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.
2018 Juristant Badge - MBHB_165
Juristat #4 Overall Rank

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


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.
Juristat_165
Juristat #8 Overall Rank

Pharma-50-transparent_216px_red

« FDA Makes Changes in Erythropoietin Labeling | Main | JEC Holds Hearing on Drug Pricing; GPhA Lobbies for Follow-on Biologics Pathway »

July 30, 2008

Comments

I agree with Dr. Mathur that the proposed bill would severely damage the patent system. What she fails to understand is that bad patents which will inevitably issue from time to time are inconsequential. Bad patents are not litigated because they cannot get funded. It costs about 2-5 million to litigate a patent and no one in their right mind is going to throw good money after bad. The only use to which such patents are made is to paper the inventor’s bathroom wall.

Such is the danger of relying exclusively on educators on matters of critical public policy. If she had working experience within the patent system, R&D, finance, and litigation, she would understand. If Congress truly wants to get this right, all they need do is ask small entities, the parties who more often than not are responsible for major technological breakthroughs. Any bill which would ignore that segment, which the present bill largely has, is destined to make a complete mess of the patent system.

"Dr. Mathur notes that such proceedings are not very effective since only 10% of reexaminations result in patent revocation."

How about the ones which result in broad claims being either cancelled or narrowed?

The comments to this entry are closed.

August 2020

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