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 -- Briefing Update III | Main | Biotech/Pharma Docket »

February 09, 2011



Well, the Phoenix once more arises from the ashes. S. 23 is no more palatable to me than was S. 515 and its predecessors. S. 23, like S. 515 and its predecessors, still basically fails to directly address the fundamental problem, which is the initial patent examination process in the PTO. Post-grant opposition doesn't do it, and the PTO doesn't have the resources to administrate post-grant oppositions effectively or timely, as evidenced by the tardiness in administering reexams. Calling S. 23 "reform" is simply a fraud, as others have said.

There is no way that the USPTO can get itself on firm footing any time very soon, unless the legislature stops raiding its revenue. Michel is correct; putting an end to fee diversion is essential. All other patent reform issues pale in comparison.

Kevin, I just wanted to let you know that the first sentence says "Patent Reform Act of 2010" instead of 2011, which I think would help make this great post easier to search for. Thanks!

We in the patent community are fortunate to have Michel as an advocate for these issues. I particularly appreciate his urging of the new IP Subcommittee to pay more heed to start-ups, rather than continuing Congress's inordinate focus on the needs of large corporations. Since some of our legislators are probably shareholders in some of those large corporations, however, I don't know how likely they are to change their ways.

I want t know does this legislation allow the non inventor to file for a patent that he or she did not invent. It is my ubderstanding that the patent will be awarded to the first to file not to the actual inventor. Can you clear this matter up for me?

Thank you

Edwin Clifton Catron

The comments to this entry are closed.

April 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