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

« Anti-Reverse Payment Legislation Introduced in the House | Main | Federal Circuit Issues Significant Biotech Decisions »

April 02, 2009

Comments

Kevin,

Seems more like "politics as usual" in how this oxymoronic "patent law reform" legislation was handled. Other than the post-grant opposition (which the USPTO hasn't got the ability or resources to handle) and interlocutory appeal (expect the Federal Circuit to reduce such appeals to rarely approved, if you believe the Chief Judge's opposition) provisions, we can probably live with modified S. 515, although it's hardly "reform" in any sense of the word. Care for any sausage?

Specter honored by biotech group
The national biotechnology lobbying group Biotechnology Industry Organization has named Sen. Arlen Specter a legislator of the year.
The group commended Specter for his work as ranking member of the Judiciary Committee, where the group says Specter worked to increase funding at the National Institutes of Health, and his advocacy of embryonic stem cell research.

from http://biotechday.blogspot.com/

Thanks, Scribo. No kudos about his work on patent reform?

please see http://truereform.piausa.org/ for a different/opposing view on patent reform

a useful article on the best mode issue by someone who is currently clerking at the fed cir:

http://64.237.99.107/media/pnc/0/media.760.pdf

Dear Moelarry (no curly?):

Thanks for the link. I assume you mean a view opposing reform, since our use of quotation marks whenever we use the term should indicate how highly we regard the current efforts.

Thanks for the comment, and the info.

Dear ee:

Although a little dated (the article is from 2005), the situation has not changed - there is really no good reason to strike the best mode requirement. Harmonization is no excuse, and eliminating it will simply encourage applicants to hide the "tricks" or "tweaks" needed to make full use of an invention. I also think the writer is correct, that the Supreme Court might have some difficulty with eliminating a provision that falls squarely within the Constitutional justification for patents. This is particularly true with regard to events that have occurred since the article was written (like KSR v. Teleflex), where the Court has gone out of its way to remind everyone that the provisions in the Constitution are limits on Congressional power.

Thanks for the comment, and the link.

The comments to this entry are closed.

June 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