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


« House Introduces Its Version of "America Invents Act" -- Updated | Main | CLE on Ethics in IP »

March 31, 2011


There is no such thing as "first-inventor-to-file." There is the inventor and then there are people who recreate the invention. This is non-sense and it is unconstitutional. The constitution does not allow congress to protect the rights of the first person to file for a patent.


That will cure the backlog and any quality problems which are ALL caused by a lack of Examiners, equiptment and staff. Congress has screwed the system up for decades by stealing money. Congress is the problem, not our Patent System.

Forget all other the changes to the Patent System.

We will regret it if we change our System to be like all others. They don't do as wll as we do and are run by Big Companies.

"Congress has screwed the system up for decades by stealing money. Congress is the problem, not our Patent System."


I agree with you 100%. Congress created the problems in the examination process by starving the USPTO for funds (through fee diversion going back to 1992). Now that the examination process is bottlenecked due in large part to Congress' misfeasance and malfeasance (if not outright theft), they now want to burden the PTO further with more procedures (e.g., post-grant opposition) that will bring the whole system to a halt. Again, calling this legislation the "America Invents Act" is oxymoronic in the extreme.

What captured my attention was the point that no First to File country can rival the amount of innovation in the world's only First to Invent jurisdiction.

I am reminded of the famous (and very impressive) correlation between heart attacks and speaking English.

Like it or not, we are headed for a first to file system. "Patent Harmonization" was instituted by our government over 20 years ago, and it makes no difference whether it's been a Democratic or Republican administration. Take a look at the changes that have been instituted over the past 20 years. We have incrementally been moving in this direction, and this is one of the final pushes. One should be ready to impelement changes to one's practice to accommodate first to file, because the federal government committed to this change long ago.

The split is clear, as the article indicates:Big business for the most part likes the changes,while small inventors for the most part oppose the changes.
Regardless of where you stand on this debate, it is good to see that the Congress is no longer going to treat the PTO as a profit center and allow them to keep the money it takes in to improve its service.

One might expect the House to be more attentive than the Senate to the needs of independent inventors, but some of the House's provisions indicate the opposite. The next time patent reform comes before Congress, our legislators should do more to solicit the input of independent innovators and other SMEs.

We need to remember that without 4 great inventors america would be just another country instead of an economic leader. All invention spins form them since 1803. The lack of recognition and lack inventor security in this present system is barbaric. Conception needs to be recognized with instant patent grantings with worldwide internet novelty checks by internet and office files for proper inventorship determination. You cant begin development without conception and there is no reason to not record this except to turn the issue into a big fraud argument among the actual inventor and frauds after the fact of divulgment.Inventorship must be derermined in the present not the past as is in the system now. This system shuts down valuable idea patenting due to thefts.

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