"Director's Forum: David Kappos' Public Blog"
In his entry of November 10, 2009, Director Kappos writes:
The legislation [patent reform] is the product of a series of compromises in the eyes of virtually every segment of the IP community. But it is also a vast improvement over what we have now – and there is a strong consensus that the status quo is simply unsustainable. It is therefore gratifying to have had such an open, vigorous and fact-based discussion on areas of particular concern to this community – namely, the proposed revisions in the post-grant review process and in the priority filing system.
As I said last week, we’re working with Congress to ensure a fair and balanced approach to post-grant review. But it needs to be cost-effective and fast, and the bar has to be set high enough to protect against abuse and serial challenges. Non-meritorious requests should be summarily denied. And challenges should be quick and cost-effective, and ideally produce a virtually bullet-proof patent at the end of the process.
Of -- ideally produce a virtually bullet-proof patent at the end of the process, -- a problem is there is typically more than one relevant prior art document, with different documents raising different issues, and there is usually more than one competitor lurking in the bushes. PGR can be an ordeal for the small patentee, and expensive relative to what we already have, an issue not mentioned by Director Kappos. Of the present, competitors can file low-cost protests under Rule 99, and we do have re-examination procedure. Director Kappos did not give any rationale for demonstrating that PGR is cost-effective at the margins. We are not writing on a blank slate.
See also
Pablum from the PTO?
Post-grant oppositions: another pothole in the road for patent reform?
Demise of the (anti-)Doughnut campaign: a parable of patent reform?
Lerner says patent reform is "cold war"; IPBiz says "doughnuts!"
IBM to withdraw second patent application on outsourcing
IBM's US 7,571,105: issues of patent quality and exam quality
TechDirt trashes Locke and Kappos
The legislation [patent reform] is the product of a series of compromises in the eyes of virtually every segment of the IP community. But it is also a vast improvement over what we have now – and there is a strong consensus that the status quo is simply unsustainable. It is therefore gratifying to have had such an open, vigorous and fact-based discussion on areas of particular concern to this community – namely, the proposed revisions in the post-grant review process and in the priority filing system.
As I said last week, we’re working with Congress to ensure a fair and balanced approach to post-grant review. But it needs to be cost-effective and fast, and the bar has to be set high enough to protect against abuse and serial challenges. Non-meritorious requests should be summarily denied. And challenges should be quick and cost-effective, and ideally produce a virtually bullet-proof patent at the end of the process.
Of -- ideally produce a virtually bullet-proof patent at the end of the process, -- a problem is there is typically more than one relevant prior art document, with different documents raising different issues, and there is usually more than one competitor lurking in the bushes. PGR can be an ordeal for the small patentee, and expensive relative to what we already have, an issue not mentioned by Director Kappos. Of the present, competitors can file low-cost protests under Rule 99, and we do have re-examination procedure. Director Kappos did not give any rationale for demonstrating that PGR is cost-effective at the margins. We are not writing on a blank slate.
See also
Pablum from the PTO?
Post-grant oppositions: another pothole in the road for patent reform?
Demise of the (anti-)Doughnut campaign: a parable of patent reform?
Lerner says patent reform is "cold war"; IPBiz says "doughnuts!"
IBM to withdraw second patent application on outsourcing
IBM's US 7,571,105: issues of patent quality and exam quality
TechDirt trashes Locke and Kappos
posted by Lawrence B. Ebert at 5:43 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home