in FY were granted to individuals in the United States and percent were granted to individuals from other countries. These figures refer to patents where the individuals were not listed in the USPTO database as associated with a company. These individuals would likely meet the criteria under section (a)(1) (small entity status). Using this information, the Office estimates that individuals in the United States received 11, utility patents (, times percent) in FY , and that individuals from other countries received 4, utility patents (, times percent). In total, the Office estimates that 15, (11, plus 4,) patents were granted to individuals in FY
Concerning the micro entity threshold in 35 U.S.C. (a)(2), the Office’s Patent Application Locating and Monitoring (PALM) database reports that 62 percent of both foreign and domestic small entity applicants filed fewer than 5 applications in FY As stated above, an estimated 15, patent grants were to individuals both domestic (11,) and foreign (4,). Using this information, the Office estimates that 6, (11, times 62 percent) patents will be granted to domestic applicants who meet the thresholds for micro entity status set forth in sections (a)(1) and (a)(2), while 2, (4, times 62 percent) patents will be granted to foreign applicants who meet the same thresholds.
Concerning the income threshold in 35 U.S.C. (a)(3), the median household income for calendar year (CY) (the year most recently reported by the Bureau of the Census) was $50, See Income, Poverty, and Health Insurance Coverage in the United States: , at 5 and 33 (Table A–1) (Sept. ) available at http:// eunic-brussels.eu pdf. (The Office will indicate conspicuously on its Web site the median household income reported by the Bureau of the Census and the income level that is three times the median household income for the calendar year most recently reported.) Thus, the income level specified in 35 U.S.C. (a)(3) and (a)(4) (three times the median household income) is $,
The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) records show that in about 97 percent of individuals (as proxied by the total number of IRS form filings) reported adjusted gross income of less than $,, and about 87 percent of individuals reported adjusted gross income of less than $, See Table at: eunic-brussels.eu indtaxstats/article/0,,id=,html. Using this information, the Office estimates that 6, (6, times 97 percent) of patents granted to individuals from the U.S. will be for individuals under the gross income threshold of the micro entity definition ($, for CY ). The Office uses 97 percent as the best available estimate of the maximum number of individuals who satisfy the income limit. Median household income and gross income levels are not readily available for the country of origin for all foreign individuals. Therefore, the Office conservatively estimates that all foreign individuals will satisfy the income requirements for micro entity fee reductions, and that income alone should not limit their eligibility. Using the best available data, as presented above, the Office estimates that the total number of individuals who meet the thresholds set forth in 35 U.S.C. (a)(1), (a)(2), and (a)(3) is 9, (6, from the United States and 2, foreign).
The 9, figure represents a reasonable approximation of the number of patents granted annually to persons who would qualify as micro entities under section (a). There is no data available to indicate how many persons would be excluded under section (a)(4) based upon an assignment, grant, or conveyance or an obligation to grant, assign, or convey to an entity with income exceeding the limit in section (a)(3). However, the Office’s approach with the other components of section (a) is sufficiently conservative to mitigate the risks of not capturing this population. Likewise, while a small company could qualify as a micro entity under section (a), the above calculation of individuals represents a reasonable overall approximation because the estimate of affected individuals is sufficiently conservative.
Turning to 35 U.S.C. (d), the most recent data available on university patent grants is from CY Reviewing the data from CY –CY , the Office estimates that domestic universities account for approximately percent of all patent grants. The Office is using this figure as a reasonable approximation for the number of micro entity applicants
expected under section (d), which covers applicants who are employed by universities or who have assigned their invention to a university. Applying this information to FY , the Office estimates that universities received 4, (, times percent) of the patents granted in FY The data on university patent grants is available at: eunic-brussels.eu ido/oeip/taf/univ/asgn/ table_1_htm.
To combine (a) and (d), the Office adds the estimated number of patents granted that could meet the micro entity definition for individuals (9,) and for university grants (4,) to obtain a total of 13, patent grants. The Office divides 13, micro entity patents by the 43, small entity patents in FY (per the Office’s PALM database) to calculate that approximately 31 percent of small entity patents will be micro entity patents. The Office expects a uniform distribution of micro entities across all application types. No data exists to suggest otherwise. Likewise, the Office applies the 31 percent estimate to both filings and grants because the Office expects a uniform distribution of micro entities among both applicants and patentees, and no data exists to suggest otherwise. Thus, the Office estimates that 31 percent of all small entity applicants will qualify as micro entity applicants.
In recent years, small entity applicants made up approximately 25 percent of utility filings and 20 percent of utility patent grants (per the PALM database). Given that utility filings are the largest category of application types, for forecasting purposes, the Office uses utility filing data as representative of the universe of patent application filings. Applying the 31 percent estimate for the number of micro entities, the Office estimates that micro entities will account for percent (25 percent times 31 percent) of all filings, and percent (20 percent times 31 percent) of all grants. The Office used these estimates ( percent and percent) to calculate the portion of fee workloads (e.g., number of application filings, patent issues, and maintenance fees paid) that should be multiplied by the new micro entity fee amounts to include in the estimate for aggregate revenue.
Aggregate Revenue Estimate Ranges When calculating aggregate revenue,
the USPTO prepares a high-to-low range of fee collection estimates that includes a +/¥ 5 percent outer bounds to account for: the inherent uncertainty, sensitivity, and volatility of predicting fluctuations in the economy and market environment; interpreting policy and
VerDate Mar<15> Jan 17, Jkt PO Frm Fmt Sfmt E:\FR\FM\eunic-brussels.eu 18JAR2TK E
LL E
Y on
D S
K 3S
P T
V N
1P R
O D
w ith
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 13 / Friday, January 18, / Rules and Regulations
process efficiencies; and developing fee workload and fee collection estimates from assumptions. The Office used 5 percent because historically the Office’s actual revenue collections have typically been within 5 percent of the projected revenue. Additional detail about the Office’s aggregate revenue, including projected workloads by fee, is available in ‘‘USPTO Section 10 Fee Setting—Aggregate Revenue Estimates Alternative 1: Proposed Alternative—Set and Adjust Section 10 Fees’’ available at eunic-brussels.eu aia_implementation/eunic-brussels.eu.
Summary Patent fees are collected for patent-
related services and products at different points in time within the patent application examination process and over the life of the pending patent application and granted patent. Approximately half of all patent fee collections are from issue and maintenance fees, which subsidize filing, search, and examination activities. Changes in application filing levels immediately impact current year fee collections, because fewer patent application filings means the Office collects fewer fees to devote to production-related costs, such as additional examining staff and overtime. The resulting reduction in production activities creates an out-year revenue impact because less production output in one year results in fewer issue and maintenance fee payments in future years.
The USPTO’s five-year estimated aggregate patent fee revenue (see ‘‘Aggregate Revenue Estimate’’ in Table 3) is based on the number of patent applications it expects to receive for a given fiscal year, work it expects to process in a given fiscal year (an indicator for workload of patent issue fees), expected examination and process requests for the fiscal year, and the expected number of post-issuance decisions to maintain patent protection over that same fiscal year. Within the iterative process for estimating aggregate revenue, the Office adjusts individual fees up or down based on cost and policy decisions (see Step 3: Set Specific Fee Amounts), estimates the effective dates of new fee rates, and then multiplies the resulting fees by appropriate workload volumes to calculate a revenue estimate for each fee.
To calculate the aggregate revenue, the Office assumes that all new fee rates will be effective on April 1, , except for the following fee changes which will be effective on January 1, § (a)(1), (b)(1), (c)(1), and (d)(1)
(patent issue and publication fees); § (h)(1) (fee for recording a patent assignment electronically); § (a)(1)(i)(A), (a)(1)(ii)(A), and (a)(2)(i) (international application filing, processing and search fees); and fees included in § (a)(1)(i)(A), (a)(2)(i), (a)(3)(i), and (a)(4)(i) (international application transmittal and search fees). Using these figures, the USPTO sums the individual fee revenue estimates, and the result is a total aggregate revenue estimate for a given year (see Table 3).
Step 3: Set Specific Fee Amounts
Once the Office finalizes the annual requirements and aggregate prospective costs for a given year during the budget formulation process, the Office sets specific fee amounts that, together, will derive the aggregate revenue required to recover the estimated aggregate prospective costs during that timeframe. Calculating individual fees is an iterative process that encompasses many variables. The historical cost estimates associated with individual fees is one variable that the USPTO considers to inform fee setting. The Office’s Activity- Based Information (ABI) provides historical cost for an organization’s activities and outputs by individual fee using the activity-based costing (ABC) methodology. ABC is commonly used for fee setting throughout the Federal Government. Additional information about the methodology, including the cost components related to respective fees, is available at http:// eunic-brussels.eu_implementation/ eunic-brussels.eu#heading-1 in the document titled ‘‘USPTO Section 10 Fee Setting— Activity-Based Information and Costing Methodology.’’ The USPTO provides data for FY —FY because the Office finds that reviewing the trend of ABI historical cost information is the most useful way to inform fee setting. The underlying ABI data are available for public inspection at the USPTO.
When the Office implements a new process or service, historical ABI data is typically not available. However, the Office will use the historical cost of a similar process or procedure as a starting point to calculate the cost of a new activity or service. For example, as described in the final rulemaking for supplemental examination, the Office used the ABI historical cost for ex parte reexamination procedures as a starting point for calculating the prospective cost to implement the new supplemental examination procedures. See Changes to Implement the Supplemental Examination Provisions of the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act
and To Revise Reexamination Fees, 77 FR (Aug. 14, ).
In other cases, ABI historical cost information related to similar processes is not available, and the Office estimates cost by calculating the resources necessary to execute the new process. To do so, the Office estimates the amount of time (in hours) and necessary skill level to complete an activity. The USPTO then multiplies the estimated amount of time by the hourly wage(s) of the persons required at each skill level and adds the administrative and indirect cost rates (derived from ABI historical cost data) to this base cost estimate to calculate the full cost of the activity. One-time costs, such as IT, training, or facilities costs, are added to the full cost estimate to obtain the total cost of providing the new process or service. Lastly, the USPTO applies a rate of inflation to estimate the prospective unit cost. For example, the Office used this methodology to calculate the costs associated with the new inter partes and post-grant review processes. See Changes to Implement Inter Partes Review Proceedings, Post-Grant Review Proceedings, and Transitional Program for Covered Business Method Patents, 77 FR (Aug. 14, ).
Besides using cost data as a point of reference for setting individual fee amounts, the USPTO also uses various policy factors discussed in Part III. Rulemaking Goals and Strategies to inform fee setting. Fees are set to allow the Office to recover its aggregate costs, while furthering key policy considerations. The following section describes the rationale for setting fee rates at specific amounts.
V. Individual Fee Rationale
The Office projects the aggregate revenue generated from the patent fees will recover the prospective aggregate cost of its patent operations. However, each individual fee is not necessarily set equal to the estimated cost of performing the activities related to the fee. Instead, as described in Part III. Rulemaking Goals and Strategies, some of the fees are set to balance several key policy factors: fostering innovation, facilitating effective administration of the patent system, and offering patent prosecution options to applicants. As also described in Part III, executing these policy factors in the patent fee schedule is consistent with the Strategy for American Innovation and the goals and objectives outlined in the Strategic Plan. Once the key policy factors are considered, fees are set at, above, or below individual cost recovery levels for the activity or service provided.
VerDate Mar<15> Jan 17, Jkt PO Frm Fmt Sfmt E:\FR\FM\eunic-brussels.eu 18JAR2TK E
LL E
Y on
D S
K 3S
P T
V N
1P R
O D
w ith
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 13 / Friday, January 18, / Rules and Regulations
For the purpose of discussing the changes in this rule, the rationale for setting or adjusting individual fees are grouped into two major categories: (1) Fees where large entity amounts changed from the current amount by greater than plus or minus 5 percent and 10 dollars (described below in section (B)); and (2) fees where large entity amounts stayed the same or did not change by greater than plus or minus 5 percent and 10 dollars (described below in section (C)). The purpose of the categorization is to identify large fee changes for the reader and provide an individual fee rationale for such changes. The categorization is based on changes in large entity fee amounts because percentage changes for small entity fees that are in place today would be the same as the percentage change for the large entity, and the dollar change would be half of that of the large entity change. Therefore, there will never be an instance where the small entity fee change meets the greater than plus or minus 5 percent and 10 dollars criteria and a large entity fee change does not.
The ‘‘USPTO Section 10 Fee Setting— Table of Patent Fee Changes’’ is available at eunic-brussels.eu aia_implementation/eunic-brussels.eu and the tables in Part VI. The table of patent fee changes presents the current fees for large and small entities and the final fees for large, small, and micro entities. The table also includes the dollar and percent changes between current fees and final fees for large entity fees only as well as the FY , FY , and FY unit costs. The Discussion of Specific Rules in this rulemaking contains a complete listing of fees that are set or adjusted in this patent fee schedule.
A. Discounts for Small and Micro Entity Applicants
The fees described below include discounts for small and micro entity
applicants as required by section The current small entity discount scheme changes when fees are set in accordance with section That is, section 10(a) provides that the USPTO can set or adjust ‘‘any fee established, authorized or charged under’’ Title 35, U.S.C., and section 10(b) of the Act provides that fees set or adjusted under section 10(a) authority for ‘‘filing, searching, examining, issuing, appealing, and maintaining patent applications and patents’’ will be reduced by 50 percent for small entities and 75 percent for micro entities. A small entity is defined in 35 U.S.C. 41(h)(1), and a micro entity is defined in 35 U.S.C.
Currently, the small entity discount is only available for statutory fees provided under 35 U.S.C. 41(a), (b), and (d)(1). Section 10(b) extends the discount to some patent fees not contained in 35 U.S.C. 41(a), (b), and (d)(1). Thus, in this final rule, the Office applies the discount to a number of fees that currently do not receive the small entity discount. There is only one fee for which a small entity discount is currently offered that is ineligible for a small entity discount under the final fee schedule: the fee for a statutory disclaimer under 37 CFR (d). This fee is currently $ for a large entity and $80 for a small entity. In this final rule, this fee is $ for all entities (i.e., large, small, and micro) because this particular fee does not fall under one of the six categories of patent fees set forth in section 10(b).
Additionally, the new contested case proceedings created under the Act (inter partes review, post-grant review, covered business method patent review, and derivation proceedings) are trial services, not appeals. As such, the fees for these services do not fall under any of the six categories under section 10(b), and therefore are not eligible for
discounts. Appeals before the PTAB involve contests to an examiner’s findings. The new trial services, however, determine whether a patent should have been granted. They involve discovery, including cross-examination of witnesses. Further, the AIA amends sections of Title 35 that specifically reference ‘‘appeals,’’ while separately discussing inter partes review, post- grant review, and derivation proceedings, highlighting that these new services are not appeals. See section 7 of the AIA (amending 35 U.S.C. 6).
B. Fees With Proposed Changes of Greater Than Plus or Minus 5 Percent and 10 Dollars
For those fees that change by greater than plus or minus 5 percent and 10 dollars, the individual fee rationale discussion is divided into four general subcategories: (1) Fees to be set at cost recovery; (2) fees to be set below cost recovery; (3) fees to be set above cost recovery; and (4) fees that are not set using cost data as an indicator. Table 4 contains a summary of the individual fees that are discussed in each of the subcategories referenced above.
For purposes of discussion within this section, where new micro entity fees are set, it is expected that an applicant or a patent holder would have paid the current small entity fee (or large entity in the event there is not a small entity fee), and dollar and percent changes are calculated from the current small entity fee amount (or large entity fee, where applicable).
It should be noted that the ‘‘Utility Search Fee’’ listed below does not meet the ‘‘change by greater than plus or minus 5 percent and 10 dollars’’ threshold, but is nonetheless included in the discussion for comparison of total filing, search, and examination fees—all three of which are due upon filing an application.
TABLE 4—PATENT FEE CHANGES [By greater than plus or minus 5 percent and 10 dollars]
Fee description
Current fees Final fees Dollar change Percent change
Large (small) [micro] entity
Large (small) [micro] entity
Large (small) [micro] entity
Large (small) [micro] entity
(1) Fees set at cost recovery:
Request for Prioritized Examination $4, $4, ¥$ ¥17% ($2,) ($2,) (¥$) (¥17%)
[N/A] [$1,] [¥$1,] [¥58%]
(2) Fees set below cost recovery:
Basic Filing Fee—Utility $ $ ¥$ ¥28% ($) ($) (¥$55) (¥28%)
VerDate Mar<15> Jan 17, Jkt PO Frm Fmt Sfmt E:\FR\FM\eunic-brussels.eu 18JAR2TK E
LL E
Y on
D S
K 3S
P T
V N
1P R
O D
w ith
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 13 / Friday, January 18, / Rules and Regulations
TABLE 4—PATENT FEE CHANGES—Continued [By greater than plus or minus 5 percent and 10 dollars]
Fee description
Current fees Final fees Dollar change Percent change
Large (small) [micro] entity
Large (small) [micro] entity
Large (small) [micro] entity
Large (small) [micro] entity
[N/A] [$70] [¥$] [¥64%] Utility Search Fee $ $ ¥$20 ¥3%
($) ($) (¥$10) (¥3%) [N/A] [$] [¥$] [¥52%]
Utility Examination Fee $ $ +$ +% ($) ($) (+$) (+%)
[N/A] [$] [+$55] [+44%] Total Basic Filing, Search, and Exam—Utility $1, $1, +$ +27%
($) ($) (+) (+27%) [N/A] [$] [¥$] [¥37%]
First Request for Continued Examination (RCE) $ $1, +$ +29% ($) ($) (+$) (+29%)
[N/A] [$] [¥$] [¥35%] Second and Subsequent RCEs (NEW) $ $1, +$ +83%
($) ($) (+$) (+83%) [N/A] [$] [¥$40] [¥9%]
Notice of Appeal $ $ +$ +27% ($) ($) (+$85) (+27%)
[N/A] [$] [¥$] [¥37%] Filing a Brief in Support of an Appeal in Application or Ex Parte
Reexamination Proceeding $ $0 ¥$ ¥% ($) ($0) (¥$) (¥%)
[N/A] [$0] [¥$] [¥%] Appeal Forwarding Fee for Appeal in Examination or Ex Parte
Reexamination Proceeding or Filing a Brief in Support of an Appeal in Inter Partes Reexamination (NEW) $2, +$2, N/A
NEW ($1,) (+$1,) (N/A) [$] [+$] [N/A]
Total Appeal Fees (Paid before Examiner Answer) $1, $ ¥$ ¥37% ($) ($) (¥$) (¥37%)
[N/A] [$] [¥$] [¥68%] Total Appeal Fees (Paid after Examiner Answer) $1, $2, +$1, +%
($) ($1,) (+$) (+%) [N/A] [$] [+$70] [+11%]
Ex Parte Reexamination $17, $12, ¥$5, ¥32% (N/A) ($6,) (¥$11,) (¥66%) [N/A] [$3,] [¥$14,] [¥83%]
Processing and Treating a Request for Supplemental Examina- tion—Up to 20 Sheets $5, $4, ¥$ ¥14%
(N/A) ($2,) (¥$2,) (¥57%) [N/A] [$1,] [¥$4,] [¥79%]
Ex Parte Reexamination Ordered as a Result of a Supplemental Examination Proceeding $16, $12, ¥$4, ¥25%
(N/A) ($6,) (¥$10,) (¥62%) [N/A] [$3,] [¥$13,] [¥81%]
Total Supplemental Examination Fees $21, $16, ¥$4, ¥22% (N/A) ($8,) (¥$13,) (¥61%) [N/A] [$4,] [¥$17,] [¥81%]
Inter Partes Review Request—Up to 20 Claims (Per Claim Fee for Each Claim in Excess of 20 is $) (NEW) $9, +$9, N/A
NEW (N/A) (N/A) (N/A) [N/A] [N/A] [N/A]
Inter Partes Review Post Institution Fee—Up to 15 Claims (Per Claim Fee for Each Claim in Excess of 15 is $) (NEW) $14, +$14, N/A
NEW (N/A) (N/A) (N/A) [N/A] [N/A] [N/A]
Total Inter Partes Review Fees (For Current Fees, Per Claim Fee for Each Claim in Excess of 20 is $) $27, $23, ¥$4, ¥15%
(N/A) (N/A) (N/A) (N/A) [N/A] [N/A] [N/A] [N/A]
Post-Grant Review or Covered Business Method Patent Review Request—Up to 20 Claims (Per Claim Fee for Each Claim in Excess of 20 is $) (NEW) $12, +$12, N/A
NEW (N/A) (N/A) (N/A) [N/A] [N/A] [N/A]
VerDate Mar<15> Jan 17, Jkt PO Frm Fmt Sfmt E:\FR\FM\eunic-brussels.eu 18JAR2TK E
LL E
Y on
D S
K 3S
P T
V N
1P R
O D
w ith
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 13 / Friday, January 18, / Rules and Regulations
TABLE 4—PATENT FEE CHANGES—Continued [By greater than plus or minus 5 percent and 10 dollars]
Fee description
Current fees Final fees Dollar change Percent change
Large (small) [micro] entity
Large (small) [micro] entity
Large (small) [micro] entity
Large (small) [micro] entity
Post-Grant Review or Covered Business Method Patent Review Post Institution Fee—Up to 15 Claims (Per Claim Fee for Each Claim in Excess of 15 is $) (NEW) $18, +$18, N/A
NEW (N/A) (N/A) (N/A) [N/A] [N/A] [N/A]
Total Post-Grant Review or Covered Business Method Patent Fees (For Current Fees, Per Claim Fee for Each Claim in Ex- cess of 20 is $) $35, $30, ¥$5, ¥16%
(N/A) (N/A) (N/A) (N/A) [N/A] [N/A] [N/A] [N/A]
(3) Fees set above cost recovery:
Publication Fee for Early, Voluntary, or Normal Publication (Pre Grant Publication or PG Pub) $ $0 ¥$ ¥%
(N/A) ($0) (¥$) (¥%) [N/A] [$0] [¥$] [¥%]
Utility Issue Fee $1, $ ¥$ ¥46% ($) ($) (¥$) (¥46%
[N/A] [$] [¥$] [¥73%] Combined Total—Pre-grant Publication and Issue Fee—Utility $2, $ ¥$1, ¥54%
($1,) ($) (¥$) (¥59%) [N/A] [$] [¥$] [¥77%]
Maintenance Fee Due at Years (1st Stage) $1, $1, +$ +39% ($) ($) (+$) (+39%)
[N/A] [$] [¥$] [¥30%] Maintenance Fee Due at Years (2nd Stage) $2, $3, +$ +24%
($1,) ($1,) (+$) (+24%) [N/A] [$] [¥$] [¥38%]
Maintenance Fee Due at Years (3rd Stage) $4, $7, +$2, +54% ($2,) ($3,) (+$1,) (+54%)
[N/A] [$1,] [¥$] [¥23%]
(4) Fees not set using cost data as an indicator:
Extensions for Response within 1st Month $ $ +$50 +33% ($75) ($) (+$25) (+33%) [N/A] [$50] [¥$25] [¥33%]
Extensions for Response within 2nd Month $ $ +$30 +5% ($) ($) (+$15) (+5%)
[N/A] [$] [¥$] [¥47%] Extensions for Response within 3rd Month $1, $1, +$ +9%
($) ($) (+$55) (+9%) [N/A] [$] [¥$] [¥46%]
Extensions for Response within 4th Month $2, $2, +$ +9% ($1,) ($1,) (+$95) (+9%)
[N/A] [$] [¥$] [¥45%] Extensions for Response within 5th Month $2, $3, +$ +10%
($1,) ($1,) (+$) (+10%) [N/A] [$] [¥$] [¥45%]
Utility Application Size Fee—For each Additional 50 Sheets that Exceed Sheets $ $ +$80 +25%
($) ($) (+$40) (+25%) [N/A] [$] [¥$60] [¥38%]
Independent Claims in Excess of 3 $ $ +$ +68% ($) ($) (+$85) (+68%)
[N/A] [$] [¥$20] [¥16%] Claims in Excess of 20 $62 $80 +$18 +29%
($31) ($40) (+$9) (+29%) [N/A] [$20] [¥$11] [¥35%]
Multiple Dependent Claim $ $ +$ +70% ($) ($) (+$) (+70%)
[N/A] [$] [¥$35] [¥15%] Correct Inventorship After First Action on the Merits (NEW) $ +$ N/A
NEW ($) (+$) (N/A) [$] [+$] [N/A]
VerDate Mar<15> Jan 17, Jkt PO Frm Fmt Sfmt E:\FR\FM\eunic-brussels.eu 18JAR2TK E
LL E
Y on
D S
K 3S
P T
V N
1P R
O D
w ith
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 13 / Friday, January 18, / Rules and Regulations
TABLE 4—PATENT FEE CHANGES—Continued [By greater than plus or minus 5 percent and 10 dollars]
Fee description
Current fees Final fees Dollar change Percent change
Large (small) [micro] entity
Large (small) [micro] entity
Large (small) [micro] entity
Large (small) [micro] entity
Derivation Petition Fee $ $ $0 0% (N/A) N/A (N/A) (N/A) [N/A] N/A [N/A] [N/A]
Assignments Submitted Electronically (NEW) $40 $0 ¥$40 ¥% (N/A) (N/A) (N/A) (N/A) [N/A] [N/A] [N/A] [N/A]
Assignments Not Submitted Electronically $40 $40 $0 0% (N/A) (N/A) (N/A) (N/A) [N/A] [N/A] [N/A] [N/A]
(1) Fees to be set at Cost Recovery
The following fee is set at cost recovery. This fee supports the policy
factor of ‘‘offering patent prosecution options to applicants’’ by providing applicants with flexibilities in seeking patent protection. A discussion of the
rationale for the proposed change follows.
Request for Prioritized Examination:
TABLE 5—REQUEST FOR PRIORITIZED EXAMINATION FEE CHANGES
Fee information
Current fees Final fees Dollar change Percent change
Large (small) [micro] entity
Large (small) [micro] entity
Large (small) [micro] entity
Large (small) [micro] entity
Request for Prioritized Examination $4, $4, ¥$ ¥17% ($2,) ($2,) (¥$) (¥17%)
[N/A] [$1,] [¥$1,] [¥58%]
TABLE 6—REQUEST FOR PRIORITIZED EXAMINATION COST INFORMATION
Cost information FY
Cost calculation is available in the proposed rule published in the Federal Register Changes To Implement the Prioritized Ex- amination Track (Track I) of the Enhanced Examination Timing Control Procedures, 76 FR (Feb. 4, ). $4,
A patent applicant may seek prioritized examination at the time of filing an original utility or plant application or a continuation application thereof or upon filing an RCE in compliance with 37 CFR A single request for prioritized examination may be granted for an RCE in a plant or utility application. When in the prioritized examination track, an application will be accorded special status during prosecution until a final disposition is reached. The target for prioritized examination is to provide a final disposition within twelve months, on average, of prioritized status being granted. This prioritized examination procedure is part of an effort by the USPTO to offer patent prosecution options to applicants to provide applicants greater control over the timing of examination of their applications. The procedure thereby
enables applicants to have greater certainty in their patent rights sooner.
The AIA established the current large and small entity fees for prioritized examination, which the Office put in place in See Changes To Implement the Prioritized Examination Track (Track I) of the Enhanced Examination Timing Control Procedures Under the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act, 76 FR (Sept. 23, ). The large entity fee is greater than the Office’s cost to process a single prioritized examination request to subsidize the fee revenue lost from providing small entity applicants a 50 percent discount from the large entity fee. The cost calculation for the prioritized examination fees is available in the proposed rule. See Changes To Implement the Prioritized Examination Track (Track I) of the Enhanced Examination Timing Control Procedures, 76 FR (Feb. 4, ).
The higher large entity fee, coupled with the lower small entity fee, recovers the Office’s total cost for conducting all prioritized examinations.
Under section 10, micro entities are eligible to receive a 75 percent discount from the large entity fee for prioritized examination. Here, the Office sets the large entity fee at cost ($4,), instead of further increasing the fee to subsidize the new micro entity discount. The Office will recover this subsidy through other fees that are set above cost recovery, rather than through a separate, higher, large entity fee for prioritized examinations. The Office believes this system will foster innovation and allow for ease of entry into the patent system. Setting the large entity prioritized examination fee further above cost would contradict this policy factor and hinder fast patent protection for large entity applicants.
VerDate Mar<15> Jan 17, Jkt PO Frm Fmt Sfmt E:\FR\FM\eunic-brussels.eu 18JAR2TK E
LL E
Y on
D S
K 3S
P T
V N
1P R
O D
w ith
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 13 / Friday, January 18, / Rules and Regulations
(2) Fees To Be Set Below Cost Recovery
There are eight fees that the Office sets below cost recovery that meet the greater than plus or minus 5 percent and 10 dollars criteria. The policy factors relevant to setting fees below cost recovery are fostering innovation and offering patent prosecution options to applicants. Applying these policy factors to set fees below cost recovery
benefits the patent system by keeping the fees low and making patent filing and prosecution more available to applicants, thus fostering innovation. Although many fees are increased from current fee rates under this rule, the Office is not increasing ‘‘pre-grant’’ fees (e.g., filing, search, and examination) to avoid creating a barrier to entry as otherwise might have been created if fees were set to recover the full cost of
the activity. The fee schedule offers patent prosecution options to provide applicants flexible and cost-effective options for seeking and completing patent protection. This strategy provides multipart and staged fees for certain patent prosecution and contested case activities. A discussion of the rationale for each fee adjustment follows.
Basic Filing, Search, and Examination—Utility:
TABLE 7—BASIC FILING, SEARCH, AND EXAMINATION—UTILITY FEE CHANGES
Fee description
Current fees Final fees Dollar change Percent change
Large (small) [micro] entity
Large (small) [micro] entity
Large (small) [micro] entity
Large (small) [micro] entity
Basic Filing Fee—Utility $ $ ¥$ ¥28% ($) ($) (¥$55) (¥28%)
[N/A] [$70] [¥$] [¥64%] Utiliity Search Fee $ $ ¥$20 ¥3%
($) ($) (¥$10) (¥3%) [N/A] [$] [¥] [¥52%]
Utility Examination Fee $ $ +$ +% ($) ($) (+$) (+%)
[N/A] [$] [+$55] [+$44%] Total Basic Filing, Search, and Exam—Utility $1, $1, +$ +27%
($) ($) (+) (+27%) [N/A] [$] [¥$] [¥37%]
TABLE 8—BASIC FILING, SEARCH, AND EXAMINATION—UTILITY FEE HISTORICAL COST INFORMATION
Historical unit cost information FY $/% of Total FY
$/% of Total FY
$/% of Total
Basic Filing Fee—Utility $/6% $/6% $/7% Utility Search Fee $1,/43% $1,/43% $1,/41% Utility Examination Fee $1,/51% $1,/51% $1,/52%
Total Unit Cost $3,/% $3,/% $3,/%
A non-provisional application for a patent requires filing, search, and examination fees to be paid upon filing. Currently, the large entity basic filing, search, and examination fees for a utility patent recover slightly more than one-third of the average unit cost for processing, searching, and examining a patent application, while the fee for a small entity application recovers around 17 percent of the average unit cost. The Office subsidizes the below-price filing, search, and examination fees through higher ‘‘back-end’’ fees, for example,
above cost issue and maintenance fees. The Office maintains this ‘‘back-end’’ subsidy of ‘‘front-end’’ fees structure to achieve the policy goal of fostering innovation.
The current fee rates and respective costs associated with each stage of patent prosecution are out of alignment. For example, on average, 94 percent of the costs associated with filing, searching, and examining an application occur in the search and examination stages (see Table 8). Approximately half of those costs are estimated to occur in
the examination stage (see Table 8), but only 20 percent of the total filing, search, and examination fees are derived from the examination fee (see Table 9). To adjust this fee structure and help stabilize the USPTO funding model, the Office is increasing the total filing, search, and examination fees and realigning the fee rates to more closely track the cost pattern by stage of prosecution (i.e., filing, search, and examination), while keeping each stage below actual cost.
TABLE 9—UTILITY BASIC FILING, SEARCH, AND EXAMINATION—CURRENT, PROPOSED, AND FINAL FEE INFORMATION
Proposed fee information Current$/% of Total Final
$/% of Total
Basic Filing Fee—Utility $/31% $/17% Utility Search Fee $/49% $/38% Utility Examination Fee $/20% $/45%
Total Fees $1,/% $1,/%
VerDate Mar<15> Jan 17, Jkt PO Frm Fmt Sfmt E:\FR\FM\eunic-brussels.eu 18JAR2TK E
LL E
Y on
D S
K 3S
P T
V N
1P R
O D
w ith
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 13 / Friday, January 18, / Rules and Regulations
In this rule, the Office sets the combined total fee for filing, search, and examination at $1, This adjustment keeps the cost of entering the patent system at or below cost for large, small, and new micro entity applicants—45 percent, 22 percent, and 11 percent of FY total cost, respectively. Likewise, the adjustment for filing, search, and examination fees continues to ensure that these initial fees remain a small part (10 percent) of the cost to apply for patent protection when compared to the average legal fees to file for a patent. The filing, search, and examination fees are also only 10 percent of the total fees paid for a patent through maintenance to full term (i.e., filing, search, examination, issue, and maintenance).
The overall increase in filing, search, and examination fees facilitates effective administration of the patent system, because it encourages applicants to submit only the most thoughtful and unambiguous applications, therefore facilitating examiners’ ability to provide prompt, quality non-final and final actions. At the same time, the overall increase in filing, search, and examination fees helps to stabilize the Office’s revenue stream by collecting more revenue when an application is filed from all patent applicants, instead of collecting revenue when a patent is later published or issued from only successful applicants. Also, while the Office increases application fees,
reducing the pre-grant publication and issue fees offsets these increases.
As discussed above, based on economic indicators, the Office projects a percent growth rate in application filings for each year from FY to FY Additionally, the Office recognizes that some applicants may choose to reduce the number of applications filed in response to this increase in fees. Based on elasticity estimates, the Office anticipates that this impact will be relatively short-term, lasting for the first two and a half years after the fee increase. The Office estimated that applicants would file percent fewer new (serialized) patent applications during FY than the number estimated to be filed in the absence of a fee increase (with new fee schedule implementation for half the fiscal year). The Office estimated that percent fewer new patent applications would be filed during FY and percent fewer new patent applications would be filed during FY in response to the fee adjustment. Despite this decrease in new patent applications filed when compared to the number filed absent the fee increase, the Office estimated that the overall number of patent applications filed would continue to grow each year, albeit at a lower growth rate in FY through FY The Office estimated that beginning in FY , the growth in patent applications filed would return to the same levels anticipated in the
absence of a fee increase. To the extent that there is some impact on filings, the Office determined that the benefits of the fee changes outweigh the temporary cost of fewer patent filings. The additional revenue generated from the increase in fees provides sufficient resources to decrease pendency. The reduction in pendency is estimated to increase private patent value by shortening the time for an invention to be commercialized or otherwise obtain value from the exclusive right for the technology. Additional information about this estimate is available at http:// eunic-brussels.eu_implementation/ eunic-brussels.eu, in a document entitled ‘‘USPTO Section 10 Fee Setting—Description of Elasticity Estimates.’’ The economic impact of this proposed adjustment is further considered in the cost and benefit analysis included in the Regulatory Impact Analysis, available at eunic-brussels.eu_ implementation/eunic-brussels.eu.
It should be noted that utility patent fees are referenced in this section to simplify the discussion of the fee rationale. However, the rationale also applies to the filing, search, and examination fee changes for design, plant, reissue, and PCT national stage fees as outlined in the ‘‘USPTO Section 10 Fee Setting—Table of Patent Fee Changes.’’
Request for Continued Examination (RCE)—First Request:
TABLE 10—FIRST REQUEST FOR CONTINUED EXAMINATION (RCE) FEE CHANGES
Fee description
Current fees Final fees Dollar change Percent change
Large (small) [micro] entity
Large (small) [micro] entity
Large (small) [micro] entity
Large (small) [micro] entity
First Request for Continued Examination (RCE) $ $1, +$ +29% ($) ($) (+$) (+29%)
[N/A] [$] [¥$] [¥35%]
TABLE 11—REQUEST FOR CONTINUED EXAMINATION (RCE) HISTORICAL COST INFORMATION
Historical unit cost information FY FY FY
Request for Continued Examination (RCE) $2, $1, $1, Percentage of RCE cost compared to the cost to process a new application 60% 43% 51%
The historical unit cost information is calculated by subtracting the cost to complete a single application with no RCEs from the cost to complete a single application with one RCE. A description of the cost components is available for review in the ‘‘Section 10 Fee Setting—Activity-Based Information and Costing Methodology’’ document. It is reasonable to expect that the cost to the Office to complete a single RCE should be less than the cost to complete a new application because an RCE is continuing from work already performed on the original application. The Office’s historical cost data demonstrates this, with the cost to process an RCE being, on average, half of the cost to prosecute a new appli- cation.
An applicant may file an RCE in an application that is under final rejection (i.e., prosecution is closed) by filing a
submission and paying a specified fee within the requisite time period. Applicants typically file an RCE when
they choose to continue to prosecute an application before the examiner, rather than appeal a rejection or abandon the
VerDate Mar<15> Jan 17, Jkt PO Frm Fmt Sfmt E:\FR\FM\eunic-brussels.eu 18JAR2TK E
LL E
Y on
D S
K 3S
P T
V N
1P R
O D
w ith
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 13 / Friday, January 18, / Rules and Regulations
application. In FY and FY , about 30 percent of applications filed were for RCEs. Generally, around 70 percent of RCE applications filed in a year are for first RCEs and the remaining 30 percent are for a second or subsequent RCE. Given this data, it is reasonable to expect that most outstanding issues are resolved with the first RCE.
In this final rule, the Office divides the fee for RCEs into two parts: (1) A lower fee for a first RCE; and (2) a second, higher fee for a second or subsequent RCE. The Office divided this RCE fee because, as stated before, 70 percent of RCEs are for the first RCE, which indicates that applicants need modest additional time to resolve the outstanding issues with the examiner. Multipart RCE fees demonstrate how the Office seeks to facilitate effective administration of the patent system and offer patent prosecution options to applicants.
The large entity fee for the first RCE is set approximately 36 percent below cost recovery at $1, to advance innovation by easing the burden on an applicant needing to resolve outstanding items with an examiner. The USPTO calculated the large entity cost for an RCE at $1, by averaging historical costs after estimating the incremental cost to complete a single application with one RCE compared to the cost to complete an application with no RCE. The RCE fee in the current fee structure is set at 74 percent of the total
fees for filing, search, and examination ($ divided by $1,). The fee relationship of a first RCE to total fees for filing, search, and examination set herein remains the same at 75 percent ($1, divided by $1,).
When an applicant does not agree with a final rejection notice, the applicant has the option to file a notice of appeal as an alternative to filing an RCE. The fee to file a notice of appeal is also set below cost recovery and less than the fee set for the first, and second and subsequent RCEs (see appeal fee information in a following section). The USPTO chose this fee relationship to ensure all applicants have viable options to dispute a final rejection when they believe the examiner has erred. These patent prosecution options allow applicants to make critical decisions at multiple points in the patent prosecution process.
In addition to dividing the current RCE fee into two parts, the Office is piloting other ways to address RCEs. Specifically, the Office is operating two pilot programs that aim to avoid the need to file an RCE by permitting: (i) An Information Disclosure Statement to be submitted after payment of the issue fee; and (ii) further consideration of after final responses.
The first initiative, called Quick Path Information Disclosure Statement (QPIDS) Pilot, permits an applicant to file an IDS after a final rejection and gives the examiner time to consider whether prosecution should be
reopened. If the items of information in the IDS do not require prosecution to be reopened, the application will return to issue, thereby eliminating the need for applicants to file an RCE.
The second initiative, called the After Final Consideration Pilot (AFCP), authorizes a limited amount of non- production time for examiners to consider responses filed after a final rejection with the goal of achieving compact prosecution and increased collaboration between examiners and stakeholders. The Office believes these two pilot programs should reduce the need for RCEs and thereby enable applicants to secure a patent through a single application filing.
Apart from these pilot programs, the USPTO is collaborating with the PPAC on an RCE outreach effort. The objective of this initiative is to identify the reasons why applicants file RCEs, identify any practices for avoiding unnecessary RCEs, and explore new programs or changes in current programs that could reduce the need for some RCEs. The Office recently issued a request for comments on RCE practice in the Federal Register (see 77 FR (Dec. 6, )) as a part of this multi- step approach to address concerns with respect to RCE practice and engage in related efforts directed at reducing patent application pendency.
Request for Continued Examination (RCE)—Second and Subsequent Request (New):
TABLE 12—SECOND AND SUBSEQUENT REQUEST FOR CONTINUED EXAMINATION (RCE) FEE CHANGES
Fee description
Current fees Final fees Dollar change Percent change
Large (small) [micro] entity
Large (small) [micro] entity
Large (small) [micro] entity
Large (small) [micro] entity
Second and Subsequent Requests for Continued Examination (RCE) (NEW) $ $1, +$ +83%
($) ($) (+$) (+83%) [N/A] [$] [¥$40] [¥9%]
TABLE 13—REQUEST FOR CONTINUED EXAMINATION (RCE) HISTORICAL COST INFORMATION
Historical unit cost information FY FY FY
Request for Continued Examination (RCE) $2, $1, $1, Percentage of RCE cost compared to the cost to process a new application 60% 43% 51%
The historical unit cost information is calculated by subtracting the cost to complete a single application with no RCEs from the cost to complete a single application with one RCE. A description of the cost components is available for review in the ‘‘Section 10 Fee Setting—Activity-Based Information and Costing Methodology’’ document. It is reasonable to expect that the cost to the Office to complete a single RCE should be less than the cost to complete a new application because an RCE is continuing from work already performed on the original application. The Office’s historical cost data demonstrates this, as the cost to process an RCE is on average, half of the cost to prosecute a new application.
As discussed previously, in this rule, the Office divides the fee for RCEs into
two parts: (1) A lower fee for a first RCE; and (2) a second, higher fee for a second
or subsequent RCE. Multipart RCE fees demonstrate how the Office seeks to
VerDate Mar<15> Jan 17, Jkt PO Frm Fmt Sfmt E:\FR\FM\eunic-brussels.eu 18JAR2TK E
LL E
Y on
D S
K 3S
P T
V N
1P R
O D
w ith
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 13 / Friday, January 18, / Rules and Regulations
facilitate effective administration of the patent system and offer patent prosecution options to applicants. The Office divided this RCE fee because, as noted above, approximately 30 percent of RCEs are for a second or subsequent RCE, which indicates that most applicants generally need only one RCE to resolve outstanding issues with the examiner.
The Office sets the large entity fee for second and subsequent RCEs at $1,, which is about 10 percent below cost recovery. The USPTO calculated the large entity cost for an RCE at $1, by averaging historical costs after estimating the incremental cost to complete a single application with one RCE compared to the cost to complete an application with no RCE.
The Office recognizes that an RCE may be less costly to examine than a
new continuing application in certain situations. However, the patent fee structure is designed such that the costs associated with the processing and examination of a new or continuing application are recovered by issue and maintenance fees, allowing for a fee significantly below cost recovery. To avoid setting higher issue and maintenance fees to offset the cost of processing second and subsequent RCEs, the fees for those RCEs are set closer to cost recovery. The Office determined that increasing the issue and/or maintenance fees to offset lower than cost recovery second and subsequent RCEs fees would cause the majority of filers (who do not seek more than one RCE) to subsidize services provided to the small minority of filers who seek two or more RCEs. The Office
does not believe such subsidization would be an optimal result.
As discussed earlier, when an applicant does not agree with a final rejection notice, the applicant has the option to file a notice of appeal, for which the fee is also set below cost recovery and less than the fee proposed for the first, and second and subsequent, RCEs (see appeal fee information in the following section). The USPTO chose this fee relationship to ensure that all applicants have viable options to dispute a final rejection when they believe the examiner has erred. These patent prosecution options allow applicants to make critical decisions at multiple points in the patent prosecution process.
Appeal Fees (Partially New):
TABLE 14—APPEAL FEE CHANGES
Fee description
Current fees Final fees Dollar change Percent change
Large (small) [micro] entity
Large (small) [micro] entity
Large (small) [micro] entity
Large (small) [micro] entity
Notice of Appeal $ $ +$ +27% ($) ($) (+$85) (+27%)
[N/A] [$] [¥$] [¥37%] Filing a Brief in Support of an Appeal in Application or Ex Parte
Reexamination Proceeding $ $0 ¥$ ¥% ($) ($0) (¥$) (¥%)
[N/A] [$0] [¥$] [¥%] Appeal Forwarding Fee for Appeal in Examination or Ex Parte
Reexamination Proceeding or Filing a Brief in Support of an Appeal in Inter Partes Reexamination (NEW) $2, N/A N/A
NEW ($1,) (N/A) (N/A) [$] [N/A] [N/A]
Total Appeal Fees (paid before Examiner Answer) $1, $ ¥$ ¥37%
($) ($) (¥$) (¥37%) [N/A] [$] [¥$] [¥68%]
Total Appeal Fees (paid after Examiner Answer) $1, $2, +$1, +%
($) ($1,) (+$) (+%) [N/A] [$] [+$70] [+11%]
TABLE 15—APPEAL FEE HISTORICAL COST INFORMATION
Historical unit cost information FY FY FY
Notice of Appeal to Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) $4, $4, $5, Filing a Brief in Support of an Appeal. Appeal Forwarding Fee.
An applicant who disagrees with an examiner’s final rejection may appeal to the PTAB by filing a notice of appeal and the required fee within the time period provided. An applicant likewise may file a notice of appeal after the applicant’s claim(s) has/have been twice rejected, regardless of whether the
claim(s) has/have been finally rejected. Further, an applicant may file a notice of appeal after a first rejection in a continuing application if any of the claims in the parent application were previously rejected.
Within two months from the date of filing a notice of appeal, an appellant
must file a Brief. Then, the examiner must file an Examiner’s Answer. After the Examiner’s Answer is mailed, the appeal file is forwarded to the PTAB for review.
Currently, a large entity applicant pays $ to file a notice of appeal and another $ when filing a Brief—a total
VerDate Mar<15> Jan 17, Jkt PO Frm Fmt Sfmt E:\FR\FM\eunic-brussels.eu 18JAR2TK E
LL E
Y on
D S
K 3S
P T
V N
1P R
O D
w ith
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 13 / Friday, January 18, / Rules and Regulations
of $1, These current fees only recover approximately 25 percent of the Office’s cost of an appeal. In this final rule, the Office increases appeal fees to reduce the gap between fees and cost. At the same time, the Office offers patent prosecution options to applicants and stages the appeal fees to recover additional cost at later points in time and thereby minimize the cost impacts on applicants associated with withdrawn final rejections.
In the NPRM, the Office proposed to set a $1, notice of appeal fee and a $0 fee when filing the brief. After evaluating comments received from the PPAC and the public, the Office is adjusting the notice of appeal fee down to $ and setting the $0 fee when filing the brief. The Office recognizes that after some notices of appeal are filed, the matter is resolved, and there
is no need to take the ultimate step of forwarding the appeal to the PTAB for a decision. The Office further sets a $2, fee to forward the appeal file— containing the appellant’s Brief and the Examiner’s Answer—to the PTAB for review. This fee is the same as the Office proposed in the NPRM. Under this fee structure, 28 percent of the fee would be paid at the time of notice of appeal, and the remaining 72 percent would be paid after the Examiner’s Answer, but only if the appeal is forwarded to the PTAB. The Office estimates that less than 5 percent of applicants who receive final rejections will pay the full fee ($2,) required to forward an appeal to PTAB. This fee structure allows the appellant to reduce the amount invested in the appeal process until receiving the Examiner’s Answer. In fact, when prosecution
issues are resolved after the notice of appeal and before forwarding an appeal to the PTAB, a large entity appellant would pay only $ to obtain an Examiner’s Answer, 37 percent less than under the current fee structure.
Staging the appeal fees in this manner allows applicants to pay less in situations when an application is either allowed or reopened instead of being forwarded to the PTAB. This patent prosecution option allows applicants to make critical decisions at multiple points in the patent prosecution process. Also, just as the Office is exploring ways to minimize unnecessary RCE filings, the Office is likewise exploring other options, including pilot programs, in an effort to reduce the need to appeal to the PTAB.
Ex Parte Reexamination:
TABLE 16—EX PARTE REEXAMINATION FEE CHANGES
Fee Description
Current fees Final fees Dollar change Percent change
Large (small) [micro] entity
Large (small) [micro] entity
Large (small) [micro] entity
Large (small) [micro] entity
Ex Parte Reexamination $17, $12, ¥$5, ¥32% (N/A) ($6,) (¥$11,) (¥66%) [N/A] [$3,] [¥$14,] [¥83%]
TABLE 17—EX PARTE REEXAMINATION HISTORICAL COST INFORMATION
Historical unit cost information FY FY FY
Ex Parte Reexamination $19, $16, $17,
TABLE 18—EX PARTE REEXAMINATION PROSPECTIVE COST INFORMATION
Prospective cost information FY
Supplemental Examination Fee Methodology for Final Rule (77 FR (Aug. 14, )) available at eunic-brussels.eu aia_implementation/supp_exam_fee_meth_eunic-brussels.eu. $17,
Any person (including anonymously) may file a petition for the ex parte reexamination of a patent that has been issued. The Office initially determines if the petition presents ‘‘a substantial new question of patentability’’ as to the challenged claims. If such a new question has been presented, the Office will order an ex parte reexamination of the patent for the relevant claims.
After noting a disparity between the previous ex parte reexamination fee ($2,) and the cost of completing the proceeding ($17,), the Office increased the fee using its authority under 35 U.S.C. section 41(d). (See Changes To Implement the Supplemental Examination Provisions of the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act
and To Revise Reexamination Fees, 77 FR (Aug. 14, )).
In the NPRM, the Office proposed setting the ex parte reexamination fee at $15,, which is 15 percent below the Office’s cost of conducting the proceeding, and introduced new small and micro entity discounts for an ex parte reexamination (in accordance with section 10, third party requestors are not eligible for the micro entity discounts).
In this final rule, the Office further reduces the large entity fee for ex parte reexamination from $15, (as proposed in the NPRM) to $12,, which is 32 percent below the Office’s cost of conducting the proceeding. Setting the fee below cost permits easier access to the ex parte reexamination
process, which benefits the patent system and patent quality by removing low quality patents.
The ex parte reexamination fee is due at the time of filing, however, it is in essence a two-part fee. First, part of the ex parte reexamination fee helps to recover the costs for analyzing the request and drafting the decision whether to grant or deny ex parte reexamination. This is based on the fee set forth in 37 CFR (c)(7) for a denied request for ex parte reexamination ($3,, $1, for a small entity, and $ for a micro entity patentee). Second, the remaining part of the fee helps to recover the costs for conducting ex parte reexamination if the request for ex parte reexamination is
VerDate Mar<15> Jan 17, Jkt PO Frm Fmt Sfmt E:\FR\FM\eunic-brussels.eu 18JAR2TK E
LL E
Y on
D S
K 3S
P T
V N
1P R
O D
w ith
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 13 / Friday, January 18, / Rules and Regulations
granted. This is based on the ex parte reexamination fee set forth in 37 CFR (c)(1) less the fee set forth in 37 CFR (c)(7) for a denied request for ex
parte reexamination ($12, less $3, equals $8, for a large entity; $6, less $1, equals $4, for a small entity; and $3, less $
equals $2, for a micro entity patentee).
Supplemental Examination:
TABLE 19—SUPPLEMENTAL EXAMINATION FEE CHANGES
Fee description
Current fees Final fees Dollar change Percent change
Large ( small) [micro] entity
Large ( small) [micro] entity
Large ( small) [micro] entity
Large ( small) [micro] entity
Processing and Treating a Request for Supplemental Examina- tion—Up to 20 Sheets $5,
(N/A) [N/A]
$4, ($2,) [$1,]
¥$ (¥$2,) [¥$4,]
¥14% (¥57%) [¥79%]
Ex Parte Reexamination Ordered as a Result of a Supplemental Examination Proceeding $16,
(N/A) [N/A]
$12, ($6,) [$3,]
¥$4, (¥$10,) [¥$13,]
¥25% (¥62%) [¥81%]
Total Supplemental Examination Fees $21, (N/A) [N/A]
$16, ($8,) [$4,]
¥$4, (¥$13,) [¥$17,]
¥22% (¥61%) [¥81%]
TABLE 20—SUPPLEMENTAL EXAMINATION PROSPECTIVE COST INFORMATION
Prospective cost information FY
Supplemental Examination Fee Methodology for Final Rule (77 FR (Aug. 14, )) available at eunic-brussels.eu aia_implementation/supp_exam_fee_meth_eunic-brussels.eu
Supplemental Examination Request * $5, Supplemental Examination Reexamination 16,
Total Supplemental Examination Costs 21,
* In the final rule, the Office estimated its fiscal year cost for processing and treating a request for supplemental examination to be $5, The Office also estimated that the document size fees will recover an average of $40 per request for supplemental examination. Therefore, the Office added new § (k)(1) to set a fee of $5, for processing and treating a request for supplemental examination (the estimated cost amount rounded to the nearest ten dollars minus $40).
Supplemental examination is a new proceeding created by the AIA with an effective date of September 16, (see Changes To Implement the Supplemental Examination Provisions of the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act and To Revise Reexamination Fees, 77 FR (Aug. 14, )). A patent owner may request a supplemental examination of a patent by the Office to consider, reconsider, or correct information believed to be relevant to the patent. This proceeding will help the patent owner preempt inequitable conduct challenges to the patent. The need for this proceeding arises only after a patent owner recognizes that there is information that should have been brought to the attention of the Office to consider or reconsider during the application process, or information
submitted during the application process that needs to be corrected.
The current fees for the request for supplemental examination and the ex parte reexamination ordered as a result of a supplemental examination proceeding are $5, and $16,, respectively, as set using the Office’s authority under 35 U.S.C. 41(d).
In the NPRM, the Office proposed to adjust supplemental examination fees to 15 percent below cost at $18, ($4, for the request and $13, for the reexamination). After updating the patent operating plans and corresponding aggregate costs in response to public comments, the Office determined that it could reduce the supplemental examination fee further while continuing to ensure that the aggregate revenue equals aggregate cost.
In this rule, the Office is reducing the fee for conducting an ex parte reexamination ordered as a result of a supplemental examination to $12, and setting the total supplemental examination fees at $16, ($4, for the request and $12, for the reexamination), which is 22 percent below the Office’s cost for these services.
The Office believes these reduced fee amounts continue to be sufficient to encourage applicants to submit applications with all relevant information during initial examination, yet low enough to facilitate effective administration of the patent system by providing patentees with a procedure to immunize a patent from an inequitable conduct challenge.
Inter Partes Review:
VerDate Mar<15> Jan 17, Jkt PO Frm Fmt Sfmt E:\FR\FM\eunic-brussels.eu 18JAR2TK E
LL E
Y on
D S
K 3S
P T
V N
1P R
O D
w ith
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 13 / Friday, January 18, / Rules and Regulations
TABLE 21— INTER PARTES REVIEW FEE CHANGES
Fee description
Current fees Final fees Dollar change Percent change
Large (small) [micro] entity
Large (small) [micro] entity
Large (small) [micro] entity
Large (small) [micro] entity
Inter Partes Review Request—Up to 20 Claims (Per Claim Fee for Each Claim in Excess of 20 is $) (NEW) NEW $9,
(N/A) [N/A]
N/A (N/A) [N/A]
N/A (N/A) [N/A]
Inter Partes Review Post Institution Fee—Up to 15 Claims (Per Claim Fee for Each Claim in Excess of 15 is $) (NEW) NEW $14,
(N/A) [N/A]
N/A (N/A) [N/A]
N/A (N/A) [N/A]
Total Inter Partes Review Fees (For Current Fees, Per Claim Fee for Each Claim in Excess of 20 is $) $27,
(N/A) [N/A]
$23, (N/A) [N/A]
¥$4, (N/A) [N/A]
¥15% (N/A) [N/A]
TABLE 22—INTER PARTES REVIEW PROSPECTIVE COST INFORMATION
Prospective cost information FY
The Total Inter Partes Review cost calculation of $27, included in Changes to Implement Inter Partes Review Proceedings, Post-Grant Re- view Proceedings, and Transitional Program for Covered Business Method Patents, 77 FR (Aug. 14, ) is available for review at eunic-brussels.eu––08–14/pdf/–pdf. The Office estimated that 35 hours of Judge time would be required dur- ing review and used this as the basis for estimating the cost for the Inter Partes Review. The IT-related costs are included in the Review Re- quest portion of the fee.
Description Base cost Per claim cost
Inter Partes Review Request—up to 20 claims $10, > 20 = $ Inter Partes Review Post Institution Fee—up to 15 claims 16, > 15 = $
Total Inter Partes Review Costs 27, N/A
Inter partes review is a new trial proceeding created by the AIA with an effective date of September 16, (see Changes to Implement Inter Partes Review Proceedings, Post-Grant Review Proceedings, and Transitional Program for Covered Business Method Patents 77 FR (Aug. 14, ). Inter partes review allows the Office to review the patentability of one or more claims in a patent only on a ground that could be raised under 35 U.S.C. or , and only on the basis of prior art consisting of patents or printed publications. The inter partes review process begins when a third party files a petition nine months after the grant of a patent. An inter partes review may be instituted upon a showing that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least one claim challenged. If the review is instituted and not dismissed, the PTAB will issue a final determination within one year of institution. The period can be extended for good cause for up to six months from the date of one year after instituting the review.
In this final rule, the Office sets the inter partes review fees at a level below
the Office’s cost recovery and improves the fee payment structure. The Office sets four separate fees for inter partes review, which a petitioner would pay upon filing a petition. The Office also chooses to return fees for post- institution services should a review not be instituted. Similarly, the Office establishes that fees paid for post- institution review of a large number of claims will be returned if the Office only institutes the review of a subset of the requested claims.
The USPTO sets the fee for an inter partes review petition at $9, for up to 20 claims. This fee would not be returned or refunded to the petitioner even if the review is not instituted.
In addition, the USPTO sets a per claim fee of $ for each claim requested for review in excess of This fee would not be returned or refunded to the petitioner if the review is not instituted or if the institution is limited to a subset of the requested claims.
The USPTO also sets the inter partes review post-institution fee at $14, for a review of up to 15 claims. This fee would be returned to the petitioner if
the Office does not institute a review. Likewise, the Office sets a per claim fee of $ for review of each claim in excess of 15 during the post-institution trial. The entire post-institution fee would be returned to the petitioner if the Office does not institute a review. The entire excess claims fee would be returned if review of 15 or fewer claims is instituted. If the Office reviews more than 15 claims, but fewer than all of the requested claims, it would return part of the fee for each claim the Office did not review.
For example, under this final rule, if a party requests inter partes review of 52 claims, the petitioner would pay a single fee up front comprising two parts and totaling $44, The first part is for determining whether to institute the review and would include the base fee ($9,) plus a fee of $ for each of the additional 32 claims (52 minus 20), which equates to an additional $6, for a total review request fee of $15, ($9, plus $6,). The second part of the fee is for when the review is instituted and includes the base fee of $14, plus a fee of $ for each of the additional 37 claims (52 minus 15),
VerDate Mar<15> Jan 17, Jkt PO Frm Fmt Sfmt E:\FR\FM\eunic-brussels.eu 18JAR2TK E
LL E
Y on
D S
K 3S
P T
V N
1P R
O D
w ith
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 13 / Friday, January 18, / Rules and Regulations
which equates to an additional $14, for a total post institution fee of $28, ($14, plus $14,). In addition, under this rule, if the petitioner seeks review of 52 claims, but the Office only institutes review of 40 claims, the Office would return $4, (it did not institute review of the 41st through 52nd claim for which review was requested). Alternatively, if the review is not instituted at all, the portion of the fee covering the trial would be returned (i.e., the base post-institution fee of
$14, as well as the $14, for claims over 15, for a total of $28,).
The Office sets these two claim thresholds—one for petitions (up to 20 claims) and the other for the post- institution trials (up to 15 claims)— because it anticipates that it will not institute review of 25 percent of claims for which review is requested. The Office bases this approach on its analysis of the initial inter partes reexaminations filed after September 15, , as well as the new opportunity for
patent owners to file a response to the petition before the Office determines whether and for which claims to institute review.
This approach also considers certain policy factors, such as fostering innovation by facilitating greater access to the inter partes review proceedings and thereby removing low quality patents from the patent system.
Post-Grant Review or Covered Business Method Patent Review:
TABLE 23—POST-GRANT REVIEW OR COVERED BUSINESS METHOD PATENT REVIEW FEE CHANGES
Fee description
Current fees Final fees Dollar change Percent change
Large (small) [micro] entity
Large (small) [micro] entity
Large (small) [micro] entity
Large (small) [micro] entity
Post-Grant Review or Covered Business Method Patent Review Request—Up to 20 Claims (Per Claim Fee for Each Claim in Excess of 20 is $) (NEW) NEW $12,
(N/A) [N/A]
N/A (N/A) [N/A]
N/A (N/A) [N/A]
Post-Grant Review or Covered Business Method Patent Review Post Institution Fee—Up to 15 Claims (Per Claim Fee for Each Claim in Excess of 15 is $) (NEW) NEW $18,
(N/A) [N/A]
N/A (N/A) [N/A]
N/A (N/A) [N/A]
Total Post-Grant Review or Covered Business Method Patent Review Fees (For Current Fees, Per Claim Fee for Each Claim in Excess of 20 is $) $35,
(N/A) [N/A]
$30, (N/A) [N/A]
¥$5, (N/A) [N/A]
¥16% (N/A) [N/A]
TABLE 24—POST-GRANT REVIEW OR COVERED BUSINESS METHOD PATENT REVIEW PROSPECTIVE COST INFORMATION
Prospective cost information FY
The Total Post-Grant Review cost calculation of $35, included in Changes to Implement Inter Partes Review Proceedings, Post-Grant Re- view Proceedings, and Transitional Program for Covered Business Method Patents, 77 FR (Aug. 14, ) is available for review at eunic-brussels.eu––08–14/pdf/–pdf. The Office estimated that 50 hours of Judge time would be required dur- ing review and used this as the basis for estimating the cost for the Post-Grant Review. The IT-related costs are included in the Review Re- quest portion of the fee.
Description Base cost Per claim cost
Post-Grant Review or Covered Business Method Patent Review Request—up to 20 claims $14, > 20 = $ Post-Grant Review or Covered Business Method Patent Review Post Institution Fee—up to 15 claims 21, > 15 = $
Total Post-Grant Review Costs 35, N/A
Post-grant review is a new trial proceeding created by the AIA with an effective date of September 16, (see Changes to Implement Inter Partes Review Proceedings, Post-Grant Review Proceedings, and Transitional Program for Covered Business Method Patents, 77 FR (Aug. 14, )). Post-grant review allows the Office to review the patentability of one or more claims in a patent on any ground that could be raised under 35 U.S.C. (b)(2) and (b)(3) in effect on September 16, The post-grant review process begins
when a third party files a petition within nine months of the grant of a patent. A post-grant review may be instituted upon a showing that it is more likely than not that at least one challenged claim is unpatentable or that the petition raises an unsettled legal question that is important to other patents or patent applications. If the review is instituted and not dismissed, the PTAB will issue a final determination within one year of institution. This period can be extended for good cause for up to six months from
the date of one year after instituting the review.
In this final rule, the Office sets the post-grant review fee at a level below the Office’s cost recovery and improves the fee payment structure. The Office sets four separate fees for post-grant review, which the petitioner would pay upon filing a petition for post-grant review. The Office also chooses to return fees for post-institution services if a review is not instituted. Similarly, the Office establishes that fees paid for a post-institution review of a large
VerDate Mar<15> Jan 17, Jkt PO Frm Fmt Sfmt E:\FR\FM\eunic-brussels.eu 18JAR2TK E
LL E
Y on
D S
K 3S
P T
V N
1P R
O D
w ith
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 13 / Friday, January 18, / Rules and Regulations
number of claims will be returned if the Office only institutes the review of a subset of the requested claims. The same structure and fees apply for covered business method review.
The Office sets the fee for a post-grant review petition at $12, for up to 20 claims. This fee would not be returned or refunded to the petitioner even if the review is not instituted by the Office.
In addition, the Office sets a per claim fee of $ for each claim in excess of This fee would not be returned or refunded to the petitioner if the review is not instituted, or if the institution is limited to a subset of the requested claims.
The USPTO also sets a post-grant review post-institution fee at $18, for post-institution review of up to 15 claims. This fee would be returned to the petitioner if the Office does not institute a review. Likewise, the Office sets a per claim fee of $ for review of each claim in excess of 15 during the post-institution review. The entire fee would be returned to the petitioner if the Office does not institute a review. The excess claims fees would be
returned if review of 15 or fewer claims is instituted. If the Office reviews more than 15 claims, but fewer than all of the requested claims, it would return part of the fee for each claim that was not instituted.
For example, under this final rule, a party seeking post-grant review of 52 claims would pay a single fee up front comprising two parts and totaling $58, The first part is for determining whether to institute the review and would include the base fee ($12,) plus a fee of $ for each of the additional 32 claims (52 minus 20), which equates to an additional $8, for a total review request fee of $20, ($12, plus $8,). The second part of the fee is for when the review is instituted and includes the base fee of $18, plus a fee of $ for each of the additional 37 claims (52 minus 15), which equates to an additional $20, for a total post institution fee of $38, ($18, plus $20,). In addition, under this rule, if the petitioner requests review of 52 claims, but the Office only institutes review of 40 claims, then the Office would return $6, (it did not
institute review of the 41st through 52nd claims for which review was requested). Alternatively, if a review is not instituted at all, the Office would return $38, ($20, for claims over 15, as well as the base $18, post- institution fee).
The Office sets two different claim thresholds—one for petition (up to 20 claims) and the other for the post- institution trials (up to 15 claims)— because it anticipates that it will not institute a review of 25 percent of claims for which review is requested. The Office bases this approach on its analysis of the initial inter partes reexaminations filed after September 15, , as well as the new opportunity for patent owners to file a response to the petition before the Office determines whether and for which claims to institute review.
The approach also considers certain policy factors, such as fostering innovation through facilitating greater access to the post-grant review proceedings and thereby removes low quality patents from the patent system.
Pre Grant Publication (PGPub) Fee:
TABLE 25—PRE GRANT PUBLICATION (PGPUB) FEE CHANGES
Fee description
Current fees Final fees Dollar change Percent change
Large (small) [micro] entity
Large (small) [micro] entity
Large (small) [micro] entity
Large (small) [micro] entity
Publication Fee for Early, Voluntary, or Normal Publication $ $0 ¥$ ¥% Publication Fee for Republication 0 0%
TABLE 26—PRE GRANT PUBLICATION (PGPUB) HISTORICAL COST INFORMATION
Historical unit cost information FY FY FY
Publication Fee for Early, Voluntary, or Normal Publication $ $ $
With certain exceptions, each nonprovisional utility and plant patent application is published 18 months from the earliest effective filing date. The fee for this pre-grant publication (PGPub) is paid only after a patent is granted. If a patent is never granted, the applicant does not pay the fee for PGPub. Once the Office determines that the invention claimed in a patent application is patentable, the Office sends a notice of allowance to the applicant, outlining the patent application publication fees due, along with the patent issue fee. The applicant must pay these publication and issue fees three months from the date of the notice of allowance to avoid abandoning the application.
Currently, the PGPub fee is set at $ and collects over one and a half times the cost to publish a patent application. The IP system benefits from publishing patent applications; disclosing information publicly stimulates research and development, as well as subsequent commercialization through further development or refinement of an invention. Therefore, a lower PGPub fee would benefit both applicants and innovators in the patent system.
Given that publishing a patent application 18 months after its earliest effective filing date benefits the IP system more than individual applicants, the Office reduces the PGPub fee to $0. Reducing this fee also helps rebalance the fee structure and offsets the proposed increases to filing, search, and
examination fees ($ increase, less this $ decrease is a net $40 increase—or 3 percent—to apply for a patent and publish the application). However, to allow the Office to recover sufficient revenue to pay for the projected cost of patent operations in FY , the effective date of the proposed reduction to the PGPub fee is January 1,
The PGPub fee for republication of a patent application ((d)(2)) is not adjusted, but is set at the existing rate of $ The Office keeps this fee at its existing rate for each patent application that must be published again after a first publication for $0.
VerDate Mar<15> Jan 17, Jkt PO Frm Fmt Sfmt E:\FR\FM\eunic-brussels.eu 18JAR2TK E
LL E
Y on
D S
K 3S
P T
V N
1P R
O D
w ith
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 13 / Friday, January 18, / Rules and Regulations
(3) Fees To Be Set Above Cost Recovery
There are two fees that the Office sets above cost recovery that meet the greater than plus or minus 5 percent and 10 dollars criteria. The policy factor
relevant to setting fees above cost recovery is fostering innovation. Back- end fees work in concert with front-end fees. The above-cost, back-end fees allow the Office to recover the revenue required to subsidize the cost of entry
into the patent system and reduce the backlog of patent applications. A discussion of the rationale for each change follows.
Issue Fees:
TABLE 27—ISSUE FEE CHANGES
Fee description
Current fees Final fees Dollar change Percent change
Large (small) [micro] entity
Large (small) [micro] entity
Large (small) [micro] entity
Large (small) [micro] entity
Utility Issue Fee +$1, (+$)
[N/A]
+$ (+$) [+$]
¥$ (¥$) [¥$]
¥46% (¥46%) [¥73%]
TABLE 28—ISSUE FEE HISTORICAL COST INFORMATION
Historical unit cost information FY FY FY
Utility Issue Fee $ $ $
Once the Office determines that the invention claimed in a patent application is patentable, the USPTO sends a notice of allowance to the applicant outlining the patent application publication and patent issue fees due. The applicant must pay the publication and issue fees three months from the date of the notice of allowance to avoid abandoning the application.
In setting fees due after completing prosecution at a level higher than cost, front-end fees can be maintained below cost, thereby fostering innovation. Currently, the large entity issue fee is set at $1,, which is seven times more than the cost of issuing a patent. This fee recovers revenue, but it also poses a challenge to applicants at the time of allowance. When the issue fee is due, patent owners possess less information about the value of their invention than they do a few years later. Lowering issue
fees will help inventors financially at a time when the marketability of their invention is less certain. Additionally, setting the PGPub fee at $0 as discussed above, and recovering the combined cost of publishing and issuing an application through only the issue fee benefits small and micro entity innovators. The 50 percent discount for small entities and 75 percent discount for micro entities are not available for the publication fee, but are available for the issue fee. Thus, there are benefits to both the IP system and the applicant when the issue fees are set at an amount lower than the current fee amount, but still above cost recovery.
To both maintain the beneficial aspects of this back-end subsidy model and realign the balance of the fee structure, the Office decreases the large entity issue fee to $ This amount is about twice the cost of both publishing
an application (which is set below cost at $0) and issuing a patent. This fee adjustment is over a 50 percent decrease from the amount currently paid for both the PGPub and issue fees together. The Office is adjusting the issue fee in two steps. First, the Office sets the issue fee at $1, and makes available a 50 percent discount for small entities and a 75 percent discount for micro entities. Second, the Office decreases the large entity issue fee to $ effective January 1, , and continues to make available discounts for small and micro entities.
It should be noted that only utility issue fees are referenced in this section to simplify the discussion of the fee rationale. However, the rationale is applicable to the issue fee changes for design, plant, and reissue fees as outlined in the ‘‘USPTO Section 10 Fee Setting—Table of Patent Fee Changes.’’
Maintenance Fees:
TABLE 29—MAINTENANCE FEE CHANGES
Fee description
Current fees Final fees Dollar change Percent change
Large (small) [micro] entity
Large (small) [micro] entity
Large (small) [micro] entity
Large (small) [micro] entity
Maintenance Fee Due at Years (1st Stage) $1, ($)
[N/A]
$1, ($) [$]
+$ (+$)
[$¥]
+39% (+39%)
[¥30%] Maintenance Fee Due at Years (2nd Stage) $2,
($1,) [N/A]
$3, ($1,)
[$]
+$ (+$)
[¥$]
+24% (+24%)
[¥38%] Maintenance Fee Due at Years (3rd Stage) $4,
($2,) [N/A]
$7, ($3,) [$1,]
+$2, (+$1,) [¥$]
+54% (+54%)
[¥23%]
VerDate Mar<15> Jan 17, Jkt PO Frm Fmt Sfmt E:\FR\FM\eunic-brussels.eu 18JAR2TK E
LL E
Y on
D S
K 3S
P T
V N
1P R
O D
w ith
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 13 / Friday, January 18, / Rules and Regulations
TABLE 30—MAINTENANCE FEE HISTORICAL COST INFORMATION
Historical unit cost information FY * FY FY
Maintenance Fee Due at Years (1st Stage) $1 $2 Maintenance Fee Due at Years (2nd Stage) 1 2 Maintenance Fee Due at Years (3rd Stage) 1 2
* Beginning in FY , the Office determined that the maintenance fee activity was in support of the process application fees activity and its associated fees. Therefore, the Office reassigned these costs accordingly, and no longer estimates a unit cost for maintenance fee activities. Ad- ditional information about the methodology for determining the cost of performing the Office’s activities, including the cost components related to respective fees, available at eunic-brussels.eu_implementation/eunic-brussels.eu#heading-1 in the document titled ‘‘USPTO Section 10 Fee Set- ting—Activity-Based Information and Costing Methodology.’’
Maintenance fees must be paid at defined intervals— years, years, and years—after the Office grants a utility patent in order to keep the patent in force. Maintaining a patent costs the Office very little. However, maintenance fees benefit the Office and the patent system by generating revenue that permits the Office to keep front-end fees below cost and to subsidize the cost of prosecution for small and micro entity innovators.
Additionally, maintenance fees will be paid only by patent owners who believe the value of their patent is higher than the fees for renewing their patent rights. On this score, setting early maintenance fees lower than later maintenance fees mitigates uncertainty associated with the value of the patent. As the value becomes more certain over time, the maintenance fee increases because patent owners have more information about the commercial value of the patented invention and can more readily decide whether the benefit of a patent outweighs the cost of the fee.
Therefore, under a progressively higher maintenance fee schedule, a patent holder is positioned to perform an individual cost-benefit analysis to determine if the patent is at least as valuable as the maintenance fee payment. When the patent holder determines that the patent benefit
(value) outweighs the cost (maintenance fee), the holder will likely continue to maintain the patent. Conversely, when the patent holder determines that the benefit is less than the cost, the holder likely will not maintain the patent to full term. When the patent expires, the subject matter of the patent is no longer held with exclusive patent rights, and the public may utilize the invention and work to extend its innovation or commercialization. More information on the economic costs and benefits of patent renewal can be found in the rulemaking RIA, which is available for review at eunic-brussels.eu aia_implementation/eunic-brussels.eu
The Office increases the first, second, and third stage maintenance fees to $1,, $3,, and $7,, respectively. These increases are commensurate with the subsidies offered for prosecution of a patent application and align with the fee setting strategy of fostering innovation by setting front-end fees below cost. The increase also ensures that the USPTO has sufficient aggregate revenue to recover the aggregate cost of operations and implement goals and objectives.
(4) Fees That Are Not Set Using Cost Data as an Indicator
Fees in this category include those fees for which the USPTO does not
typically maintain historical cost information separate from that included in the average overall cost of activities during patent prosecution or did not refer to cost information for setting the particular fee. Instead, the Office evaluates the policy factors described in Part III. Rulemaking Goals and Strategies, above, to inform fee setting. Some of these fees are based on the size and complexity of an application and help the Office to effectively administer the patent system by encouraging applicants to engage in certain activities. Setting fees at particular levels can: (1) Encourage the submission of applications or other actions which lead to more efficient processing where examiners can provide, and applicants can receive, prompt, quality interim and final decisions; (2) encourage the prompt conclusion of prosecuting an application, resulting in pendency reduction and the faster dissemination of patented information; and (3) help recover costs for activities that strain the patent system.
There are six types of fees in this category. A discussion of the rationale for each proposed change follows.
Extension of Time Fees:
TABLE 31—EXTENSION OF TIME FEE CHANGES
Fee description
Current fees Final fees Dollar change Percent change
Large (small) [micro] entity
Large (small) [micro] entity
Large (small) [micro] entity
Large (small) [micro] entity
Extension for Response within 1st Month $ ($75) [N/A]
$ ($)
[$50]
+$50 (+$25)
[¥$25]
+33% (+33%)
[¥33%] Extension for Response within 2nd Month $
($) [N/A]
$ ($) [$]
+$30 (+$15)
[¥$]
+5% (+5%)
[¥47%] Extension for Response within 3rd Month $1,
($) [N/A]
$1, ($) [$]
+$ (+$55)
[¥$]
+9% (+9%)
[¥46%] Extension for Response within 4th Month $2,
($1,) [N/A]
$2, ($1,)
[$]
+$ (+$95)
[¥$]
+9% (+9%)
[¥45%]
VerDate Mar<15> Jan 17, Jkt PO Frm Fmt Sfmt E:\FR\FM\eunic-brussels.eu 18JAR2TK E
LL E
Y on
D S
K 3S
P T
V N
1P R
O D
w ith
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 13 / Friday, January 18, / Rules and Regulations
TABLE 31—EXTENSION OF TIME FEE CHANGES—Continued
Fee description
Current fees Final fees Dollar change Percent change
Large (small) [micro] entity
Large (small) [micro] entity
Large (small) [micro] entity
Large (small) [micro] entity
Extension for Response within 5th Month $2, ($1,)
[N/A]
$3, ($1,)
[$]
+$ (+$)
[¥$]
+10% (+10%)
[¥45%]
If an applicant must reply within a non-statutory or shortened statutory time period, the applicant can extend the reply time period by filing a petition for an extension of time and paying the requisite fee. Extensions of time may be
automatically authorized at the time an application is filed or requested as needed during prosecution. The USPTO increases these fees to facilitate an efficient and prompt conclusion of application processing, which benefits
the Office’s compact prosecution initiatives and reduces patent application pendency.
Application Size Fees:
TABLE 32—APPLICATION SIZE FEE CHANGES
Fee description
Current fees Final fees Dollar change Percent change
Large (small) [micro] entity
Large (small) [micro] entity
Large (small) [micro] entity
Large (small) [micro] entity
Application Size Fee—For each Additional 50 Sheets that Exceed Sheets $
($) [N/A]
$ ($) [$]
+$80 (+$40)
[¥$60]
+25% (+25%)
[¥38%]
Currently, the Office charges an additional fee for any application where the specification and drawings together exceed sheets of paper. The application size fee applies for each additional 50 sheets of paper or fraction
thereof. The USPTO increases the application size fee to facilitate an efficient and compact application examination process, which benefits the applicant and the effective administration of patent prosecution.
Succinct applications facilitate faster examination with an expectation of fewer errors.
Excess Claims:
TABLE 33—EXCESS CLAIMS FEE CHANGES
Fee description
Current fees Final fees Dollar change Percent change
Large (small) [micro] entity
Large (small) [micro] entity
Large (small) [micro] entity
Large (small) [micro] entity
Independent Claims in Excess of 3 $ ($)
[N/A]
$ ($) [$]
+$ (+$85)
[¥$20]
+68% (+68%)
[¥16%] Claims in Excess of 20 $62
($31) [N/A]
$80 ($40) [$20]
+$18 (+$9)
[¥$11]
+29% (+29%)
[¥35%] Multiple Dependent Claim $
($) [N/A]
$ ($) [$]
+$ (+$) [¥$35]
+70% (+70%)
[¥15%]
Currently, the Office charges a fee for filing, or later presenting at any other time, each independent claim in excess of 3, as well as each claim (whether dependent or independent) in excess of In addition, any original application that is filed with, or amended to include, multiple dependent claims must pay the multiple dependent claim fee. Generally, a multiple dependent
claim is a dependent claim which refers back in the alternative to more than one preceding independent or dependent claim.
The patent fee structure has maintained excess claim fees since at least , and the result has been that most applications now contain three or fewer independent claims and twenty or fewer total claims. Applicants who feel
they need more than this number of independent or total claims may continue to present them by paying the applicable excess claims fee. While the former excess claims fee amount encouraged most applicants to present three or fewer independent claims and twenty or fewer total claims, it was not sufficient to discourage some applicants from presenting a copious number of
VerDate Mar<15> Jan 17, Jkt PO Frm Fmt Sfmt E:\FR\FM\eunic-brussels.eu 18JAR2TK E
LL E
Y on
D S
K 3S
P T
V N
1P R
O D
w ith
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 13 / Friday, January 18, / Rules and Regulations
claims for apparent tactical reasons, nor did the former excess claims fee reflect the excess burden associated with examining those claims. See, e.g., Rules of Practice for Trials Before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board and Judicial Review of Patent Trial and Appeal Board Decisions, 77 FR , – 60 (Aug. 14, ) (noting that the number of claims often impacts the complexity of the request and increases the demands placed on the deciding officials in administrative proceedings). Thus, the Office is adopting excess
claims fee amounts that are aimed to permit applicants to include excess claims when necessary to obtain an appropriate scope of coverage for an invention, while deterring applicants from routinely presenting a copious number of claims merely for apparent tactical reasons.
In this final rule, the Office sets the fees for independent claims in excess of three to $, for claims in excess of 20 to $80, and for multiple dependent claims to $ The Office also increased claim fees to facilitate an
efficient and compact application examination process, which benefits the applicant and the USPTO through more effective administration of patent prosecution. Filing applications with the most prudent number of unambiguous claims will enable prompt conclusion of application processing, because more succinct applications facilitate faster examination with an expectation of fewer errors.
Correct Inventorship After First Action on the Merits (New):
TABLE 34—CORRECT INVENTORSHIP AFTER FIRST ACTION ON THE MERITS FEE CHANGES
Fee description
Current fees Final fees Dollar change Percent change
Large (small) [micro] entity
Large (small) [micro] entity
Large (small) [micro] entity
Large (small) [micro] entity
Correct Inventorship After First Action on the Merits (NEW) NEW $ ($) [$]
N/A (N/A) [N/A]
N/A (N/A) [N/A]
It is necessary for the Office to know who the inventors are to prepare patent application publications, conduct examination under 35 U.S.C. and , and prevent double patenting. Changes to inventorship (e.g., adding previously unnamed persons as inventors or removing persons previously named as inventors) cause additional work for the Office. For instance, the Office may need to repeat prior art searches and/or reconsider patentability under 35 U.S.C. and , as well as reconsider the possibility of double patenting.
In the NPRM, the Office proposed a $1, fee to correct inventorship after the first action on the merits. In this final rule, after carefully considering comments from the PPAC and the public, the Office sets the fee to correct inventorship after the first action on the merits at $, 40 percent less than the
$1, proposed in the NPRM. The inventorship correction fee is set to encourage reasonable diligence and a bona fide effort to ascertain the actual inventorship as early as possible and to provide that information to the Office prior to examination. The fee also will help offset the costs incurred by the Office when there is a change in inventorship.
Additionally, in the NPRM, the Office proposed that the correction of inventorship fee be paid in all circumstances when inventors were added or deleted, because requiring the fee only to add inventors would encourage applicants to err in favor of naming too many persons as inventors, which would complicate the examination process (e.g., it could complicate double patenting searches). In this final rule, the Office is adding an exception when inventors are deleted
due to the cancellation of claims. This final rule requires a fee to accompany a request to correct or change the inventorship filed after an Office action on the merits, unless the request is accompanied by a statement that the request to correct or change the inventorship is due solely to the cancelation of claims in the application.
The Office appreciates that inventorship may change as the result of a restriction requirement by the Office. Where inventorship changes as a result of a restriction requirement, the applicant should file a request to correct inventorship promptly (prior to first action on the merits) to avoid this fee. Otherwise, the Office will incur the costs during examination related to the change in inventorship.
Derivation Proceeding:
TABLE 35—DERIVATION PROCEEDING FEE CHANGES
Fee description
Current fees Final fees Dollar change Percent change
Large (small) [micro] entity
Large (small) [micro] entity
Large (small) [micro] entity
Large (small) [micro] entity
Derivation petition fee $ (N/A) [N/A]
$ (N/A) [N/A]
$0 (N/A) [N/A]
0% (N/A) [N/A]
A derivation proceeding is a new trial proceeding conducted at the PTAB to determine whether an inventor named in an earlier application derived the
claimed invention from an inventor named in the petitioner’s application, and whether the earlier application claiming such invention was
authorized. An applicant subject to the first-inventor-to-file provisions may file a petition to institute a derivation proceeding only within one year of the
VerDate Mar<15> Jan 17, Jkt PO Frm Fmt Sfmt E:\FR\FM\eunic-brussels.eu 18JAR2TK E
LL E
Y on
D S
K 3S
P T
V N
1P R
O D
w ith
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 13 / Friday, January 18, / Rules and Regulations
first publication of a claim to an invention that is the same or substantially the same as the earlier application’s claim to the invention. The petition must be supported by
substantial evidence that the claimed invention was derived from an inventor named in the petitioner’s application.
In this final rule, the Office sets the derivation petition fee at $ The
Office estimates the $ petition fee will recover the Office’s cost to process a petition for derivation.
Assignments Submitted Electronically Fee (New):
TABLE 36—FEE CHANGES FOR ASSIGNMENTS SUBMITTED ELECTRONICALLY
Fee description
Current fees Final fees Dollar change Percent change
Large (small) [micro] entity
Large (small) [micro] entity
Large (small) [micro] entity
Large (small) [micro] entity
Assignments Submitted Electronically (NEW) $40 (N/A) [N/A]
$0 (N/A) [N/A]
¥$40 (N/A) [N/A]
¥% (N/A) [N/A]
Assignments Not Submitted Electronically (NEW) $40 (N/A) [N/A]
$40 (N/A) [N/A]
$0 (N/A) [N/A]
0% (N/A) [N/A]
Note: The current fee amount is $40 for submitting an assignment to the Office, regardless of method of submission.
Ownership of a patent gives the patent owner the right to exclude others from making, using, offering for sale, selling, or importing into the U.S. the invention claimed in a patent. Patent law provides for the transfer or sale of a patent, or of an application for patent, by an instrument in writing (i.e., an assignment). When executing an assignment, the patent owner may assign (e.g., transfer) the total or a percentage of interest, rights, and title of a patent to an assignee. When there is a completed assignment, the assignee becomes the owner of the patent and has the same rights of the original patentee. The Office records assignments that it receives, and the recording serves as public notice of patent ownership.
Assignment records are an important part of the business cycle—markets operate most efficiently when buyers and sellers can locate one another. If assignment records are incomplete, the business and research and development cycles could be disrupted because buyers face difficulty finding sellers, and potential innovators may not have a thorough understanding of the marketplace they are considering entering. The Office recognizes that complete patent assignment data disseminated to the public provides certainty in the technology space and helps to foster innovation.
Therefore, more complete patent assignment records will produce a number of benefits for the public and IP stakeholders. The public will have a more comprehensive understanding of which entities hold and maintain U.S. patent rights. Patenting inventors and companies will better understand the competitive environment in which they
are operating, allowing them to better allocate their own research and development resources, more efficiently obtain licenses, and accurately value patent portfolios.
Currently, a patent owner must pay $40 to record the assignment of patent rights. During FY , over 90 percent of assignments were submitted electronically. This fee could be viewed as a barrier to those involved in patent and application assignments. Given that patent applications, patents, and the completeness of the patent record play an important role in the markets for innovation and the long-term health of the U.S. economy, the Office is setting two fees for recording an assignment. When an assignment is submitted using the Office’s electronic system, the Office sets the fee at $0. When an assignment is sent to the Office in a manner other than using the Office’s electronic system, the Office sets the fee at the current amount of $ Providing patent prosecution options for applicants benefits a majority of owners who typically record assignments. In addition, the patent prosecution options for applicants benefit the overall IP system by reducing the financial barrier for recording patent ownership information and facilitating a more complete record of assigned applications and grants.
C. Fees With No Changes (or Changes of Less Than Plus or Minus 5 Percent and 10 Dollars)
The Office sets all other categories of fees not discussed above at existing fee rates or at slightly adjusted rates (i.e., less than plus or minus 5 percent and 10 dollars) rounded to the nearest ten dollars by applying standard arithmetic
rules. The resulting fee amounts will be convenient to patent users and permit the Office to set micro entity fees at whole dollar amounts when applying the fee reduction. These other fees, such as those related to disclosing patent information to the public (excluding the PGPub fee) and patent attorney/agent discipline fees, are already set at appropriate levels to achieve the Office’s goals expressed in this rulemaking. A listing of all fees that are adjusted in this rule is included in the Table of Patent Fee Changes available at eunic-brussels.eu aia_implementation/eunic-brussels.eu#heading-1.
D. Overall Comparison of the Final Patent Fee Schedule to the Current Fees
Overall, once effective, the total amount of fees under this final rule added together to obtain a basic patent decreases when compared to the total fees paid for the same services under the current fee schedule. This decrease is substantial (23 percent) from application to issue (see Table 37). When additional processing options such as RCEs are included, the decrease becomes smaller after the first RCE (12 percent) and eventually begins increasing after a second RCE (5 percent) (see Tables 38 and 39). The staging of appeal fees in this rule offers similar decreases in the total fees paid when filing a notice of appeal. Under the final fee schedule, the total fees for both filing an appeal and to obtain a basic patent decrease from the current fee schedule (27 percent) (see Table 40). If the appeal is forwarded to the PTAB for a decision after the Examiner’s Answer, then the total fees increase (17 percent) (see Table 40). Once an applicant has obtained a basic patent,
VerDate Mar<15> Jan 17, Jkt PO Frm Fmt Sfmt E:\FR\FM\eunic-brussels.eu 18JAR2TK E
LL E
Y on
D S
K 3S
P T
V N
1P R
O D
w ith
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 13 / Friday, January 18, / Rules and Regulations
the cost to maintain it remains substantially the same through the second stage maintenance fee. However, at the third stage maintenance fee, once the patent holder has more information on the value of the patent, the total fees increase (24 percent) (see Table 41). This structure reflects the key policy considerations of fostering innovation, facilitating effective administration of the patent system, and offering patent prosecution options to applicants. Additional details about each of these payment structures are outlined below. In this section, the Office assumes, for the purpose of comparison between the current and final fee schedule, that all fees are as of their stated effective dates in this final rule. For example, comparisons between the current and final issue and PGPub fees are based on the final fees as they will become effective beginning on January 1, Further, to simplify the comparison among fee schedules, the time value of money has not been estimated in the examples below.
1. Routine Application Processing Fees and First RCE Fees Decrease
The total amount paid for routine fees to obtain a basic patent from application filing (i.e., filing, search, examination, publication, and issue) under the final fee structure will decrease compared to the current fee structure, as shown in Table This overall decrease is possible because the decrease in pre- grant patent application publication and issue fees from $2, to $ (a decrease of $1,) more than offsets the increase in large entity filing, search, and examination fees from $1, to $1, (an increase of $). The net effect is a $ (or 23 percent) decrease in total fees paid under the final fee structure when compared to the current fee structure. This fosters innovation by reducing the cost to obtain a basic patent.
TABLE 37—COMPARISON OF FINAL PATENT FEE SCHEDULE TO THE CURRENT PATENT FEES FROM FIL- ING THROUGH ISSUE
Fee Current Final
Filing, Search, and Ex- amination $1, $1,
Pre-Grant Publication and Issue 2,
Total 3, 2,
When an application for a first RCE is submitted to complete prosecution, the total fees from application filing to obtain a basic patent continue to remain
less than would be paid under the current fee schedule. This overall decrease continues to be possible because of the decrease in pre-grant patent application publication and issue fees. The net effect of the final fee schedule, including a first RCE, is a $ (or 12 percent) decrease in total fees paid under the final fee structure when compared to the current fee structure, as shown in Table
TABLE 38—COMPARISON OF THE FINAL PATENT FEES TO THE CUR- RENT PATENT FEES WITH ONE RCE
Fee Current Final
Filing, Search, and Ex- amination $1, $1,
First RCE 1, Pre-Grant Publication
and Issue 2,
Total 4, 3,
Poland
Just Transition in Coal Regions of Poland, by Mr. Jan Bondaruk, Deputy Director for Environmental Engineering, Central Mining Institute in Poland - GIG
Languages and translations
English
1
JUST TRANSITION PROCESS IN POLAND – STATUS
AND FUTURE CHALLENGES
Jan Bondaruk
BASIC AREAS OF GIG ACTIVITY
OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY IN THE INDUSTRY
MATERIAL ENGINEERING
CERTIFICATION AND ATTESTATION
MINING AND GEOENGINEERING
ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINNERING
TRAINING AND EDUCATION
CLEAN COAL TECHNOLOGIES
Hard coal
Lignite
TRANSITION PATHWAYS
/
10% share of mining in GDP
9,7% share of mining in GDP
3,3% share of mining in GDP
?
Mines Restructuring Company: 8 non- perspective mines or parts of mines
40 operating coal- mines in Silesia region Carbon neutral
economy in Europe in
20 operating coal- mines in Silesia region
23 operating coal- mines in Silesia region
Transformation of the sector induced by economic factors
Transition of the economy carried out taking into account climate goals
Silesia region - heart of Polish hard coal
mine sector
~78 % of hard coal balance deposits occur in Upper Silesian Coal
Basin
NECP PL AND ENERGY POLICY OF POLAND UNTIL POLAND’S NATIONAL ENERGY AND CLIMATE PLAN FOR YEARS (NECP PL) along with attachments has been developed in fulfilment of the obligation set out in Regulation (EU) / of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 December on the Governance of the Energy Union and Climate Action.
Integrated approach to the implementation of the five dimensions.
The energy transition will be based on three pillars
ENERGY POLICY OF POLAND UNTIL (PEP) sets the framework for the energy transition in Poland. It contains strategic decision regarding the selection of technologies used to establish a low-emission energy system. PEP contributes to the implementation of the Paris Agreement concluded in December at the 21st Conference of the Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (COP21), taking into account the need to achieve the transition in a just and solidary manner.
TRANSITION SCHEDULE
eunic-brussels.eu transition_en
- the deepest hard coal mine operates at the level of m
– 70 operating hard coal mines with the average depth = m
More than 6 hectares of post-industrial and post-mining areas to
redevelopment in Silesia Region
€ billion for Silesia and Western Małopolska
€ million for Wielkopolska
€ million for Lower Silesia
€ million for Łódzkie
Territorial just transition plans (TJTPs)
JUST TRANSITION FUND IN POLAND
TERRITORIAL JUST TRANSITION PLAN OF THE SILESIAN VOIVODESHIP
Coal mining employment in in Silesia region (hard coal + cocking coal mines)
62 miners (76 in total Poland)
Reduction of employment
up to - 12 miners up to - 49 miners
Estimated decrease in the number of jobs in mining-related companies (value chain)
up to - 24 employees up to - 96 employees
The main objective of the TJTP is assumed to be: • Equitable and efficient transformation of mining
subregions towards a green, digital economy, ensuring a high quality of life for residents in a clean environment.
Operational objectives of 7 mining subregions embrace:
• Innovative and diversified economy
• Resource and energy efficient economy
• Strong entrepreneurship
• Balanced distribution of energy
• Repurpose of post-industrial areas for economic, environmental and social purposes
• Socially responsible transition management system
• Attractive and effective education
• Labour market support system and skills upgrading mechanism
• Comprehensive social support system to activate residents <25 hectares of post-industrial and post-
mining areas Identification of stakeholders and stronger partnerships
MINING WORKFORCES AND VALUE CHAIN
The socio-economic contribution of mining in terms of
employment can be measured on three levels:
• direct employment – the workforce employed by coal
enterprises themselves,
• indirect employment – those employed at companies
that produce goods or deliver services directly to coal
enterprises,
• induced employment – those employed to provide
goods and services to meet the consumption
demand of directly and indirectly employed workers
(Bacon and Kojima, ).
Employment structure in mining-dependent companies by NACE sections and dependence on coal mining contracts
Source: Mapping the indirect employment of hard coal mining: a case study of Upper Silesia, Poland, IBS Working Paper 07/, November
SOCIAL AGREEMENT OF 28 MAY => MINE CLOSURE SCHEDULE
=> mine closure schedule
GOVERNMENT - TRADE UNIONS - MINING MUNICIPALITIES -
MINING COMPANIES
OBJECTIVES OF SOCIAL AGREEMENT
mechanism for financing coal mining companies in the transition process
indexation of salaries
rules for the construction and implementation of clean coal
installations
guarantee of employment
social protection package for employees from liquidated coal mines
• covering extraordinary costs • subsidies for capacity reduction costs
• inclusion of the salary costs of the companies' employees with the indexation mechanism of average monthly salaries from the previous year
• support for investments using available resources • industrial-scale (TRL8/9) investments:
• coal gasification plant (GCC+CCS) • production of low-carbon fuel, • hydrogen generation, • CO2 storage in the rock mass.
• employee realocation mechanism -> mainly to other mines • trainings and courses within the sector
• mining leave • severance pay
Relocations to other mines up to
2 miners
Retirement up to
1 miners
11
MINING WORKFORCES AND VALUE CHAIN TRANSITION
SOCIAL AGREEMENT
Mining-dependent workplaces
Mining workforces
MINING REGIONS IN TRANSITION
JTF/TJTPs
Direct Support
(miners and coal mine operators)
Indirect new workplaces
Indirect suport
Development of technology
Direct JTF mechanism
Develompent of regional economy
Vocational education in just transition proces
Support for starting a business: outplacement projects
Social inclusion - strengthening the just transition process
Supporting SMEs for transformation Use of degraded areas to develop
the regional economy through business investment
Public intervention-> EU public support
regulations
STRATEGIC CHALLENGES
12
Reindustrialisation and revitalisation
Cooperation between the administration - industry -
science
Finance and new business models
Innovation and integration of knowledge
"Black to Green" sustainable transformation of the Silesia region
ADVANTAGES OF THE POST-MINING ASSETS
New business models and
collaboration schemes
Scenarios of the redevelopment process
NEW VALUE CHAIN & SUCCESS STORIES
Culture Zone - new image and functions
Katowice Coal Mine (–) tons of coal
Katowice Coal Mine brownfield – demolition works
Szombierki Coal Mine - Bytom
The Golf Club Armada
R&D PROJECTS – STATUS AND PERSPECTIVES
REGIONAL OBSERVATORY OF THE TRANSFORMATION PROCESS
The aim of the project was to collect and disseminate knowledge:
- on the socio-economic processes taking place in the region,
- effective transformation activities and tools,
- innovative technologies supporting the process of diversification towards a
green digital economy,
- promoting framework directions for professional reorientation in the areas
of regional smart specializations by initiating cooperation of local partners
from areas undergoing socio-economic transformation and R&D with
business entities.
The aim of the project was to provide insight into perceptions of various aspects of the transformation process.
ROPT supports the implementation of the objectives of the regional transformation plan and the regional development strategy in the social and
economic dimension
LEVERAGING THE COMPETITIVE ADVANTAGES OF END-OF-LIFE UNDERGROUND COAL MINES TO MAXIMISE THE CREATION OF GREEN AND QUALITY JOBS
GreenJOBS focuses on repurposing end-of-life underground coal mines by deploying emerging renewable energy and circular economy technologies to promote sustainable local economic growth and maximise the number of
green, quality jobs. 2 business plans (Virtual Power Plant
and a Green Hydrogen Plant).
The project consortium: UNIVERSIDAD DE OVIEDO, Spain GLOWNY INSTYTUT GORNICTWA, Poland FUNDACION ASTURIANA DE LA ENERGIA, Spain DMT-GESELLSCHAFT FUR LEHRE UND BILDUNG MBH, Germany MAGELLAN & BARENTS SL, Spain WEGLOKOKS KRAJ SPOLKA AKCYJNA, Poland, HULLERAS DEL NORTE SA, Spain, PREMOGOVNIK VELENJE, Slovenia.
PILOT ACTIONS
No. Action 1 Virtual power plant
2 Green hydrogen plant
3 Eco-industrial park
4 Cultural heritage and sports/recreations
areas using green energy
5 Floating PV panels at flooded open-pit
coal mine
6 Pumped hydroelectric storage (PHS) at
former open-pit coal mines
7 Fisheries in flooded open-pit coal mines
8 Combined-cycle gas turbine (CCGT) power
plant powered by natural gas
9 Mine gas utilization for gas-powered CHP
power units
10 Small modular reactors (SMRs)
11 Biofuels combustion energy plant
12 Molten salt plant
13 Agrophotovoltaics (APV) at former open-
pit coal mine areas
No. Mikro-action
1 Ancillary services provided by batteries
2 Recovery of resources from coal mining
waste heaps
3 Usage of methane from degasification units
on closed coal mines
4 Circular mining technologies for pumped
water material recovery.
5 Forest restoration at former open-pit coal
mines
6 Large scale IT infrastructure - power plant
7 Geothermal energy
8 Gravitricity
9 Dense fluids
10 Underground hydropumping
EXTENSION OF THE POST-MINING LAND MANAGEMENT SYSTEM IN THE SILESIAN VOIVODESHIP
Supportive tool for management of transition proces.
new public e-service
database of post- mining areas
tool for the valorisation of post-
mining areas
digital repository of documents including plans, maps, photographs of post-mining areas
Make it easier for investors to get information about post-mining areas and help them assess their economic
attractiveness.
eunic-brussels.eu?v=0AjJboJE
eunic-brussels.eu?v=0AjJboJE
eunic-brussels.eu?v=0AjJboJE
TRANSITION PROCESS IN POLAND
Along with the phase-out plan, the expected outcome of the transition process is to ensure the security of the national energy system combined with climate neutrality goals
Silesia region, due to concentration of different type of challenges is percieved as the reference laboratory and source of good practices of the just transition process in Europe
Post-mining period creates new models of collaboration between industry, researchers and administration
Reskilling mining workforce and employees of mining-dependent enterprises (value chain) is a key challenge for the well-embedded just transition
Just transition process is implemented through an extensive support program that includes, among others:
Regeneration, decontamination and restoration of post-mining assets
Raising and changing the qualifications of employees and jobseekers
Investment in SMEs, including start-ups, leading to economic diversification and economic restructuring
Business creation through business incubators and consulting services
Research and innovation activities and supporting the transfer of advanced technologies
Dziękuję za uwagę
WE INVITE YOU TO COLLABORATE
Jan BONDARUK Deputy Director for Environmental Engineering Central Mining Institute – National Research Institute Plac Gwarków 1 Katowice Poland t: +48 32 24 66 f: +48 32 21 54 m: +48 [email&#;protected] eunic-brussels.eu
eunic-brussels.eu
Market Forecast Tables
These tables show forest products production and trade forecasts for and These cover roundwood (logs, pulpwood and fuel wood), sawnwood (coniferous and non-coniferous), wood-based panels (plywood, particle board, OSB and fibreboard), pulp, paper and wood pellets. The forecast data are provided by national correspondents and approved at the meeting of the Committee on Forests and the Forest Industry.
Languages and translations
English
| List of Tables and Notes |
| Table 1 - Sawn Softwood |
| Table 2 - Sawn Hardwood (total) |
| Table 2a - Sawn Hardwood (temperate) |
| Table 2b - Sawn Hardwood (tropical) |
| Table 3 - Veneer Sheets |
| Table 4 - Plywood |
| Table 5 - Particle Board (excluding OSB) |
| Table 5a - Oriented Strand Board |
| Table 6 - Fibreboard |
| Table 6a - Hardboard |
| Table 6b - MDF/HDF |
| Table 6c - Other Fibreboard |
| Table 7 - Wood Pulp |
| Table 8 - Paper and Paperboard |
| Table 9 - Removals of wood in the rough |
| Table 9a - Removals of wood in the rough (softwood) |
| Table 9b - Removals of wood in the rough (hardwood) |
| Table 10 - Softwood sawlogs |
| Table 11 - Hardwood sawlogs |
| Table 11a - Hardwood logs (temperate) |
| Table 11b - Hardwood logs (tropical) |
| Table 12 - Pulpwood |
| Table 12a - Pulpwood (softwood) |
| Table 12b - Pulpwood (hardwood) |
| Table 12c - Wood Residues, Chips and Particles |
| Table 13 - Wood Pellets |
| Table 14 - Europe: Summary table of market forecasts for and |
| Table 15 - North America: Summary table of market forecasts for and |
| Source: UNECE Committee on Forests and the Forest Industry , November , eunic-brussels.eu |
| Notes: Data in italics are estimated by the secretariat. EECCA is Eastern Europe, Caucasus and Central Asia. |
| Data for the two latest years are forecasts. |
| In contrast to previous years, data are shown only for countries providing forecasts. Sub-regional totals are only for reporting countries. |
| In contrast to years prior to , data are shown only for countries providing forecasts. Sub-regional totals thus reflect only the reporting countries of the subregion. |
| Confidential data have not been included. Please inform secretariat in case you notice any confidential data which might have been included inadvertently. |
| Wherever the forecast data is incomplete, then data is repeated to avoid skewing. |
| For tables , data in italics are secretariat estimates or repeated data. All other data are from national sources and are of course estimates for the current and future year. |
| Countries with nil, missing or confidential data for all years on a table are not shown. |
| Consumption figures are the sum of production and national imports minus national exports. Softwood = coniferous, hardwood = non-coniferous. United Kingdom production figures for OSB is secretariat estimate. |
| Uzbekistan – data extrapolated by the Secretariat based on national data for the first eight months |
| Poland - The trade turnover is based on data that includes the estimated value of trade turnover by entities exempt from the reporting obligation. These trade turnover figures are estimated at 3%. Roundwood: sawlogs and veneer logs and pulpwood and wood fuel - with removals from trees and shrubs outside the forest, including forest chips, with stump. Residues - production excluding recovered wood. |
| Softwood = coniferous, hardwood = non-coniferous |
| For tables , data in italics are secretariat estimates or repeated data. All other data are from national sources and are of course estimates for the current and future year. |
| Countries with nil, missing or confidential data for all years on a table are not shown. |
| TABLE 1 | |||||||||||||
| SAWN SOFTWOOD | SCIAGES CONIFERES | ||||||||||||
| Data only for those countries providing forecasts - Données uniquement pour les pays fournissant des prévisions | |||||||||||||
| m3 | |||||||||||||
| Apparent Consumption | Imports | Exports | |||||||||||
| Country | Consommation Apparente | Production | Imports - Importations | Exports - Exportations | Pays | ||||||||
| Austria | 6, | 4, | 4, | 10, | 8, | 8, | 1, | 1, | 1, | 5, | 4, | 4, | Autriche |
| Cyprus | 33 | 34 | 34 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 32 | 33 | 33 | 0 | 0 | 0 | Chypre |
| Czech Republic | 2, | 2, | 2, | 4, | 3, | 4, | 2, | 1, | 1, | République tchèque | |||
| Estonia | 2, | 1, | 1, | 1, | 1, | 1, | 1, | Estonie | |||||
| Finland | 2, | 2, | 2, | 11, | 10, | 10, | 20 | 20 | 8, | 7, | 8, | Finlande | |
| France | 8, | 8, | 8, | 7, | 7, | 7, | 2, | 2, | 2, | France | |||
| Germany | 17, | 14, | 13, | 24, | 21, | 19, | 4, | 2, | 3, | 11, | 9, | 9, | Allemagne |
| Hungary | 85 | 96 | 86 | 14 | 15 | 11 | Hongrie | ||||||
| Italy | 4, | 4, | 4, | 4, | 4, | 4, | Italie | ||||||
| Latvia | 1, | 3, | 3, | 3, | 2, | 2, | 2, | Lettonie | |||||
| Luxembourg | 71 | 39 | 39 | 39 | 43 | 91 | 91 | 11 | 8 | 8 | Luxembourg | ||
| Malta | 7 | 9 | 9 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 7 | 9 | 9 | 0 | 0 | 0 | Malte |
| Montenegro | 30 | 30 | 29 | 10 | 9 | 7 | 98 | 94 | 90 | Monténégro | |||
| Netherlands | 2, | 2, | 2, | 2, | 2, | 2, | Pays-Bas | ||||||
| Poland | 4, | 4, | 4, | 4, | 4, | 4, | 1, | 1, | 1, | Pologne | |||
| Portugal | Portugal | ||||||||||||
| Serbia | 91 | 95 | 98 | 5 | 4 | 5 | Serbie | ||||||
| Slovakia | 1, | 1, | 1, | 1, | 1, | 1, | Slovaquie | ||||||
| Slovenia | Slovénie | ||||||||||||
| Spain | 4, | 4, | 4, | 3, | 3, | 3, | 1, | Espagne | |||||
| Sweden | 5, | 5, | 5, | 18, | 18, | 18, | 13, | 13, | 13, | Suède | |||
| Switzerland | 1, | 1, | 1, | 1, | 1, | 1, | Suisse | ||||||
| United Kingdom | 8, | 8, | 8, | 3, | 2, | 2, | 5, | 5, | 5, | Royaume-Uni | |||
| Total Europe | 75, | 69, | 68, | 96, | 89, | 88, | 29, | 25, | 25, | 50, | 46, | 45, | Total Europe |
| Uzbekistan | 2, | 1, | 1, | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2, | 1, | 1, | 0 | 0 | 0 | Ouzbékistan |
| Total EECCA | Total EOCAC | ||||||||||||
| Canada a | 3, | 2, | 2, | 36, | 33, | 31, | 33, | 31, | 30, | Canada a | |||
| United States a | 87, | 87, | 88, | 64, | 64, | 64, | 26, | 25, | 26, | 2, | 2, | 2, | Etats-Unis a |
| Total North America | 91, | 89, | 90, | , | 97, | 95, | 27, | 26, | 27, | 35, | 34, | 32, | Total Amérique du Nord |
| a converted from nominal to actual size using factor of | a convertis du dimension nominale au véritable avec une facteur du |
| TABLE 2 | |||||||||||||
| SAWN HARDWOOD (total) | SCIAGES NON-CONIFERES (total) | ||||||||||||
| Data only for those countries providing forecasts - Données uniquement pour les pays fournissant des prévisions | |||||||||||||
| m3 | |||||||||||||
| Apparent Consumption | Imports | Exports | |||||||||||
| Country | Consommation Apparente | Production | Imports - Importations | Exports - Exportations | Pays | ||||||||
| Austria | Autriche | ||||||||||||
| Cyprus | 11 | 7 | 7 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 11 | 7 | 7 | 0 | 0 | 0 | Chypre |
| Czech Republic | 34 | 24 | 40 | République tchèque | |||||||||
| Estonia | 60 | 60 | 90 | 60 | 60 | Estonie | |||||||
| Finland | 84 | 44 | 44 | 73 | 40 | 40 | 34 | 24 | 24 | 23 | 20 | 20 | Finlande |
| France | 1, | 1, | 1, | 1, | 1, | 1, | France | ||||||
| Germany | Allemagne | ||||||||||||
| Hungary | 45 | 38 | 30 | Hongrie | |||||||||
| Italy | Italie | ||||||||||||
| Latvia | 5 | 54 | 55 | 55 | Lettonie | ||||||||
| Luxembourg | 96 | 98 | 98 | 39 | 39 | 39 | 64 | 65 | 65 | 7 | 6 | 6 | Luxembourg |
| Malta | 7 | 8 | 9 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 0 | 0 | 0 | Malte |
| Montenegro | 11 | 8 | 10 | 39 | 35 | 34 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 30 | 28 | 25 | Monténégro |
| Netherlands | 34 | 34 | 34 | Pays-Bas | |||||||||
| Poland | Pologne | ||||||||||||
| Portugal | 90 | 90 | Portugal | ||||||||||
| Serbia | 64 | 60 | 70 | Serbie | |||||||||
| Slovakia | 55 | 50 | 55 | Slovaquie | |||||||||
| Slovenia | 83 | 80 | 80 | 80 | 80 | Slovénie | |||||||
| Spain | 53 | 47 | 47 | Espagne | |||||||||
| Sweden | 83 | 80 | 80 | 41 | 40 | 40 | Suède | ||||||
| Switzerland | 78 | 79 | 81 | 52 | 53 | 54 | 50 | 51 | 52 | 24 | 25 | 25 | Suisse |
| United Kingdom | 37 | 40 | 40 | 17 | 20 | 20 | Royaume-Uni | ||||||
| Total Europe | 7, | 6, | 6, | 6, | 6, | 6, | 4, | 3, | 3, | 4, | 3, | 3, | Total Europe |
| Uzbekistan | 33 | 16 | 16 | 0 | 3 | 3 | Ouzbékistan | ||||||
| Total EECCA | Total EOCAC | ||||||||||||
| Canada | 1, | 1, | 1, | Canada | |||||||||
| United States | 14, | 14, | 15, | 17, | 17, | 18, | 3, | 3, | 3, | Etats-Unis | |||
| Total North America | 15, | 16, | 16, | 18, | 18, | 19, | 1, | 1, | 1, | 4, | 4, | 4, | Total Amérique du Nord |
| TABLE 2a | |||||||||||||
| SAWN HARDWOOD (temperate) | SCIAGES NON-CONIFERES (zone tempérée) | ||||||||||||
| Data only for those countries providing forecasts - Données uniquement pour les pays fournissant des prévisions | |||||||||||||
| m3 | |||||||||||||
| Apparent Consumption | Imports | Exports | |||||||||||
| Country | Consommation Apparente | Production | Imports - Importations | Exports - Exportations | Pays | ||||||||
| Austria | Autriche | ||||||||||||
| Cyprus | 9 | 5 | 5 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 8 | 5 | 5 | 0 | 0 | 0 | Chypre |
| Czech Republic | 86 | 88 | 34 | 24 | 40 | République tchèque | |||||||
| Estonia | 56 | 56 | 87 | 59 | 59 | Estonie | |||||||
| Finland | 80 | 40 | 40 | 73 | 40 | 40 | 26 | 16 | 16 | 19 | 16 | 16 | Finlande |
| France | 1, | 1, | 1, | France | |||||||||
| Germany | Allemagne | ||||||||||||
| Hungary | 43 | 35 | 26 | Hongrie | |||||||||
| Italy | Italie | ||||||||||||
| Latvia | 5 | 54 | 55 | 55 | Lettonie | ||||||||
| Luxembourg | 92 | 96 | 96 | 39 | 39 | 39 | 60 | 63 | 63 | 7 | 6 | 6 | Luxembourg |
| Malta | 6 | 7 | 8 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 0 | 0 | 0 | Malte |
| Montenegro | 11 | 8 | 10 | 39 | 35 | 34 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 30 | 28 | 25 | Monténégro |
| Netherlands | 89 | 80 | 77 | 27 | 27 | 27 | 55 | 55 | 55 | Pays-Bas | |||
| Poland | Pologne | ||||||||||||
| Portugal | 31 | 50 | 50 | Portugal | |||||||||
| Serbia | 59 | 57 | 66 | Serbie | |||||||||
| Slovakia | 55 | 50 | 55 | Slovaquie | |||||||||
| Slovenia | 81 | 78 | 78 | 80 | 80 | Slovénie | |||||||
| Spain | 45 | 43 | 43 | Espagne | |||||||||
| Sweden | 83 | 79 | 79 | 41 | 40 | 40 | Suède | ||||||
| Switzerland | 69 | 70 | 72 | 49 | 50 | 51 | 44 | 45 | 46 | 24 | 25 | 25 | Suisse |
| United Kingdom | 37 | 40 | 40 | 14 | 20 | 20 | Royaume-Uni | ||||||
| Total Europe | 6, | 6, | 6, | 6, | 6, | 6, | 3, | 3, | 3, | 3, | 3, | 3, | Total Europe |
| Uzbekistan | 33 | 15 | 15 | 0 | 3 | 3 | Ouzbékistan | ||||||
| Total EECCA | Total EOCAC | ||||||||||||
| Canada | 1, | 1, | 1, | Canada | |||||||||
| United States | 14, | 14, | 14, | 17, | 17, | 18, | 3, | 3, | 3, | Etats-Unis | |||
| Total North America | 15, | 15, | 16, | 18, | 18, | 19, | 1, | 1, | 1, | 4, | 4, | 4, | Total Amérique du Nord |
| eunic-brussels.euT | |||||||||||||
| TABLE 2b | |||||||||||||
| SAWN HARDWOOD (tropical) | SCIAGES NON-CONIFERES (tropicale) | ||||||||||||
| Data only for those countries providing forecasts - Données uniquement pour les pays fournissant des prévisions | |||||||||||||
| m3 | |||||||||||||
| Apparent Consumption | Imports | Exports | |||||||||||
| Country | Consommation Apparente | Production | Imports - Importations | Exports - Exportations | Pays | ||||||||
| Austria | 3 | 3 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 1 | 1 | 1 | Autriche |
| Bulgaria | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | Bulgarie |
| Cyprus | 3 | 2 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 2 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | Chypre |
| Czech Republic | 17 | 17 | 17 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 17 | 17 | 17 | 0 | 0 | 0 | République tchèque |
| Estonia | 2 | 3 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 5 | 4 | 4 | 3 | 1 | 1 | Estonie |
| Finland | 4 | 4 | 4 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 8 | 8 | 8 | 4 | 4 | 4 | Finlande |
| France | 26 | 15 | 25 | 3 | 3 | 3 | France | ||||||
| Germany | 29 | 20 | 20 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 79 | 60 | 60 | 50 | 40 | 40 | Allemagne |
| Hungary | 2 | 3 | 4 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 4 | 4 | 0 | 0 | 0 | Hongrie |
| Italy | 5 | 5 | 5 | Italie | |||||||||
| Luxembourg | 4 | 2 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 4 | 2 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | Luxembourg |
| Malta | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | Malte |
| Netherlands | 7 | 7 | 7 | 55 | 55 | 55 | Pays-Bas | ||||||
| Poland | 10 | 11 | 12 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 2 | 2 | 2 | Pologne |
| Portugal | 50 | 23 | 22 | 12 | 13 | 12 | 50 | 50 | 69 | 40 | 40 | Portugal | |
| Serbia | 5 | 4 | 5 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 5 | 3 | 4 | 1 | 0 | 0 | Serbie |
| Slovenia | 2 | 2 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | Slovénie |
| Spain | 42 | 49 | 49 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 47 | 50 | 50 | 7 | 4 | 4 | Espagne |
| Sweden | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | Suède |
| Switzerland | 9 | 9 | 9 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 6 | 6 | 6 | 0 | 0 | 0 | Suisse |
| United Kingdom | 91 | 90 | 90 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 94 | 90 | 90 | 3 | 0 | 0 | Royaume-Uni |
| Total Europe | 56 | 46 | 55 | Total Europe | |||||||||
| Canada | 17 | 8 | 7 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 31 | 21 | 23 | 14 | 13 | 16 | Canada |
| United States | 0 | 0 | 0 | 6 | 19 | 16 | Etats-Unis | ||||||
| Total North America | 0 | 0 | 0 | 20 | 31 | 32 | Total Amérique du Nord |
| TABLE 3 | |||||||||||||
| VENEER SHEETS | FEUILLES DE PLACAGE | ||||||||||||
| Data only for those countries providing forecasts - Données uniquement pour les pays fournissant des prévisions | |||||||||||||
| m3 | |||||||||||||
| Apparent Consumption | Imports | Exports | |||||||||||
| Country | Consommation Apparente | Production | Imports - Importations | Exports - Exportations | Pays | ||||||||
| Austria | 74 | 39 | 39 | 8 | 8 | 8 | 83 | 45 | 45 | 17 | 14 | 14 | Autriche |
| Cyprus | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | Chypre |
| Czech Republic | 28 | 28 | 27 | 28 | 16 | 17 | 58 | 53 | 50 | 58 | 41 | 40 | République tchèque |
| Estonia | 87 | 95 | 95 | 82 | 80 | 80 | Estonie | ||||||
| Finland | 27 | 21 | 21 | 12 | 10 | 10 | Finlande | ||||||
| France | 64 | 64 | 64 | France | |||||||||
| Germany | 99 | 78 | 70 | 52 | 40 | 50 | Allemagne | ||||||
| Hungary | 23 | 25 | 20 | 13 | 18 | 13 | 39 | 39 | 39 | 28 | 31 | 32 | Hongrie |
| Italy | 37 | 33 | 33 | Italie | |||||||||
| Latvia | 40 | 50 | 50 | 75 | 85 | 85 | Lettonie | ||||||
| Luxembourg | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | Luxembourg |
| Malta | 1 | 2 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 0 | Malte |
| Netherlands | 15 | 13 | 13 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 17 | 15 | 15 | 3 | 3 | 3 | Pays-Bas |
| Poland | 45 | 42 | 45 | 92 | 94 | 98 | 16 | 15 | 14 | Pologne | |||
| Portugal | 12 | 20 | 35 | 20 | 30 | 25 | 38 | 40 | 50 | 46 | 50 | 40 | Portugal |
| Serbia | 4 | 4 | 5 | 30 | 28 | 30 | 8 | 6 | 8 | 34 | 30 | 33 | Serbie |
| Slovakia | 17 | 25 | 25 | 21 | 25 | 25 | 27 | 30 | 30 | 31 | 30 | 30 | Slovaquie |
| Slovenia | 9 | 8 | 9 | 28 | 27 | 25 | 13 | 14 | 14 | 32 | 33 | 30 | Slovénie |
| Spain | 92 | 92 | 40 | 36 | 36 | 90 | 90 | 45 | 34 | 34 | Espagne | ||
| Sweden | 32 | 31 | 31 | 60 | 50 | 50 | 19 | 10 | 10 | 47 | 29 | 29 | Suède |
| Switzerland | 3 | 3 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 1 | 1 | 1 | Suisse |
| United Kingdom | 6 | 10 | 10 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 7 | 10 | 10 | 1 | 0 | 0 | Royaume-Uni |
| Total Europe | 1, | 1, | 1, | 1, | 1, | 1, | 1, | Total Europe | |||||
| Uzbekistan | 4 | 4 | 4 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | Ouzbékistan |
| Total EECCA | 0 | Total EOCAC | |||||||||||
| Canada | Canada | ||||||||||||
| United States | 2, | 2, | 2, | 2, | 2, | 2, | Etats-Unis | ||||||
| Total North America | 2, | 2, | 2, | 2, | 2, | 2, | Total Amérique du Nord | ||||||
| Note: Definition of veneers excludes domestic use for plywood. | |||||||||||||
| La définition des placages exclus la conversion directe en contreplaqué. |
| TABLE 4 | |||||||||||||
| PLYWOOD | CONTREPLAQUES | ||||||||||||
| Data only for those countries providing forecasts - Données uniquement pour les pays fournissant des prévisions | |||||||||||||
| m3 | |||||||||||||
| Apparent Consumption | Imports | Exports | |||||||||||
| Country | Consommation Apparente | Production | Imports - Importations | Exports - Exportations | Pays | ||||||||
| Austria | 19 | 15 | 15 | Autriche | |||||||||
| Cyprus | 14 | 15 | 15 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 14 | 15 | 15 | 0 | 0 | 0 | Chypre |
| Czech Republic | République tchèque | ||||||||||||
| Estonia | 50 | 50 | 50 | 50 | Estonie | ||||||||
| Finland | 1, | 87 | 60 | 60 | Finlande | ||||||||
| France | France | ||||||||||||
| Germany | 1, | 1, | 85 | 80 | 80 | 1, | 1, | 1, | Allemagne | ||||
| Hungary | 60 | 61 | 63 | 62 | 90 | 94 | Hongrie | ||||||
| Italy | Italie | ||||||||||||
| Latvia | 92 | 55 | 55 | 94 | 95 | 95 | Lettonie | ||||||
| Luxembourg | 33 | 29 | 29 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 33 | 29 | 29 | 0 | 0 | 0 | Luxembourg |
| Malta | 10 | 11 | 12 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 0 | 0 | 0 | Malte |
| Montenegro | 2 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 1 | Monténégro |
| Netherlands | 0 | 0 | 0 | 98 | 94 | 88 | Pays-Bas | ||||||
| Poland | Pologne | ||||||||||||
| Portugal | 95 | 44 | 30 | 44 | Portugal | ||||||||
| Serbia | 40 | 36 | 38 | 19 | 18 | 19 | 34 | 30 | 33 | 13 | 12 | 14 | Serbie |
| Slovakia | 67 | 63 | 63 | 59 | 59 | 59 | Slovaquie | ||||||
| Slovenia | 49 | 50 | 58 | 94 | 90 | 98 | 26 | 30 | 30 | 71 | 70 | 70 | Slovénie |
| Spain | Espagne | ||||||||||||
| Sweden | 90 | 90 | 90 | 48 | 50 | 50 | Suède | ||||||
| Switzerland | 7 | 7 | 7 | 4 | 4 | 4 | Suisse | ||||||
| United Kingdom | 1, | 1, | 1, | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1, | 1, | 1, | 66 | 70 | 70 | Royaume-Uni |
| Total Europe | 6, | 6, | 5, | 4, | 3, | 3, | 6, | 5, | 5, | 3, | 3, | 3, | Total Europe |
| Uzbekistan | 62 | 46 | 46 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 63 | 47 | 47 | 0 | 0 | 0 | Ouzbékistan |
| Total EECCA | 0 | Total EOCAC | |||||||||||
| Canada | 2, | 2, | 2, | 1, | 1, | 1, | 1, | 1, | 1, | Canada | |||
| United States | 14, | 14, | 15, | 9, | 9, | 9, | 6, | 6, | 6, | Etats-Unis | |||
| Total North America | 16, | 16, | 17, | 10, | 10, | 11, | 7, | 7, | 7, | 1, | 1, | 1, | Total Amérique du Nord |
| TABLE 5 | |||||||||||||
| PARTICLE BOARD (excluding OSB) | PANNEAUX DE PARTICULES (ne comprennent pas l'OSB) | ||||||||||||
| Data only for those countries providing forecasts - Données uniquement pour les pays fournissant des prévisions | |||||||||||||
| m3 | |||||||||||||
| Apparent Consumption | Imports | Exports | |||||||||||
| Country | Consommation Apparente | Production | Imports - Importations | Exports - Exportations | Pays | ||||||||
| Austria | 2, | 2, | 2, | 1, | 1, | 1, | Autriche | ||||||
| Cyprus | 49 | 46 | 46 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 49 | 46 | 46 | 0 | 0 | 0 | Chypre |
| Czech Republic | République tchèque | ||||||||||||
| Estonia | 67 | 67 | 90 | 0 | 0 | 77 | 68 | 68 | 44 | 2 | 1 | Estonie | |
| Finland | 75 | 75 | 54 | 54 | 54 | 85 | 44 | 44 | 26 | 23 | 23 | Finlande | |
| France | 2, | 2, | 2, | 3, | 3, | 3, | 1, | 1, | 1, | France | |||
| Germany | 5, | 5, | 4, | 5, | 5, | 5, | 1, | 1, | 1, | 1, | 1, | 1, | Allemagne |
| Hungary | Hongrie | ||||||||||||
| Italy | 3, | 2, | 2, | 2, | 2, | 2, | Italie | ||||||
| Latvia | 52 | 85 | 85 | 69 | 25 | 25 | Lettonie | ||||||
| Luxembourg | 20 | 12 | 12 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 21 | 13 | 13 | 1 | 1 | 1 | Luxembourg |
| Malta | 10 | 11 | 11 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 10 | 11 | 11 | 0 | 0 | 0 | Malte |
| Montenegro | 32 | 33 | 34 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 32 | 33 | 34 | 0 | 0 | 0 | Monténégro |
| Netherlands | 0 | 0 | 0 | 50 | 48 | 47 | Pays-Bas | ||||||
| Poland | 6, | 6, | 6, | 5, | 5, | 5, | 2, | 2, | 2, | Pologne | |||
| Portugal | Portugal | ||||||||||||
| Serbia | 42 | 43 | 47 | Serbie | |||||||||
| Slovakia | Slovaquie | ||||||||||||
| Slovenia | 0 | 0 | 0 | 6 | 4 | 4 | Slovénie | ||||||
| Spain | 2, | 2, | 2, | 2, | 2, | 2, | Espagne | ||||||
| Sweden | 1, | 57 | 67 | 67 | Suède | ||||||||
| Switzerland | Suisse | ||||||||||||
| United Kingdom | 2, | 2, | 2, | 2, | 1, | 1, | 55 | 50 | 50 | Royaume-Uni | |||
| Total Europe | 28, | 26, | 26, | 28, | 26, | 26, | 10, | 9, | 9, | 9, | 9, | 9, | Total Europe |
| Uzbekistan | 26 | 27 | 27 | Ouzbékistan | |||||||||
| Total EECCA | 27 | Total EOCAC | |||||||||||
| Canada | 1, | 1, | 1, | 1, | 2, | 2, | Canada | ||||||
| United States | 5, | 5, | 5, | 4, | 4, | 4, | 1, | 1, | 1, | Etats-Unis | |||
| Total North America | 6, | 7, | 7, | 6, | 6, | 6, | 1, | 1, | 1, | 1, | 1, | 1, | Total Amérique du Nord |
| Data are calculated by subtracting OSB from the particleboard/OSB total - les données sont calculées en soustrayant les OSB du total des panneaux de particules et OSB. |
| TABLE 5a | |||||||||||||
| ORIENTED STRAND BOARD (OSB) | PANNEAUX STRUCTURAUX ORIENTES (OSB) | ||||||||||||
| Data only for those countries providing forecasts - Données uniquement pour les pays fournissant des prévisions | |||||||||||||
| m3 | |||||||||||||
| Apparent Consumption | Imports | Exports | |||||||||||
| Country | Consommation Apparente | Production | Imports - Importations | Exports - Exportations | Pays | ||||||||
| Austria | 0 | 0 | 0 | 7 | 5 | 5 | Autriche | ||||||
| Cyprus | 11 | 14 | 14 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 11 | 14 | 14 | 0 | 0 | 0 | Chypre |
| Czech Republic | République tchèque | ||||||||||||
| Estonia | 55 | 32 | 32 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 55 | 32 | 32 | 1 | 0 | 0 | Estonie |
| Finland | 56 | 56 | 56 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 56 | 56 | 56 | 0 | 0 | 0 | Finlande |
| France | 96 | 49 | 49 | France | |||||||||
| Germany | 1, | 1, | 1, | 1, | 1, | 1, | Allemagne | ||||||
| Hungary | 56 | 60 | 59 | Hongrie | |||||||||
| Italy | 87 | 87 | Italie | ||||||||||
| Latvia | 76 | 75 | 75 | Lettonie | |||||||||
| Luxembourg | 6 | 14 | 14 | Luxembourg | |||||||||
| Montenegro | 2 | 2 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | Monténégro |
| Netherlands | 0 | 0 | 0 | 64 | 64 | 65 | Pays-Bas | ||||||
| Poland | Pologne | ||||||||||||
| Portugal | 46 | 37 | 41 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 50 | 40 | 45 | 4 | 3 | 4 | Portugal |
| Serbia | 40 | 35 | 41 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 41 | 36 | 42 | 1 | 1 | 1 | Serbie |
| Slovakia | 48 | 58 | 60 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 48 | 60 | 63 | 1 | 3 | 3 | Slovaquie |
| Slovenia | 31 | 24 | 24 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 33 | 26 | 26 | 2 | 2 | 2 | Slovénie |
| Spain | 26 | 15 | 15 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 35 | 33 | 33 | 12 | 20 | 20 | Espagne |
| Sweden | 94 | 92 | 92 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 97 | 95 | 95 | 3 | 3 | 3 | Suède |
| Switzerland | 95 | 95 | 95 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 96 | 96 | 96 | 1 | 1 | 1 | Suisse |
| United Kingdom | Royaume-Uni | ||||||||||||
| Total Europe | 5, | 5, | 5, | 4, | 4, | 5, | 3, | 2, | 2, | 2, | 2, | 2, | Total Europe |
| Uzbekistan | 7 | 5 | 5 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 7 | 5 | 5 | 0 | 0 | 0 | Ouzbékistan |
| Total EECCA | 0 | Total EOCAC | |||||||||||
| Canada | 1, | 1, | 1, | 7, | 6, | 6, | 82 | 65 | 61 | 5, | 5, | 5, | Canada |
| United States | 19, | 19, | 20, | 13, | 13, | 14, | 6, | 6, | 6, | Etats-Unis | |||
| Total North America | 21, | 21, | 21, | 20, | 20, | 20, | 6, | 6, | 6, | 5, | 5, | 5, | Total Amérique du Nord |
| TABLE 6 | |||||||||||||
| FIBREBOARD | PANNEAUX DE FIBRES | ||||||||||||
| Data only for those countries providing forecasts - Données uniquement pour les pays fournissant des prévisions | |||||||||||||
| m3 | |||||||||||||
| Apparent Consumption | Imports | Exports | |||||||||||
| Country | Consommation Apparente | Production | Imports - Importations | Exports - Exportations | Pays | ||||||||
| Austria | Autriche | ||||||||||||
| Cyprus | 20 | 15 | 16 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 20 | 15 | 16 | 0 | 0 | 0 | Chypre |
| Czech Republic | 41 | 41 | 42 | République tchèque | |||||||||
| Estonia | 70 | 46 | 47 | 75 | 40 | 40 | 65 | 46 | 47 | 70 | 40 | 40 | Estonie |
| Finland | 44 | 44 | 44 | 46 | 41 | 41 | Finlande | ||||||
| France | 1, | 1, | 1, | 1, | France | ||||||||
| Germany | 3, | 3, | 3, | 5, | 4, | 4, | 1, | 1, | 1, | 2, | 3, | 2, | Allemagne |
| Hungary | 9 | 21 | 0 | 0 | Hongrie | ||||||||
| Italy | 1, | 1, | 1, | 1, | Italie | ||||||||
| Latvia | 60 | 50 | 40 | 48 | 50 | 50 | 62 | 65 | 65 | 50 | 65 | 75 | Lettonie |
| Luxembourg | 90 | 90 | 34 | 19 | 19 | 80 | 76 | 76 | Luxembourg | ||||
| Malta | 6 | 7 | 7 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 6 | 7 | 7 | 0 | 0 | 0 | Malte |
| Montenegro | 32 | 32 | 33 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 32 | 32 | 33 | 0 | 0 | 0 | Monténégro |
| Netherlands | 29 | 29 | 29 | Pays-Bas | |||||||||
| Poland | 3, | 3, | 4, | 4, | 4, | 5, | 1, | 1, | 1, | Pologne | |||
| Portugal | Portugal | ||||||||||||
| Serbia | 74 | 74 | 88 | 19 | 20 | 22 | 71 | 73 | 88 | 16 | 19 | 22 | Serbie |
| Slovakia | 0 | 0 | 0 | 39 | 38 | 39 | Slovaquie | ||||||
| Slovenia | 24 | 15 | 15 | 28 | 25 | 30 | Slovénie | ||||||
| Spain | 1, | 1, | 1, | Espagne | |||||||||
| Sweden | 0 | 0 | 0 | Suède | |||||||||
| Switzerland | 97 | 97 | 97 | Suisse | |||||||||
| United Kingdom | 1, | 1, | 1, | 60 | 60 | 60 | Royaume-Uni | ||||||
| Total Europe | 15, | 14, | 15, | 16, | 15, | 15, | 8, | 8, | 8, | 9, | 8, | 8, | Total Europe |
| Uzbekistan | 1, | 47 | 47 | 47 | 1, | 13 | 9 | 9 | Ouzbékistan | ||||
| Total EECCA | Total EOCAC | ||||||||||||
| Canada | 1, | 1, | 1, | 1, | 1, | 1, | Canada | ||||||
| United States | 8, | 8, | 8, | 6, | 6, | 6, | 3, | 3, | 3, | 1, | Etats-Unis | ||
| Total North America | 9, | 9, | 10, | 7, | 7, | 7, | 4, | 3, | 3, | 1, | 1, | 1, | Total Amérique du Nord |
| TABLE 6a | |||||||||||||
| HARDBOARD | PANNEAUX DURS | ||||||||||||
| Data only for those countries providing forecasts - Données uniquement pour les pays fournissant des prévisions | |||||||||||||
| m3 | |||||||||||||
| Apparent Consumption | Imports | Exports | |||||||||||
| Country | Consommation Apparente | Production | Imports - Importations | Exports - Exportations | Pays | ||||||||
| Austria | 29 | 28 | 28 | 54 | 43 | 43 | 18 | 16 | 16 | 43 | 32 | 32 | Autriche |
| Cyprus | 2 | 1 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | Chypre |
| Czech Republic | 43 | 45 | 45 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 61 | 59 | 60 | 18 | 14 | 15 | République tchèque |
| Estonia | 23 | 15 | 19 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 30 | 16 | 20 | 7 | 1 | 1 | Estonie |
| Finland | 23 | 21 | 21 | 44 | 44 | 44 | 21 | 15 | 15 | 41 | 38 | 38 | Finlande |
| France | 55 | 55 | 55 | France | |||||||||
| Germany | 0 | 0 | 0 | 23 | 20 | 15 | Allemagne | ||||||
| Hungary | 27 | 41 | 45 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 65 | 81 | 85 | 40 | 40 | 40 | Hongrie |
| Italy | 16 | 16 | 16 | 19 | 19 | 19 | Italie | ||||||
| Latvia | 1 | 5 | 5 | 15 | 15 | 15 | 18 | 20 | 20 | 32 | 30 | 30 | Lettonie |
| Luxembourg | 0 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 8 | 8 | 34 | 20 | 20 | Luxembourg | |||
| Montenegro | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | Monténégro |
| Netherlands | 44 | 41 | 39 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 63 | 58 | 56 | 19 | 17 | 17 | Pays-Bas |
| Poland | 80 | 80 | 80 | 88 | Pologne | ||||||||
| Portugal | 50 | 30 | 39 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 61 | 40 | 50 | 11 | 10 | 11 | Portugal |
| Serbia | 39 | 35 | 38 | 19 | 20 | 22 | 33 | 31 | 34 | 13 | 16 | 18 | Serbie |
| Slovakia | 21 | 20 | 21 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 21 | 21 | 22 | 1 | 1 | 1 | Slovaquie |
| Slovenia | -1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 4 | 2 | 4 | 4 | 2 | 3 | Slovénie |
| Spain | 17 | 15 | 15 | 32 | 29 | 29 | 46 | 46 | 46 | 61 | 60 | 60 | Espagne |
| Sweden | 47 | 30 | 30 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 70 | 80 | 80 | Suède | |||
| Switzerland | 19 | 19 | 19 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 24 | 24 | 24 | 5 | 5 | 5 | Suisse |
| United Kingdom | 90 | 90 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 9 | 10 | 10 | Royaume-Uni | ||||
| Total Europe | 1, | 1, | 1, | 1, | 1, | 1, | Total Europe | ||||||
| Uzbekistan | 89 | 50 | 50 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 90 | 50 | 50 | 0 | 0 | 0 | Ouzbékistan |
| Total EECCA | Total EOCAC | ||||||||||||
| Canada | 33 | 47 | 42 | 90 | 90 | 90 | 52 | 27 | 28 | 70 | 76 | Canada | |
| United States | Etats-Unis | ||||||||||||
| Total North America | Total Amérique du Nord |
| TABLE 6b | |||||||||||||
| MDF/HDF | |||||||||||||
| Data only for those countries providing forecasts - Données uniquement pour les pays fournissant des prévisions | |||||||||||||
| m3 | |||||||||||||
| Apparent Consumption | Imports | Exports | |||||||||||
| Country | Consommation Apparente | Production | Imports - Importations | Exports - Exportations | Pays | ||||||||
| Austria | Autriche | ||||||||||||
| Cyprus | 16 | 12 | 12 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 16 | 12 | 12 | 0 | 0 | 0 | Chypre |
| Czech Republic | 41 | 41 | 42 | 22 | 19 | 22 | République tchèque | ||||||
| Estonia | 18 | 21 | 18 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 33 | 28 | 25 | 15 | 7 | 7 | Estonie |
| Finland | 82 | 67 | 67 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 86 | 70 | 70 | 4 | 3 | 3 | Finlande |
| France | France | ||||||||||||
| Germany | 1, | 1, | 1, | 3, | 3, | 3, | 2, | 2, | 2, | Allemagne | |||
| Hungary | 0 | 0 | 0 | Hongrie | |||||||||
| Italy | 1, | 1, | 1, | Italie | |||||||||
| Latvia | 52 | 40 | 30 | 33 | 35 | 35 | 22 | 25 | 25 | 2 | 20 | 30 | Lettonie |
| Luxembourg | 98 | 98 | 27 | 7 | 7 | 46 | 56 | 56 | Luxembourg | ||||
| Malta | 5 | 5 | 5 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 0 | 0 | 0 | Malte |
| Montenegro | 31 | 31 | 32 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 31 | 31 | 32 | 0 | 0 | 0 | Monténégro |
| Netherlands | 0 | 0 | 0 | Pays-Bas | |||||||||
| Poland | 3, | 3, | 3, | 3, | 3, | 3, | Pologne | ||||||
| Portugal | Portugal | ||||||||||||
| Serbia | 31 | 35 | 46 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 34 | 38 | 50 | 3 | 3 | 4 | Serbie |
| Slovakia | 0 | 0 | 0 | 35 | 35 | 35 | Slovaquie | ||||||
| Slovenia | 24 | 15 | 14 | 24 | 23 | 26 | Slovénie | ||||||
| Spain | 1, | 1, | 1, | Espagne | |||||||||
| Sweden | 0 | 0 | 0 | 30 | 5 | 5 | Suède | ||||||
| Switzerland | 24 | 24 | 24 | 97 | 97 | 97 | 88 | 88 | 88 | Suisse | |||
| United Kingdom | 1, | 1, | 1, | 42 | 40 | 40 | Royaume-Uni | ||||||
| Total Europe | 11, | 10, | 10, | 12, | 11, | 11, | 5, | 4, | 4, | 5, | 5, | 5, | Total Europe |
| Uzbekistan | 46 | 46 | 46 | 3 | 2 | 2 | Ouzbékistan | ||||||
| Total EECCA | Total EOCAC | ||||||||||||
| Canada | 1, | 1, | 1, | 1, | 1, | Canada | |||||||
| United States | 5, | 5, | 5, | 2, | 2, | 2, | 2, | 2, | 2, | Etats-Unis | |||
| Total North America | 6, | 6, | 6, | 3, | 3, | 3, | 3, | 3, | 3, | 1, | Total Amérique du Nord |
| TABLE 6c | |||||||||||||
| OTHER FIBREBOARD | AUTRES PANNEAUX DE FIBRES | ||||||||||||
| Data only for those countries providing forecasts - Données uniquement pour les pays fournissant des prévisions | |||||||||||||
| m3 | |||||||||||||
| Apparent Consumption | Imports | Exports | |||||||||||
| Country | Consommation Apparente | Production | Imports - Importations | Exports - Exportations | Pays | ||||||||
| Austria | 0 | 0 | 0 | 4 | 3 | 3 | Autriche | ||||||
| Cyprus | 2 | 2 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 2 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | Chypre |
| Czech Republic | 86 | 74 | 75 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 80 | 85 | République tchèque | ||||
| Estonia | 29 | 10 | 10 | 75 | 40 | 40 | 3 | 2 | 2 | 49 | 32 | 32 | Estonie |
| Finland | 33 | 17 | 17 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 34 | 17 | 17 | 0 | 0 | 0 | Finlande |
| France | 65 | 66 | 66 | 63 | 63 | 63 | France | ||||||
| Germany | 1, | 1, | 1, | 1, | 1, | 1, | Allemagne | ||||||
| Hungary | 21 | 7 | 4 | 19 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 7 | 4 | 0 | 0 | 0 | Hongrie |
| Italy | 82 | 82 | 82 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 85 | 85 | 85 | 6 | 6 | 6 | Italie |
| Latvia | 7 | 5 | 5 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 23 | 20 | 20 | 16 | 15 | 15 | Lettonie |
| Luxembourg | 4 | 4 | 4 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 0 | 0 | 0 | Luxembourg |
| Malta | 1 | 2 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | Malte |
| Netherlands | 68 | 64 | 61 | 29 | 29 | 29 | 41 | 37 | 34 | 2 | 2 | 2 | Pays-Bas |
| Poland | 1, | 1, | 1, | 33 | 35 | 40 | 1, | Pologne | |||||
| Portugal | 37 | 15 | 25 | 32 | 20 | 30 | 20 | 15 | 20 | 15 | 20 | 25 | Portugal |
| Serbia | 4 | 4 | 4 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 0 | 0 | 0 | Serbie |
| Slovakia | 54 | 63 | 67 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 57 | 65 | 70 | 3 | 2 | 3 | Slovaquie |
| Slovenia | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | Slovénie |
| Spain | 69 | 59 | 59 | 64 | 58 | 58 | 20 | 7 | 7 | 15 | 6 | 6 | Espagne |
| Sweden | 0 | 5 | 5 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 25 | 20 | 20 | 24 | 15 | 15 | Suède |
| Switzerland | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | Suisse | ||||||
| United Kingdom | 38 | 30 | 30 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 47 | 40 | 40 | 9 | 10 | 10 | Royaume-Uni |
| Total Europe | 3, | 3, | 3, | 3, | 3, | 3, | 2, | 1, | 1, | 1, | 1, | 2, | Total Europe |
| Uzbekistan | 2 | 2 | 2 | 10 | 7 | 7 | Ouzbékistan | ||||||
| Total EECCA | Total EOCAC | ||||||||||||
| Canada | 92 | 94 | Canada | ||||||||||
| United States | 3, | 3, | 3, | 3, | 3, | 3, | Etats-Unis | ||||||
| Total North America | 3, | 3, | 3, | 3, | 3, | 3, | Total Amérique du Nord |
| TABLE 7 | |||||||||||||
| WOOD PULP | PATE DE BOIS | ||||||||||||
| Data only for those countries providing forecasts - Données uniquement pour les pays fournissant des prévisions | |||||||||||||
| mt | |||||||||||||
| Apparent Consumption | Imports | Exports | |||||||||||
| Country | Consommation Apparente | Production | Imports - Importations | Exports - Exportations | Pays | ||||||||
| Austria | 2, | 1, | 2, | 1, | 1, | 1, | Autriche | ||||||
| Czech Republic | 96 | République tchèque | |||||||||||
| Estonia | 70 | 75 | 80 | 42 | 50 | 50 | Estonie | ||||||
| Finland a | 5, | 4, | 4, | 9, | 8, | 9, | 4, | 4, | 4, | Finlande a | |||
| France | 2, | 2, | 2, | 1, | 1, | 1, | 1, | 1, | 1, | France | |||
| Germany | 5, | 4, | 5, | 2, | 1, | 2, | 4, | 3, | 4, | 1, | 1, | 1, | Allemagne |
| Hungary | 66 | 77 | 87 | 3 | 3 | 4 | Hongrie | ||||||
| Italy | 3, | 3, | 3, | 3, | 3, | 3, | Italie | ||||||
| Latvia | 7 | 7 | 7 | 12 | 13 | 13 | 7 | 7 | 7 | 12 | 13 | 13 | Lettonie |
| Netherlands | 37 | 37 | 37 | 1, | 1, | 1, | 1, | 1, | 1, | Pays-Bas | |||
| Poland | 2, | 2, | 2, | 1, | 1, | 1, | 1, | 1, | 1, | Pologne | |||
| Portugal | 1, | 1, | 1, | 2, | 2, | 2, | 1, | 1, | 1, | Portugal | |||
| Serbia | 82 | 88 | 92 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 82 | 88 | 92 | 0 | 0 | 0 | Serbie |
| Slovakia | Slovaquie | ||||||||||||
| Slovenia | 73 | 63 | 68 | 1 | 2 | 2 | Slovénie | ||||||
| Spain | 1, | 1, | 1, | 1, | 1, | 1, | 1, | Espagne | |||||
| Sweden | 8, | 7, | 7, | 11, | 10, | 11, | 3, | 3, | 4, | Suède | |||
| Switzerland | 87 | 87 | 87 | 0 | 0 | 0 | Suisse | ||||||
| United Kingdom | 1, | 1 | 0 | 0 | Royaume-Uni | ||||||||
| Total Europe | 37, | 34, | 35, | 34, | 32, | 33, | 17, | 16, | 16, | 14, | 14, | 15, | Total Europe |
| Uzbekistan | 38 | 28 | 28 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 37 | 28 | 28 | 0 | 0 | 0 | Ouzbékistan |
| Total EECCA | Total EOCAC | ||||||||||||
| Canada | 6, | 5, | 5, | 14, | 13, | 12, | 8, | 7, | 7, | Canada | |||
| United States | 39, | 42, | 42, | 40, | 41, | 41, | 6, | 7, | 8, | 7, | 6, | 6, | Etats-Unis |
| Total North America | 45, | 48, | 48, | 55, | 54, | 54, | 7, | 8, | 8, | 16, | 14, | 14, | Total Amérique du Nord |
| a imports exclude dissolving pulp | a les importations excluent pâte à dissoudre |
| TABLE 8 | |||||||||||||
| PAPER AND PAPERBOARD | PAPIERS ET CARTONS | ||||||||||||
| Data only for those countries providing forecasts - Données uniquement pour les pays fournissant des prévisions | |||||||||||||
| mt | |||||||||||||
| Apparent Consumption | Imports | Exports | |||||||||||
| Country | Consommation Apparente | Production | Imports - Importations | Exports - Exportations | Pays | ||||||||
| Austria | 2, | 1, | 2, | 4, | 3, | 4, | 1, | 1, | 1, | 3, | 2, | 3, | Autriche |
| Cyprus | 56 | 48 | 48 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 56 | 48 | 48 | 0 | 0 | 0 | Chypre |
| Czech Republic | 1, | 1, | 1, | 1, | 1, | 1, | 1, | République tchèque | |||||
| Estonia | 57 | 35 | 35 | 59 | 26 | 26 | Estonie | ||||||
| Finland | 7, | 5, | 6, | 7, | 5, | 5, | Finlande | ||||||
| France | 8, | 7, | 7, | 7, | 6, | 6, | 4, | 4, | 4, | 3, | 3, | 3, | France |
| Germany | 17, | 14, | 17, | 21, | 17, | 21, | 9, | 8, | 9, | 13, | 10, | 13, | Allemagne |
| Hungary | 1, | 1, | 1, | 1, | 1, | 1, | Hongrie | ||||||
| Italy | 11, | 11, | 11, | 8, | 8, | 8, | 5, | 5, | 5, | 3, | 3, | 3, | Italie |
| Latvia | 29 | 30 | 30 | 33 | 35 | 35 | Lettonie | ||||||
| Luxembourg | 26 | 14 | 14 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 27 | 15 | 15 | 1 | 1 | 1 | Luxembourg |
| Malta | 26 | 27 | 28 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 0 | 0 | 0 | Malte |
| Netherlands | 2, | 2, | 2, | 2, | 2, | 2, | 2, | 2, | 2, | 2, | 2, | 2, | Pays-Bas |
| Poland | 7, | 7, | 7, | 5, | 5, | 5, | 4, | 4, | 4, | 2, | 2, | 2, | Pologne |
| Portugal | 1, | 1, | 1, | 2, | 2, | 2, | 1, | 1, | 1, | Portugal | |||
| Serbia | Serbie | ||||||||||||
| Slovakia | 1, | Slovaquie | |||||||||||
| Slovenia | Slovénie | ||||||||||||
| Spain | 7, | 6, | 6, | 6, | 6, | 6, | 2, | 2, | 2, | 2, | 2, | 2, | Espagne |
| Sweden | 8, | 7, | 8, | 8, | 7, | 8, | Suède | ||||||
| Switzerland | 1, | 1, | 1, | 1, | 1, | 1, | Suisse | ||||||
| United Kingdom | 7, | 6, | 6, | 3, | 3, | 3, | 5, | 4, | 4, | 1, | 1, | 1, | Royaume-Uni |
| Total Europe | 72, | 66, | 69, | 83, | 73, | 79, | 43, | 39, | 41, | 53, | 47, | 51, | Total Europe |
| Uzbekistan | 21 | 17 | 17 | Ouzbékistan | |||||||||
| Total EECCA | Total EOCAC | ||||||||||||
| Canada | 5, | 6, | 6, | 9, | 9, | 9, | 2, | 2, | 2, | 6, | 5, | 5, | Canada |
| United States | 64, | 62, | 63, | 65, | 64, | 64, | 8, | 8, | 8, | 9, | 9, | 9, | Etats-Unis |
| Total North America | 69, | 68, | 69, | 75, | 73, | 73, | 10, | 10, | 10, | 16, | 15, | 14, | Total Amérique du Nord |
| TABLE 9 | |||||||||||||||||||
| REMOVALS OF WOOD IN THE ROUGH | QUANTITES ENLEVEES DE BOIS BRUT | ||||||||||||||||||
| TOTAL | TOTAL | ||||||||||||||||||
| m3 - Data only for those countries providing forecasts - Données uniquement pour les pays fournissant des prévisions | |||||||||||||||||||
| Country | Industrial wood - Bois industriels | Wood fuel c Bois de chauffage c | Pays | ||||||||||||||||
| Total | Logs | Pulpwood a | Other b | Total | |||||||||||||||
| Grumes | Bois de trituration a | Autre b | |||||||||||||||||
| Austria | 13, | 11, | 12, | 10, | 8, | 9, | 3, | 2, | 2, | 0 | 0 | 0 | 5, | 5, | 5, | 19, | 16, | 17, | Autriche |
| Cyprus | 3 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 11 | 9 | 8 | 14 | 11 | 10 | Chypre |
| Czech Republic | 20, | 15, | 14, | 14, | 10, | 10, | 5, | 4, | 4, | 4, | 3, | 3, | 25, | 19, | 18, | République tchèque | |||
| Estonia | 6, | 6, | 6, | 4, | 4, | 4, | 2, | 2, | 2, | 51 | 51 | 51 | 4, | 3, | 3, | 10, | 10, | 10, | Estonie |
| Finland | 56, | 53, | 55, | 25, | 22, | 23, | 30, | 30, | 32, | 0 | 0 | 0 | 9, | 9, | 9, | 65, | 62, | 64, | Finlande |
| France | 25, | 25, | 25, | 17, | 17, | 17, | 7, | 7, | 7, | 24, | 24, | 25, | 49, | 49, | 50, | France | |||
| Germany | 56, | 53, | 49, | 44, | 41, | 39, | 11, | 12, | 10, | 22, | 22, | 22, | 78, | 76, | 72, | Allemagne | |||
| Hungary | 2, | 2, | 2, | 1, | 1, | 1, | 1, | 3, | 3, | 3, | 6, | 6, | 6, | Hongrie | |||||
| Italy | 2, | 3, | 3, | 1, | 1, | 1, | 1, | 1, | 10, | 10, | 10, | 13, | 14, | 14, | Italie | ||||
| Latvia | 12, | 12, | 12, | 7, | 7, | 7, | 3, | 3, | 3, | 1, | 1, | 1, | 2, | 3, | 3, | 15, | 15, | 15, | Lettonie |
| Luxembourg | 56 | 38 | 38 | 27 | 15 | 22 | 40 | 45 | 43 | Luxembourg | |||||||||
| Montenegro | 35 | 7 | 5 | Monténégro | |||||||||||||||
| Netherlands | 41 | 39 | 39 | 2, | 2, | 2, | 2, | 2, | 2, | Pays-Bas | |||||||||
| Poland | 38, | 39, | 40, | 18, | 18, | 19, | 19, | 20, | 20, | 1, | 6, | 7, | 7, | 45, | 47, | 48, | Pologne | ||
| Portugal | 12, | 12, | 12, | 2, | 2, | 2, | 9, | 9, | 9, | 2, | 2, | 2, | 14, | 14, | 14, | Portugal | |||
| Serbia | 1, | 1, | 1, | 1, | 1, | 1, | 6, | 6, | 6, | 8, | 8, | 8, | Serbie | ||||||
| Slovakia | 6, | 6, | 6, | 4, | 4, | 4, | 2, | 2, | 2, | 25 | 30 | 30 | 7, | 7, | 7, | Slovaquie | |||
| Slovenia | 2, | 3, | 3, | 2, | 2, | 2, | 45 | 52 | 52 | 1, | 1, | 1, | 4, | 5, | 4, | Slovénie | |||
| Spain | 14, | 15, | 15, | 4, | 4, | 4, | 9, | 10, | 10, | 3, | 3, | 3, | 17, | 19, | 19, | Espagne | |||
| Sweden | 71, | 69, | 69, | 38, | 37, | 37, | 32, | 31, | 31, | 6, | 6, | 6, | 77, | 75, | 75, | Suède | |||
| Switzerland | 3, | 3, | 3, | 2, | 2, | 2, | 12 | 12 | 12 | 1, | 2, | 2, | 4, | 5, | 5, | Suisse | |||
| United Kingdom | 7, | 7, | 7, | 5, | 5, | 5, | 1, | 1, | 1, | 2, | 2, | 2, | 9, | 9, | 9, | Royaume-Uni | |||
| Total Europe | , | , | , | , | , | , | , | , | , | 5, | 5, | 6, | , | , | , | , | , | , | Total Europe |
| Canada | , | , | , | , | , | , | 15, | 14, | 14, | 2, | 2, | 2, | 1, | 1, | 1, | , | , | , | Canada |
| United States | , | , | , | , | , | , | , | , | , | 13, | 13, | 13, | 76, | 76, | 76, | , | , | , | Etats-Unis |
| Total North America | , | , | , | , | , | , | , | , | , | 15, | 16, | 16, | 77, | 78, | 78, | , | , | , | Total Amérique du Nord |
| a | Pulpwood, round and split, as well as chips and particles produced directly | a | Bois de trituration, rondins et quartiers, ainse que plaquettes et particules fabriquées | ||||||||||||||||
| therefrom and used as pulpwood | directement à partir des rondins et quartiers et utilisées comme bois de trituration | ||||||||||||||||||
| b | Pitprops, poles, piling, posts etc. | b | Bois de mine, poteaux, pilotis, piquets etc. | ||||||||||||||||
| c | Including chips and particles produced from wood in the rough and | c | Y compris plaquettes et particules fabriquées à partir du bois brut et utilisées | ||||||||||||||||
| used for energy purposes | à des fins energétiques |
| TABLE 9a | |||||||||||||||||||
| REMOVALS OF WOOD IN THE ROUGH | QUANTITES ENLEVEES DE BOIS BRUT | ||||||||||||||||||
| SOFTWOOD | CONIFERES | ||||||||||||||||||
| m3 - Data only for those countries providing forecasts - Données uniquement pour les pays fournissant des prévisions | |||||||||||||||||||
| Country | Industrial wood - Bois industriels | Wood fuel c Bois de chauffage c | Pays | ||||||||||||||||
| Total | Logs | Pulpwood a | Other b | Total | |||||||||||||||
| Grumes | Bois de trituration a | Autre b | |||||||||||||||||
| Austria | 12, | 10, | 11, | 10, | 8, | 9, | 2, | 2, | 2, | 0 | 0 | 0 | 3, | 3, | 3, | 16, | 13, | 14, | Autriche |
| Cyprus | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 10 | 8 | 7 | 12 | 10 | 9 | Chypre |
| Czech Republic | 19, | 14, | 13, | 14, | 10, | 9, | 5, | 4, | 4, | 3, | 3, | 3, | 23, | 17, | 17, | République tchèque | |||
| Estonia | 4, | 3, | 3, | 3, | 3, | 3, | 26 | 27 | 27 | 1, | 1, | 1, | 5, | 5, | 5, | Estonie | |||
| Finland | 47, | 45, | 47, | 24, | 21, | 22, | 22, | 23, | 25, | 0 | 0 | 0 | 4, | 4, | 4, | 52, | 50, | 52, | Finlande |
| France | 17, | 17, | 16, | 12, | 12, | 12, | 4, | 4, | 4, | 2, | 2, | 2, | 19, | 19, | 19, | France | |||
| Germany | 52, | 50, | 46, | 41, | 38, | 37, | 10, | 11, | 9, | 8, | 9, | 9, | 61, | 59, | 55, | Allemagne | |||
| Hungary | 70 | 53 | 1, | 1, | 1, | Hongrie | |||||||||||||
| Italy | 1, | 2, | 2, | 1, | 1, | 1, | 1, | 1, | 1, | 2, | 3, | 3, | Italie | ||||||
| Latvia | 8, | 7, | 8, | 5, | 5, | 5, | 1, | 1, | 1, | 8, | 8, | 8, | Lettonie | ||||||
| Luxembourg | 10 | 6 | 8 | 27 | 15 | 22 | 17 | 11 | 12 | Luxembourg | |||||||||
| Montenegro | 0 | 3 | 2 | 66 | 65 | 63 | Monténégro | ||||||||||||
| Netherlands | 32 | 30 | 30 | Pays-Bas | |||||||||||||||
| Poland | 31, | 32, | 33, | 15, | 16, | 16, | 15, | 15, | 16, | 3, | 3, | 3, | 35, | 36, | 37, | Pologne | |||
| Portugal | 3, | 3, | 3, | 1, | 1, | 1, | 1, | 1, | 1, | 4, | 4, | 4, | Portugal | ||||||
| Serbia | 66 | 70 | 73 | 35 | 36 | 38 | Serbie | ||||||||||||
| Slovakia | 3, | 3, | 3, | 2, | 2, | 2, | 18 | 20 | 20 | 3, | 3, | 3, | Slovaquie | ||||||
| Slovenia | 1, | 2, | 2, | 1, | 2, | 2, | 4 | 6 | 6 | 2, | 2, | 2, | Slovénie | ||||||
| Spain | 7, | 7, | 7, | 3, | 3, | 3, | 3, | 3, | 3, | 2, | 2, | 2, | 9, | 10, | 10, | Espagne | |||
| Sweden | 64, | 62, | 62, | 38, | 37, | 36, | 26, | 25, | 25, | 3, | 3, | 3, | 67, | 65, | 65, | Suède | |||
| Switzerland | 2, | 2, | 2, | 2, | 2, | 2, | 9 | 9 | 9 | 3, | 3, | 3, | Suisse | ||||||
| United Kingdom | 7, | 7, | 7, | 5, | 5, | 5, | 1, | 1, | 1, | 1, | 1, | 1, | 9, | 8, | 8, | Royaume-Uni | |||
| Total Europe | , | , | , | , | , | , | 99, | , | 99, | 3, | 3, | 3, | 39, | 39, | 39, | , | , | , | Total Europe |
| Canada | , | , | , | , | , | , | 4, | 4, | 4, | , | , | , | Canada | ||||||
| United States | , | , | , | , | , | , | , | , | , | 12, | 12, | 12, | 37, | 37, | 37, | , | , | , | Etats-Unis |
| Total North America | , | , | , | , | , | , | , | , | , | 12, | 12, | 12, | 38, | 38, | 38, | , | , | , | Total Amérique du Nord |
| a | Pulpwood, round and split, as well as chips and particles produced directly | a | Bois de trituration, rondins et quartiers, ainse que plaquettes et particules fabriquées | ||||||||||||||||
| therefrom and used as pulpwood | directement à partir des rondins et quartiers et utilisées comme bois de trituration | ||||||||||||||||||
| b | Pitprops, poles, piling, posts etc. | b | Bois de mine, poteaux, pilotis, piquets etc. | ||||||||||||||||
| c | Including chips and particles produced from wood in the rough and | c | Y compris plaquettes et particules fabriquées à partir du bois brut et utilisées | ||||||||||||||||
| used for energy purposes | à des fins energétiques |
| TABLE 9b | |||||||||||||||||||
| REMOVALS OF WOOD IN THE ROUGH | QUANTITES ENLEVEES DE BOIS BRUT | ||||||||||||||||||
| HARDWOOD | NON-CONIFERES | ||||||||||||||||||
| m3 - Data only for those countries providing forecasts - Données uniquement pour les pays fournissant des prévisions | |||||||||||||||||||
| Country | Industrial wood - Bois industriels | Wood fuel c Bois de chauffage c | Pays | ||||||||||||||||
| Total | Logs | Pulpwood a | Other b | Total | |||||||||||||||
| Grumes | Bois de trituration a | Autre b | |||||||||||||||||
| Austria | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2, | 2, | 2, | 3, | 2, | 2, | Autriche | |||||||||
| Cyprus | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | Chypre |
| Czech Republic | 1, | 1, | 1, | 3 | 4 | 4 | 2, | 1, | 1, | République tchèque | |||||||||
| Estonia | 2, | 2, | 2, | 1, | 1, | 1, | 1, | 1, | 1, | 24 | 24 | 24 | 2, | 2, | 2, | 5, | 4, | 4, | Estonie |
| Finland | 8, | 7, | 7, | 1, | 1, | 1, | 7, | 6, | 6, | 0 | 0 | 0 | 4, | 4, | 4, | 13, | 12, | 12, | Finlande |
| France | 8, | 8, | 8, | 4, | 4, | 4, | 3, | 3, | 3, | 21, | 22, | 23, | 30, | 30, | 31, | France | |||
| Germany | 4, | 3, | 3, | 2, | 2, | 2, | 1, | 1, | 1, | 12 | 10 | 10 | 13, | 13, | 13, | 17, | 17, | 17, | Allemagne |
| Hungary | 2, | 2, | 2, | 1, | 1, | 1, | 3, | 2, | 3, | 5, | 5, | 5, | Hongrie | ||||||
| Italy | 1, | 1, | 1, | 9, | 9, | 9, | 10, | 10, | 10, | Italie | |||||||||
| Latvia | 4, | 4, | 4, | 1, | 1, | 1, | 2, | 2, | 2, | 2, | 2, | 2, | 6, | 6, | 6, | Lettonie | |||
| Luxembourg | 69 | 54 | 47 | 23 | 22 | 18 | 46 | 32 | 30 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 23 | 34 | 30 | 92 | 89 | 78 | Luxembourg |
| Montenegro | 0 | 0 | 0 | 35 | 4 | 3 | Monténégro | ||||||||||||
| Netherlands | 48 | 50 | 50 | 9 | 9 | 9 | 1, | 1, | 1, | 2, | 2, | 2, | Pays-Bas | ||||||
| Poland | 6, | 7, | 7, | 2, | 2, | 2, | 3, | 4, | 4, | 98 | 3, | 3, | 3, | 10, | 10, | 11, | Pologne | ||
| Portugal | 9, | 9, | 9, | 8, | 8, | 8, | 1, | 1, | 1, | 10, | 10, | 10, | Portugal | ||||||
| Serbia | 1, | 1, | 1, | 6, | 6, | 6, | 7, | 7, | 7, | Serbie | |||||||||
| Slovakia | 3, | 3, | 3, | 1, | 1, | 1, | 1, | 2, | 2, | 8 | 10 | 10 | 3, | 4, | 4, | Slovaquie | |||
| Slovenia | 1, | 1, | 41 | 46 | 46 | 1, | 1, | 1, | 2, | 2, | Slovénie | ||||||||
| Spain | 6, | 7, | 7, | 6, | 6, | 6, | 1, | 1, | 1, | 8, | 8, | 8, | Espagne | ||||||
| Sweden | 6, | 6, | 6, | 6, | 5, | 6, | 3, | 3, | 3, | 9, | 9, | 9, | Suède | ||||||
| Switzerland | 3 | 3 | 3 | 1, | 1, | 1, | 1, | 1, | 1, | Suisse | |||||||||
| United Kingdom | 56 | 56 | 56 | 13 | 13 | 13 | 48 | 48 | 48 | Royaume-Uni | |||||||||
| Total Europe | 69, | 68, | 68, | 22, | 21, | 22, | 45, | 44, | 44, | 2, | 2, | 2, | 81, | 81, | 83, | , | , | , | Total Europe |
| Canada | 27, | 27, | 27, | 14, | 14, | 14, | 10, | 10, | 10, | 1, | 1, | 1, | 28, | 28, | 28, | Canada | |||
| United States | 76, | 75, | 74, | 33, | 33, | 34, | 41, | 40, | 38, | 1, | 1, | 1, | 38, | 38, | 38, | , | , | , | Etats-Unis |
| Total North America | , | , | , | 48, | 48, | 49, | 52, | 51, | 49, | 3, | 3, | 3, | 39, | 39, | 39, | , | , | , | Total Amérique du Nord |
| a | Pulpwood, round and split, as well as chips and particles produced directly | a | Bois de trituration, rondins et quartiers, ainse que plaquettes et particules fabriquées | ||||||||||||||||
| therefrom and used as pulpwood | directement à partir des rondins et quartiers et utilisées comme bois de trituration | ||||||||||||||||||
| b | Pitprops, poles, piling, posts etc. | b | Bois de mine, poteaux, pilotis, piquets etc. | ||||||||||||||||
| c | Including chips and particles produced from wood in the rough and | c | Y compris plaquettes et particules fabriquées à partir du bois brut et utilisées | ||||||||||||||||
| used for energy purposes | à des fins energétiques |
| TABLE 10 | |||||||||||||
| SOFTWOOD SAWLOGS | GRUMES DE SCIAGES DES CONIFERES | ||||||||||||
| Data only for those countries providing forecasts - Données uniquement pour les pays fournissant des prévisions | |||||||||||||
| m3 | |||||||||||||
| Apparent Consumption a | Imports | Exports | |||||||||||
| Country | Consommation Apparente a | Production | Imports - Importations | Exports - Exportations | Pays | ||||||||
| Austria | 16, | 13, | 13, | 10, | 8, | 9, | 6, | 5, | 5, | Autriche | |||
| Cyprus | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | Chypre |
| Czech Republic | 8, | 6, | 6, | 14, | 10, | 9, | 6, | 4, | 3, | République tchèque | |||
| Estonia | 3, | 3, | 3, | 3, | 3, | 3, | Estonie | ||||||
| Finland | 24, | 21, | 21, | 24, | 21, | 22, | 79 | 83 | Finlande | ||||
| France | 12, | 12, | 12, | 12, | 12, | 12, | France | ||||||
| Germany | 39, | 35, | 34, | 41, | 38, | 37, | 3, | 3, | 3, | 5, | 5, | 5, | Allemagne |
| Hungary | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | Hongrie | ||||||
| Italy | 1, | 1, | 1, | 1, | 1, | 1, | Italie | ||||||
| Latvia | 6, | 5, | 6, | 5, | 5, | 5, | 1, | Lettonie | |||||
| Luxembourg | Luxembourg | ||||||||||||
| Montenegro | 10 | 9 | 8 | 0 | 0 | 0 | Monténégro | ||||||
| Netherlands | 77 | 80 | 80 | Pays-Bas | |||||||||
| Poland | 14, | 14, | 14, | 15, | 16, | 16, | 1, | 1, | 1, | 2, | 2, | 3, | Pologne |
| Portugal | 1, | 1, | 1, | 1, | 1, | 1, | 43 | 35 | 40 | Portugal | |||
| Serbia | 12 | 9 | 12 | 2 | 6 | 8 | Serbie | ||||||
| Slovakia | 3, | 3, | 3, | 2, | 2, | 2, | 1, | Slovaquie | |||||
| Slovenia | 1, | 1, | 1, | 1, | 2, | 2, | Slovénie | ||||||
| Spain | 3, | 3, | 3, | 3, | 3, | 3, | Espagne | ||||||
| Sweden | 38, | 37, | 37, | 38, | 37, | 36, | 1, | 1, | Suède | ||||
| Switzerland | 2, | 2, | 2, | 2, | 2, | 2, | 55 | 60 | 65 | Suisse | |||
| United Kingdom | 5, | 5, | 5, | 5, | 5, | 5, | 99 | 99 | 99 | Royaume-Uni | |||
| Total Europe | , | , | , | , | , | , | 18, | 16, | 16, | 20, | 18, | 16, | Total Europe |
| Canada | , | , | , | , | , | , | 1, | 1, | 1, | 5, | 6, | 5, | Canada |
| United States | , | , | , | , | , | , | 5, | 4, | 3, | Etats-Unis | |||
| Total North America | , | , | , | , | , | , | 1, | 1, | 1, | 10, | 10, | 9, | Total Amérique du Nord |
| a Countries which did not provide trade data are included in consumption data | a La consommation comprend les pays qui n'ont pas fournies des données sur la commerce |
| TABLE 11 | |||||||||||||
| HARDWOOD SAWLOGS (total) | GRUMES DE SCIAGES DES NON-CONIFERES | ||||||||||||
| Data only for those countries providing forecasts - Données uniquement pour les pays fournissant des prévisions | |||||||||||||
| m3 | |||||||||||||
| Apparent Consumption a | Imports | Exports | |||||||||||
| Country | Consommation Apparente a | Production | Imports - Importations | Exports - Exportations | Pays | ||||||||
| Austria | 90 | 50 | 57 | 45 | 50 | Autriche | |||||||
| Czech Republic | République tchèque | ||||||||||||
| Estonia | 1, | 1, | 1, | 1, | 1, | 1, | 46 | 60 | 60 | 16 | 16 | 16 | Estonie |
| Finland | 1, | 1, | 1, | 1, | 1, | 1, | 32 | 1 | 9 | 1 | 9 | 9 | Finlande |
| France | 3, | 4, | 4, | 4, | 4, | 4, | 1, | France | |||||
| Germany | 2, | 2, | 2, | 2, | 2, | 2, | Allemagne | ||||||
| Hungary | 1, | 1, | 1, | 1, | 1, | 1, | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | Hongrie |
| Italy | 2, | 1, | 1, | 1, | 1, | 1, | 47 | 59 | 59 | Italie | |||
| Latvia | 1, | 1, | 1, | 1, | 1, | 1, | 87 | 40 | 60 | Lettonie | |||
| Luxembourg | 23 | 22 | 18 | 18 | 34 | 34 | Luxembourg | ||||||
| Montenegro | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | Monténégro | ||||||
| Netherlands | 54 | 60 | 60 | 48 | 50 | 50 | 54 | 60 | 60 | 48 | 50 | 50 | Pays-Bas |
| Poland | 2, | 2, | 2, | 2, | 2, | 2, | 80 | 80 | 80 | Pologne | |||
| Portugal | 22 | 25 | 25 | Portugal | |||||||||
| Serbia | 15 | 20 | 28 | 20 | 18 | 22 | Serbie | ||||||
| Slovakia | 1, | 1, | 1, | 1, | 1, | 1, | Slovaquie | ||||||
| Slovenia | 31 | 30 | 30 | Slovénie | |||||||||
| Spain | 61 | 94 | 94 | Espagne | |||||||||
| Sweden | 37 | 37 | 37 | 0 | 0 | 0 | Suède | ||||||
| Switzerland | 35 | 40 | 40 | Suisse | |||||||||
| United Kingdom | 78 | 77 | 77 | 56 | 56 | 56 | 26 | 26 | 26 | 5 | 5 | 5 | Royaume-Uni |
| Total Europe | 21, | 21, | 22, | 22, | 21, | 22, | 3, | 3, | 3, | 4, | 3, | 3, | Total Europe |
| Canada | 15, | 15, | 15, | 14, | 14, | 14, | 1, | 1, | 1, | 70 | 64 | 59 | Canada |
| United States | 31, | 32, | 33, | 33, | 33, | 34, | 2, | 1, | 1, | Etats-Unis | |||
| Total North America | 47, | 48, | 49, | 48, | 48, | 49, | 1, | 1, | 1, | 2, | 1, | 1, | Total Amérique du Nord |
| a Countries which did not provide trade data are included in consumption data | a La consommation comprend les pays qui n'ont pas fournies des données sur la commerce |
| TABLE 11a | |||||||||||||
| HARDWOOD LOGS (temperate) | GRUMES DE NON-CONIFERES (zone tempérée) | ||||||||||||
| Data only for those countries providing forecasts - Données uniquement pour les pays fournissant des prévisions | |||||||||||||
| m3 | |||||||||||||
| Apparent Consumption a | Imports | Exports | |||||||||||
| Country | Consommation Apparente a | Production | Imports - Importations | Exports - Exportations | Pays | ||||||||
| Austria | 90 | 50 | 57 | 45 | 50 | Autriche | |||||||
| Czech Republic | République tchèque | ||||||||||||
| Estonia | 1, | 1, | 1, | 1, | 1, | 1, | 46 | 60 | 60 | 16 | 16 | 16 | Estonie |
| Finland | 1, | 1, | 1, | 1, | 1, | 1, | 32 | 1 | 9 | 1 | 9 | 9 | Finlande |
| France | 3, | 3, | 4, | 4, | 4, | 4, | 72 | 75 | 75 | 1, | France | ||
| Germany | 2, | 2, | 2, | 2, | 2, | 2, | Allemagne | ||||||
| Hungary | 1, | 1, | 1, | 1, | 1, | 1, | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | Hongrie |
| Italy | 2, | 1, | 1, | 1, | 1, | 1, | 42 | 39 | 39 | Italie | |||
| Latvia | 1, | 1, | 1, | 1, | 1, | 1, | 87 | 40 | 60 | Lettonie | |||
| Luxembourg | 23 | 22 | 18 | 18 | 34 | 34 | Luxembourg | ||||||
| Montenegro | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | Monténégro | ||||||
| Netherlands | 46 | 55 | 55 | 48 | 50 | 50 | 42 | 50 | 50 | 44 | 45 | 45 | Pays-Bas |
| Poland | 2, | 2, | 2, | 2, | 2, | 2, | 78 | 77 | 77 | Pologne | |||
| Portugal | 17 | 20 | 19 | Portugal | |||||||||
| Serbia | 14 | 19 | 27 | 20 | 18 | 22 | Serbie | ||||||
| Slovakia | 1, | 1, | 1, | 1, | 1, | 1, | Slovaquie | ||||||
| Slovenia | 30 | 30 | 30 | Slovénie | |||||||||
| Spain | 61 | 94 | 94 | Espagne | |||||||||
| Sweden | 37 | 37 | 37 | 0 | 0 | 0 | Suède | ||||||
| Switzerland | 35 | 40 | 40 | Suisse | |||||||||
| United Kingdom | 76 | 75 | 75 | 56 | 56 | 56 | 24 | 24 | 24 | 5 | 5 | 5 | Royaume-Uni |
| Total Europe | 21, | 21, | 21, | 22, | 21, | 22, | 3, | 3, | 3, | 3, | 3, | 3, | Total Europe |
| Canada | 15, | 15, | 15, | 14, | 14, | 14, | 1, | 1, | 1, | 70 | 64 | 59 | Canada |
| United States | 31, | 32, | 33, | 33, | 33, | 34, | 2, | 1, | 1, | Etats-Unis | |||
| Total North America | 47, | 48, | 49, | 48, | 48, | 49, | 1, | 1, | 1, | 2, | 1, | 1, | Total Amérique du Nord |
| a Countries which did not provide trade data are included in consumption data | a La consommation comprend les pays qui n'ont pas fournies des données sur la commerce |
| TABLE 11b | |||||||||||
| HARDWOOD LOGS (tropical) | GRUMES DE NON-CONIFERES (tropicale) | ||||||||||
| Data only for those countries providing forecasts - Données uniquement pour les pays fournissant des prévisions | |||||||||||
| m3 | |||||||||||
| Net Trade | Imports | Exports | |||||||||
| Country | Commerce Net | Production | Imports - Importations | Exports - Exportations | Pays | ||||||
| France | 44 | 45 | 45 | 3 | 3 | 3 | France | ||||
| Germany | -5 | -5 | -5 | 10 | 10 | 10 | 5 | 5 | 5 | Allemagne | |
| Italy | 11 | 11 | 25 | 9 | 9 | 4 | 20 | 20 | Italie | ||
| Netherlands | -8 | -5 | -5 | 12 | 10 | 10 | 4 | 5 | 5 | Pays-Bas | |
| Poland | -2 | -3 | -3 | 2 | 3 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 0 | Pologne | |
| Portugal | 21 | 20 | 19 | 5 | 5 | 6 | Portugal | ||||
| Serbia | -1 | -1 | -1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | Serbie | |
| Slovenia | -1 | -0 | -0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | Slovénie | |
| Spain | -6 | -7 | -7 | 6 | 7 | 7 | 0 | 0 | 0 | Espagne | |
| United Kingdom | -2 | -2 | -2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | Royaume-Uni | |
| Total Europe | 22 | 38 | 39 | Total Europe | |||||||
| United States | -1 | -3 | -1 | 2 | 4 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 1 | Etats-Unis | |
| Total North America | -1 | -3 | -1 | 2 | 4 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 1 | Total Amérique du Nord |
| TABLE 12 | |||||
| PULPWOOD (total) | BOIS DE TRITURATION (total) | ||||
| Data only for those countries providing forecasts - Données uniquement pour les pays fournissant des prévisions | |||||
| m3 | |||||
| Apparent Consumption a | Imports | Exports | |||
| Country | Consommation Apparente a | Production | Imports - Importations | Exports - Exportations | Pays |
аналитика форекс gbp кaртa мирa форекс вспомогательные индикаторы форекс как платят налоги трейдеры валютного рынка форекс лучшие индикаторы для входа индикаторы измерения температуры щитовые дмитрий котенко форекс клипaрт для форекс имхо на форексе дц форекс брокер отзывы безрисковая комбинация форекс индикаторы рынка ферросплавов