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


« FDA Seeks Comment on Biosimilar User Fee Proposal | Main | European Court of Justice Considers Embryonic Stem Cell Ban »

May 11, 2011


In the current political environment, I can't imagine the House's version of so-called patent reform getting passed by Congress, unless it does away with the more controversial post-grant, prior-user, and grace period provisions (for starters). Of course, stranger things have happened. But I still don't understand why certain legislators are pushing to pass such a comprehensive bill with so many contentious provisions, when they could much more easily (and, arguably, more justifiably) enact a patent reform bill that mandated nothing except an end to fee diversion. Oh, wait, I do understand -- lobbyists.

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