E-mail Newsletter

  • Enter your e-mail address below to receive the "Patent Docs" e-mail newsletter.

Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner

Contact the Docs

Docs on Twitter


About the Authors

  • The Authors and Contributors of "Patent Docs" are patent attorneys and agents, many of whom hold doctorates in a diverse array of disciplines.

Disclaimer

  • "Patent Docs" does not contain any legal advice whatsoever. This weblog is for informational purposes only, and its publication does not create an attorney-client relationship. In addition, nothing on "Patent Docs" constitutes a solicitation for business. This weblog is intended primarily for other attorneys. Moreover, "Patent Docs" is the personal weblog of the Authors; it is not edited by the Authors' employers or clients and, as such, no part of this weblog may be so attributed. All posts on "Patent Docs" should be double-checked for their accuracy and current applicability.

  • Law Blogs

Become a Fan

« Once Again, The New Yorker Gets It Wrong on Patents -- Update | Main | Patent Profile: Ulysses Pharmaceuticals Announces Issuance of Patent for Novel Class of Antibiotics »

August 11, 2008

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d83451ca1469e200e553df68768833

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Senate Patent Reform Legislation -- One Old Bill and One New Bill:

Comments

Don,

I do hope this Kyl effort goes no further than S. 1145 did. S. 1145 was bad enough, and I, like many others, are glad it died, at least for this term of Congress. We don't need "phoenix arising from the ashes" now. Kyl's proposal would be "rushed" effort at best (given the approaching elections in November), and what we don't need here is "rushed" bill that, like S. 1145, is poorly thought through and driven strictly by the "politics".

The whole problem with "quality" submissions is that the practitioner is "damned if he does, damned if he doesn't."
If he admits that certain elements are in the Prior art, then s/he is making an admission. If he doesn't (and they ARE there), then s/he may be guilty of inequitable conduct.
PROPOSED SOLUTION #1:
There is a duty to disclose a ref on an IDS. The applicant has the choise of characterizing the ref or NOT. If the applicant does NOT characterize the ref then:
a) there is no inequitable conduct;
b) there is NO presumption of validity over the reference.
PROPOSED SOLUTION #2:
We must file 'quality submissions.' Anything we say in these submissions is, by definitino, NOT construed as an admission taht something is prior art, and is not admissable evidence in litigation.
PROPOSES SOLUTION #3:
like the proposed legistlation - however, the only 'punishment' for Inequitable Conduct is that there is no presumption of validity for the mischaracterized reference.
-------
I don't like these "quality submissions' any more than the rest of you, but since it seems that CPF $$$ is flowing and some sort of 'reform' is inevitable (unfortunately), it is important for teh patent bar to come up with proposals so that patent reform slightly devalues patents (say by 20-30%), rather than gutting them and devaluing patents by 95%.

Thoughts?

please see http://www.piausa.org/ for a different/opposing view on patent reform

The comments to this entry are closed.

July 2014

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
    1 2 3 4 5
6 7 8 9 10 11 12
13 14 15 16 17 18 19
20 21 22 23 24 25 26
27 28 29 30 31