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

« Court Report | Main | Follow-on Biologics News Briefs - No. 13 »

September 20, 2010

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d83451ca1469e201348789d786970c

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference IPO Announces Support for Patent Reform Act of 2010:

Comments

"IPO is generally in favor of the bill's provisions aimed at improving patent quality, including allowing third parties to submit prior art for at least six months after publication and the new first-window post-grant review proceeding."

The present re-exam procedure is already abused by infringers who file sequential requests to a PTO that is all too eager to grant. As judge Michel says, the present 'substantial new question of patentability' standard is "hardly any standard at all". Let's not make matters even worse.

Just because they call it “reform” doesn’t mean it is. Please see http://truereform.piausa.org/ for a different/opposing view on patent reform.

Many will particularly welcome the inclusion of a "competitive injury" provision as limitation on false marking patent suits. In other respects, however, I find the proposed patent reform act inadequate in confronting the patent system's current, urgent concerns.
http://www.aminn.org/webcast-aipr-patent-reform-presentation-us-patent-and-trademark-office

The comments to this entry are closed.

September 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