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.

Become a Fan

« Biotech/Pharma Docket | Main | Patent Profile: Thrasos Therapeutics Announces Issuance of U.S. Patent No. 7,482,329 »

March 03, 2009

Comments

Don,

I mentioned the introduction of this new version of so-called "patent law reform" to Kevin yesterday. This new version is not as bad as the old version (e.g., no AQSs and no "substantive rulemaking" authority for the USPTO), but it also does nothing to address the inequitable conduct standard. Overall, this new version is still tilted in favor of the corporate Goliahs in the computer/IT area (aka the so-called Coaltion for Patent Fairness, which is an oxymoronic title for this organization) and against the Davids of Innovation. As far as I'm concerned, the supporters of this bill are the bought and paid for henchman of the CFPF, so this new version is already "red flagged" and has troublesome implications for American jobs specifically and American global competitivenss generally. That's my 2 cents.

Last time there was a recession we responded with the Federal Circuit and stronger patents (1982) - why would weak patents help innovation?

I want a provision for disabled American veterens mandating a $200 fee in full for a small entity filing electronicly with no more than three claims to receive a utility patent, and a %50 fee to advertise his invention in the patent office's Gazette for six months.

The comments to this entry are closed.

December 2016

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