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: A Strict Approach to Priority Entitlement by the UK Court of Appeal | Main | Webinar on Trade Secret vs. Patent Protection After AIA »

February 20, 2014

Comments

If the current occupant of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue wants to improve the patent system, there are some steps that seem better suited for reaching that goal than what his minions announced yesterday. For example, he could appoint a real director at the PTO, preferably one who *isn't* a shill for the established players in Silicon Valley or Armonk. This would allow the PTO to stop operating like a beheaded chicken. If he thinks crowd sourcing is a good way to attack granted but invalid patents, a post-facto solution if ever there was, why not figure out a way to make use of crowd sourcing in the examination process, to *prevent* those invalid patents from being issued in the first place? I'm not impressed, but then I've learned not to expect much from this POTUS in anything he does.

Andrew,

Our current Chief Executive has been hypocritical in his misuse of Executive Orders. And as a former Constitutional Law prof, he knows better, so I’m giving him no slack at all on this.

This misuse unfortunately has now invaded are our area of the law. With respect to this so-called "transparency" proposal to have those allegedly with “attributable ownership” disclose that fact, under penalty of abandonment of the application involved, I’ve yet to see anyone give me a plausible basis in the patent statutes for this rule. For example, the express letter and intent of the assignment statute (35 USC 261) provides no basis for this proposed attributable ownership” rule. This is yet another example of the Executive Branch trying to do an illegal and unconstitutional "end run" around Congress.

The stench of partisanship is overwhelming.

I wish that they would better consider use of the word "troll" (Cf the wiki on this term: it's a supernatural being orginating from Norse mythology). Every time I hear someone worried about 'trolls' or the like, I think of some of my former Patent Assertion Entity clients, which included, e.g. small mom and pop inventors and research universities. When I think of this administration saying innovation is at risk by such trolls -- i wonder who they're really protecting... is it the major high tech players like go*gle, app*e, f**book, etc... ??

I think it is -- nice that they all seem to say the problem is 'frivolous' litigation -- but don't you think the Third Branch of the government should be best equipped to handle this?

Very annoyed by this situation (and a purported Deputy Director who's already itching for more reform, even though the AIA only finished kicking in last year).

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