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.

Pharma-50-transparent_216px_red

Become a Fan

« Trustees of Columbia University v. Illumina, Inc. (Fed Cir. 2015) | Main | Microsoft Corporation v. Proxyconn, Inc. (Fed. Cir. 2015) »

August 04, 2015

Comments

I have to wonder if the Executive Office is going to use any of the Goodlatte "research" on the Troll problem for its answer (long overdue now) to Ron Katznelson's request for substantiating that Office's blatant propaganda piece.

Yes, I do remain...

One would think that legislation that does not cause either a tax increase, or a government increase, or face a presidential veto, would be legislation that Republicans would want to show that they can get enacted now that they control both houses of Congress? But it increasingly appears that they cannot agree among themselves about what should be in this legislation or even if there should be ANY new patent legislation. Ironically, those opposed to any new patent legislation seem to include those most wanting the proposed changes in IPRs in this proposed legislation.

Paul: I think there is a healthy amount of skepticism that any patent "reform" efforts will either be hijacked by those opposed to patents in the first place or misinterpreted by the courts. So those industries that rely on patents are a little leery of these bills, even if they contain provisions that may benefit them.

Thanks for the comment.

The comments to this entry are closed.

November 2017

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