House not going to accept S.23 "as is"?
A post at the National Journal suggests the House of Representatives may not accept S.23 on patent reform as written by the Senate-->
The draft includes major changes incorporated in the Senate patent-reform bill that passed earlier this month, including first-to-file and fee-setting authority for the Patent and Trademark Office.
The draft includes major changes incorporated in the Senate patent-reform bill that passed earlier this month, including first-to-file and fee-setting authority for the Patent and Trademark Office.
posted by Lawrence B. Ebert at 6:59 AM
2 Comments:
There are several differences that are highlighted here: House Patent Reform Bill Broadens Prior User Defense
Among them:
1. There are significant changes to the prior user defense
2. The provision eliminating the CAFC residency requirement is gone
3. A new section would bring 35 USC 41 in line w/ the current PTO fee schedule
I would be disappointed, though not at all surprised, if the House passed a version of patent reform without provisions ending fee diversion. Perhaps the matter will be resolved in committee, and patent law can finally be rid of the albatross of fee diversion. Otherwise, likely we can all anticipate significantly higher fees from the USPTO, resulting from its new fee-setting authority.
Post a Comment
<< Home