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

« Streck, Inc. v. Research & Diagnostic Systems, Inc. (Fed. Cir. 2012) | Main | Conference & CLE Calendar »

January 26, 2012

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d83451ca1469e201630032c347970d

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference USPTO News Briefs:

Comments

Don,

You can see the "hand writing on the wall" as to where this requirement by the AIA (Abominable Inane Act) to report on the impact of patented genetic testing on independent second opinions is heading: if the ruling in AMP v. USPTO doesn't enable such testing to provide independent second opinions, Congress is threatening to legislate it in. Oh boy, I can just see another "compulsory licensing" provision for such patented genetic testing, just like the compulsory licensing provisions for catalytic devices under the Clean Air Act. As usual, Congress is clueless that such "compulsory licensing" will likely mean diminished activity in developing such genetic testing. Businesses aren't going to invest money in research which they can't recoup because they have to make it "freely available" due to compulsory licensing.

Hopefully the choice of locale for the first satellite office will boost Detroit's economy -- which needs all the help that it can get. It will be interesting to see whether California, Colorado, or Nevada wins out for the West Coast location. From the criteria listed in this post, one wonders whether Silicon Valley has a chance of making the cut, if the USPTO is making its determination based partly on cost of living. Otherwise, it would seem to be a logical choice.
http://www.aminn.org/patent-legislation

The comments to this entry are closed.

December 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