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

« USPTO News Briefs | Main | ACI Life Sciences Collaborative Agreements and Acquisitions Conference »

December 20, 2012

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d83451ca1469e2017c34d74914970b

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Congressional Corrections Regarding H.R. 6621:

Comments

Hard to believe the lack of understanding among our representatives about this issue and how the patent system really works in general. I am not sure which is worse-someone like Rep. Rohrbacher who knows just enough about the system to be dangerous or someone like Rep. Smith who does not appear to have a clue.

ScottE,

Not hard to believe after seeing the AIA (Abominable Inane Act) passed. And both types of knowledge (partial knowledge and complete cluelessness) are trouble.

From the article;

"Since passage of the AIPA, patent information is public ~18 months after the earliest priority date unless the applicant "take action" to keep it private."

This is correct.


"That is a policy decision made long ago, in keeping with the belief that harmonizing U.S. and rest-of-the-world patent practice would be generally beneficial..."

This is PARTIALLY correct (the compromise agreement is a far bit more nuanced).


"... and that there was an advantage to encouraging applicants to speed their applications to allowance in light of the disclosure by publication 18 months after filing."

This is completely false, as the applicant has no effective control over the speed of the application process to allowance.

Quite in fact, the notion of PTA was SUPPOSED to ensure that the OFFICE held itself accountable for what you attribute to the applicant.

We see how THAT has gone...

ps

I posted on another thread the deleterious unintended consequences of forced publication and in essence the violation of the traditional Quid Pro Quo, and repeat that portion here for convenience:

With publication prior to grant, the government (and the public) have everything (and everything that will ever possibly come from) the application as filed. The extremely thin Quid provided is under attack from the get go (see current views of the 'evils' of DOE for example), and amendments to initial claims - something that should not be discouraged - are discouraged. Further, the Office has no reason to be in a hurry to examine that which is already taken as Quo. An important stick has been removed from the ability to create an impetus for the Office to examine expeditiously. The move to publish does in fact have a strong correlation to the increase in backlog (each component - unexamined, RCE and appeal queues), the previous trend to put NO into inNOvation, and a push to weaken patent rights under the hooded guise of globalism (which people should keep in mind naturally favors more the large and established titans of industry).

The comments to this entry are closed.

October 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