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

« Secure Axcess, LLC v. PNC Bank National Association (Fed. Cir. 2017) | Main | U.S. Chamber of Commerce Releases International IP Index »

March 01, 2017

Comments

334 respondents seems like an awfully small sample size.

What is the breakdown of respondents per art field?

The question of whether the AIA post-grant procedures yield the benefits proponents predicted depends on how it compares to the procedure they replaced -- vis. inter partes review. The USPTO was the initial proponent of post-grant review as a substitute for that procedure, which it regarded as inadequate to its purpose and wasteful for the agency. I know because, then PTO GC, I was tasked with coming up with the new procedures that ultimately were enacted. Questionnaires that are not capable of making that comparison won't answer the question.

The benefits of IPR (and CBMs) are already apparent: they are a a fast and relatively inexpensive way to get rid of junk patents. IPRs have helped to reduce both the level and the overall industry impact of patent trolling.

Why do you think professional patent shills and the worst attorneys who ever walked the earth screech about them non-stop?

Don, Kevin, your comments section appears to have been infected with the individual known variously as Melvin Mooney, MM, and other monikers, including "Scooby Don't" on this blog. Pity.

The opinions of outside counsel are irrelevant. Of course the PTAB is beneficial to them. Like asking a trial lawyer if an increase in auto accidents is beneficial.

The comments to this entry are closed.

July 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 31