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

« Biotech/Pharma Docket | Main | ACI FDA Boot Camp »

January 20, 2011

Comments

I'd like to add Sec. 18: PTO to accept color images in biotech cases. Its 2011 people, and we're all filing electronically anyway.

Hi Kevin,
Just this morning I got a tip from Greg Aharonian about what the new bill might look like. I haven't had a chance to read it yet, but I am reasonably certain that it will be pretty much the same as the failed 2010 S. 515 bill.
http://www.bustpatents.com/PatRef2011.pdf

I had heard that the bill was going to be about the same again this year, which is only marginally less destructive of patent rights than the bill proposed back in 2007, the S. 1145 bill. It was very interesting that the last bill, S. 515, expired largely because the large high-tech firms that had been lobbying for it so diligently withdrew their support of it when the Senate had to back away from the damages portion of the bill to have any hope of it's passage or even getting it to the Senate floor for debate and a possible vote. Has anybody heard yet when the new bill might be brought out of the judiciary committee to the Senate? I think I need to quaff about 2 or 3 quick glasses of Kool-Aid this morning!

Cheers,
Stan~

If he put a section in about gene sequences presumed to be in the prior art as well he'd get this thing a sailin' thro.

"I'd like to add Sec. 18: PTO to accept color images in biotech cases. Its 2011 people, and we're all filing electronically anyway."

They still don't print right at publishing time tho. If you could get them to start publishing in some limited color then that'd be coo. Maybe increase your filing fee to cover whatever costs.

Reality check, 6 - Congressman Beccera has introduced his anti-gene patenting legislation at least twice, and the result has been the Congressional equivalent of the sound of crickets. But what I wouldn't mind is a hearing where folks who actually understand patent law and genetic technology got a chance to explain it to the rest of the populace - that would open a few eyes.

"Reality check, 6 - Congressman Beccera has introduced his anti-gene patenting legislation at least twice, and the result has been the Congressional equivalent of the sound of crickets. But what I wouldn't mind is a hearing where folks who actually understand patent law and genetic technology got a chance to explain it to the rest of the populace - that would open a few eyes."

Wait, wasn't that you on national television not long ago?

Again, let's talk reality check.

Kevin,

The Phoenix of S. 515 once more rises from the ashes. What it proposes is unnecessary (such as the provision on damages in view of Lucent and ILOC), won't help where it's needed most (i.e., the patent examination process), will create disadvantages for innovative American small businesses (e.g., first to file), and will add burdens which the USPTO won't be able to handle (post-grant oppositions). If only Congress would simply let sleeping dogs lie.

I expect the hearing would last more than 45 seconds. And hope that the Members of Congress were more interested in the facts than a good "story."

I haven't checked out the text yet, but from the synopses I've read it sounds like Leahy didn't include any provisions for discontinuing fee diversion in his supposed "patent reform" bill. Is he for real? I realize that, as a congressman, he might not be too eager to cut off a source of revenue for the legislature; but enough is enough. Also, I think this proposed legislation has way too many contentious issues to pass. If Leahy really wants to enact patent reform, I suspect that he may have to be somewhat less ambitious and more incrementalist in his approach.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/may/25/patent-reform-misses-the-mark/

The comments to this entry are closed.

May 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