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

« News from Abroad: Parliament Approves EU Unitary Patent Package | Main | Congressional Misunderstandings (Apparently) Motivate H.R. 6621 »

December 18, 2012

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d83451ca1469e2017ee666f488970d

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference The Plot Thickens around H.R. 6621 -- Updated:

Comments

Thanks for the update. Conspicuously absent from the reporting requirements of the revised bill are a requirement to provide the whole timeline of prosecution for each of these cases. That would allow the public to identify PTO delay in cases in which there hasn't been a protracted interference or appeal to the BPAI or the courts. As valuable as that information would be by itself, were it to be coupled with the filing date and the name of the inventor, it could corroborate the suspicion that this provision is an attempt by the PTO to target certain individuals that certain people in the PTO don't like. One would think that the PTO would welcome the opportunity to dispel such rumors.

The bill referred to in this story actually did pass the House 308-89. Please make the correction. Thank you

Ms. Setmayer:

The post has been updated to indicate that the bill passed by a 308-89 vote. Thank you for alerting us to the bill's passage.

Don

Donald Z- I am very sorry to hear of that. Did it pass as written originally? Lamar doesn't seem to have much of a clue in my opinion, after watching what he tried to champion in various Patent Reform efforts. Perhaps his pals at wherever were leaning on him to produce what they wanted in no uncertain terms? Of course nobody will ever know, and Lamar will probably continue on, no matter what anyone happens to think of him and his actions.

Stan~

And then again, there is Senator Patrick Leahy, hailing from Vermont, the IBM State. They got what they wanted, but now they seem to want more. Pretty depressing from an independent's perspective. All big business, all the time, at whatever cost.

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