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
Juristant #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

« In re Gleave (Fed. Cir. 2009) | Main | Third Follow-on Biologics Bill Introduced in 111th Congress »

March 31, 2009

Comments

Kevin,

The concerns raised by Senator Kyl are significant. For example, how Congress can believe that the PTO is capable of handling post-grant review when they can't even keep up with pre-grant review strikes me as an "Alice in Wonderland" mindset. That doesn't bode well for this package being put together with any sort of rationality or cohesiveness. But that's unfortunately par for the course with Congress.

Kevin,

Also, Mark Twain was right, Congress is the "insane asylum for the helpless." Just when you thought Congress couldn't do anything dumber, it surprises you with a new level of rhetorical nonsense: "an interesting question." What in the world is that supposed to mean?

Dear EG:

The current economic crisis has certainly focused everyone on the importance of not harming the benefits of the patent system; that's one reason (utter failure on the part of Leahy and the IT crowd the last time, and more attention from interested stakeholders this time are others) why the Leahy bill was initially less ambitious in its "reforms." But the proof of what's at stake will be in the pudding of these amendments, so we will just have to wait and see.

Thanks for the comment.

Sen. Kyl' attitude and his proposed exception (sect 13 of his version of the bill)is a clear and crass example of who gets bought in Congress?

The comments to this entry are closed.

October 2019

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