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

« USPTO Expands First Action Interview Pilot Program | Main | Biotech/Pharma Docket »

October 06, 2009

Comments

Kevin,

I'm with you. This Locke lette is more likely to stir up opposition to, rather than support for, S. 515.

After the "Tafas Affair," I give an absolute unqualified "thumbs down" on granting the PTO substantive rulemaking authority. That would be only an invitation for further abuse.

But what I find astonishing is the statement in the Locke letter that "At a minimum, USPTO should have procedural rulemaking authority over proceedings in the agency." They already had that authority before Tafas. Put it this way what additional "procedural rulemaking authority" is the PTO looking for?

The discussion of "Assessment of Damages" is based on "old tapes" and especially old data. It certainly doesn't reflect the recent Lucent Technologies case which shows the Federal Circuit is no longer (if it ever was) "asleep at the switch" when it sees a mega damage award which is based on flimsy or nonexistent evidence. The Georgia-Pacific factors (including the "entire market value" rule) work as the recent Lucent Technologies case shows. There's no need now to upset this applecart.

Like I've said before, I would be perfectly happy if S. 515 and its "evil twin" H.R. 1260 simply sank with no survivors.

"We believe S. 515 incorporates the essential elements of patent reform..."

Sure, just what Microsoft and their thieving pals want.

Patent reform is a fraud on America...
Please see http://truereform.piausa.org/ for a different/opposing view on patent reform.

The comments to this entry are closed.

August 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