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
Juristat #4 Overall Rank

E-mail Newsletter

  • Enter your e-mail address below to receive the "Patent Docs" e-mail newsletter.

Contact the Docs


  • "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 #8 Overall Rank


« AMP v. USPTO: Appellees' Brief | Main | Stanford Law Review Symposium »

January 13, 2011


"... patent practitioners and applicants will watch with interest to see whether the Republican-controlled Judiciary Committee can introduce and pass patent reform legislation ..."
... please?

I won't hold my breath waiting for comprehensive patent reform. Fortunately, repeated patent reform failure has reportedly shown our members of Congress the futility of pursuing such "comprehensive" reform, and legislators have jettisoned this goal in favor of a more incremental approach. That being the case, perhaps we can reasonably anticipate the passage of individual bills that separately address specific failings of the patent system: e.g., fee diversion, USPTO fee setting authority, false marking damages, etc. At this point, I'll take what I can get.

The comments to this entry are closed.

May 2024

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