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.

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

« Reckitt Benckiser Inc. v. Watson Laboratories, Inc. - Florida (Fed. Cir. 2011) | Main | Docs at BIO: Biomarker-Based Diagnostics »

July 12, 2011

Comments

The news of a delay should come as a relief to opponents of patent reform. It may be an unrealistic scenario, but considering the circumstances, perhaps Congress will decide that, in the interest of just getting some kind of patent reform passed, it will enact a bill that consists solely of provisions ending fee diversion and granting the USPTO fee-setting authority, and will completely drop all of the controversial provisions (preferably those in the House version). Unrealistic, yes; but we can hope.
http://www.aminn.org/patent-reform-act-2011-s23

The comments to this entry are closed.

December 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