By Kevin E. Noonan --
Yesterday, we reported on the introduction of a new patent reform bill (S. 3600) in the Senate (see "Senator Kyl's Patent Reform Bill Introduced Today"). Soon after Senator Jon Kyl's (R-AZ) patent reform bill was introduced, the Biotechnology Industry Organization (BIO) released a statement in which BIO President and CEO Jim Greenwood (below) called the legislation "a vast improvement" over S. 1145, the patent "reform" bill passed by the Senate Judiciary Committee that failed to reach a floor vote, and H.R. 1983 which was passed by the House of Representatives last fall. Mr. Greenwood thanked Senator Kyl for taking into consideration the "discrete issues and concerns raised by BIO, patient groups, universities, labor unions and many other stakeholders over the past two years." He said that the damages provisions would enhance consistent enforcement while not "manipulating the rules to favor infringers," and that the post-grant review provisions were superior to S. 1145, because while providing a second window for challenging a patent, the grounds of these challengers were "considerably more narrow" that the "broad new 
administrative challenge system" contemplated in S. 1145. Mr. Greenwood also reiterated BIO's position that the organization "remains committed to working with all Senators and Representatives, their staff, and other stakeholders to reach agreement on how best to improve our nation's patent system in a way that promotes innovation, improves patent quality and increases public participation," calling the Kyl bill " an important step forward in enacting patent reform that will benefit the American economy."
For additional information regarding this and other related topics, please see:
• "Senator Kyl's Patent Reform Bill Introduced Today," September 25, 2008
• "Senate Patent Reform Legislation -- One Old Bill and One New Bill," August 11, 2008
• "BIO Commends Senator Specter for Patent Reform Stance," April 10, 2008
• "Judge Michel Doesn't Think Much of Senate Bill S. 1145, Either," February 20, 2008
• "The (Un)Intended Consequences of the Law," February 18, 2008
• "BIO CEO Provides Update on Patent Reform and Follow-on Biologics Legislation - Part I," February 14, 2008
• "BIO Report Indicts "Patent Reform" Proponents," February 13, 2008
• "Patent Reform and Infringement Damages: Some Economic Reasoning," February 5, 2008
• "Department of Commerce Sends Letter on Patent Reform to Senator Leahy," February 4, 2008
• "Biotech and Pharma Opposition to Senate Patent Reform Bill," February 3, 2008
• "The Letters Keep Coming Over the Senate Transom," January 30, 2008
• "U.S. Senate Mailbox Filling with Letters against Passage of Patent 'Reform' Bill: An Update," January 23, 2008
• "U.S. Senate Mailbox Filling with Letters against Passage of Patent 'Reform' Bill," January 18, 2008
• "Patent Reform Discussed on Senate Floor," December 21, 2007
• "Enjoined New Rules and Patent Reform Finally Appearing on Biotech Industry's Radar," December 20, 2007
• "Chinese IP Judge Discusses Implications of U.S. Patent Reform Bill and Two Congressmen Heed Warning," December 17, 2007
• "IPO President Seeks Deletion of Patent Reform Provision," December 12, 2007
• "Senate May Act on Patent 'Reform' Bill in the New Year," December 2, 2007
• "The Wall Street Journal Gets It Half Right," November 5, 2007
• "BIO CEO Provides Briefing on Follow-On Biologics and Patent Reform," September 18, 2007
• "Patent 'Reform' Bill Passes House of Representatives," September 9, 2007
• "Reversal in Microsoft Case Weakens Patent Reform Argument," August 7, 2007
• "San Francisco Chronicle Opines on Patent Reform," August 6, 2007
• "Patent Reform Bill to Be Delayed?" June 12, 2007
• "Senate Judiciary Committee Holds Hearing on Patent Reform," June 10, 2007
Comments