Archive for the ‘USPTO’ Category

Patent satellite offices sought by politicians

October 12, 2011 Leave a comment

Lawmakers from Silicon Valley, Colorado and Texas are jockeying to win one of three satellite branches of the Patent and Trademark Office authorized in the law, seeing the projects as magnets for jobs, business and bragging rights.

From Politico:

“While the America Invents Act revamps the patent system for the first time in six decades, it also includes provisions to set up patent offices outside the Washington area for the first time. Those new offices are to be funded by patent fees — not direct government expenditures — providing fiscal conservatives a little cover.

Politics, however, is front and center in the lobbying under way. Even though the law calls for three new offices, one location has already been decided.

Under the law, one of the offices is slated for Detroit and already has a name: The Elijah J. McCoy United States Patent and Trademark Office. McCoy was a prominent African-American inventor. While Michigan certainly fits the criteria as a region with economic need, it also can claim 105,502 patents since 1977. And the state is home to thousands of engineers, some displaced from the auto industry and now looking for work…”


Interview With Chief Judge Paul R. Michel On US Patent Reform

July 18, 2011 Leave a comment

From Intellectual Property Watch:

“IPW recently had the opportunity to interview Judge Michel on prospects for substantive patent reform in the US, the effect on future cases involving domestic and foreign patents, likely constitutional challenges, and the ‘non-problem’ of non-practicing entities.

Chief Judge Paul R. Michel (Ret.), of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, saw hundreds of patent cases during his distinguished career and has a unique position from which to view and offer advice on efforts in the US Senate and House of Representatives to agree on changes to domestic patent law.”

Questions (selected) asked during the interview:

  • Do you favor the House (HR 1249) and/ or Senate-passed (S 23) versions of the patent reform bill?
  • How might the bill affect future court rulings or even existing ones?
  • Does the bill favor big business over small inventors?
  • Will the bill address the problem of non-practicing entities [so-called “patent trolls”]?
  • more…

How the H.R. 1249 Patent Reform Bill Impacts Bayh-Dole Compliance

July 2, 2011 Leave a comment

In one fell and incomprehensible swoop, the “first to file” regime of the AIA may have washed away, or at least severely undermined, what has been a significant benefit for almost thirty years to those subject to and compliant with these Bayh-Dole obligations.

From IP Watchdog:

“In going from the current “first to invent” to the new “first to file” regime mandated by the America Invents Act (AIA), much attention has been focused on the amorphous “grace period” provision provided to patent applicants for certain activities undertaken by them prior to filing for a U.S. patent. Much less attention was paid to the amendments made to sections 203(c)(2) and 203(c)(3) of the Bayh-Dole compliance obligations which were directly impacted by this change in definition from the old “statutory bar” provision (based on publication, on sale, or public use of the invention caused by the patent applicant), to this new “grace period” provision. But even more astounding (and unsettling) are the unrecognized consequences caused by the AIA in “realistically” meeting certain Bayh-Dole compliance obligations by going from the current “first to invent” to the new “first to file” regime.”


Categories: Government, Legislation, USPTO

House rejects key amendments to patent reform bill

June 24, 2011 Leave a comment

From The Hill:

“The House on Thursday rejected several key amendments to a controversial patent bill, including one that sought to strip what is arguably the primary purpose the bill, which is to move the U.S. to a first-inventor-to-file system.

Several members have warned that this change would violate the Constitution, which empowers Congress to reward inventors with patents. They say the addition of a timely filing requirement violates that language, and Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner (R-Wis.) warned that failure to strip this language through his amendment would result in a legal challenge to the bill…”


Categories: Legislation, Policy, USPTO