Opposition to patent reform
Dana Rohrabacher R-Ca, James Sensenbrenner, R-Wis., and Rep. John Conyers, D-Mich., are leading the opposition against the House patent reform bill.
See also the comments by Carl Gulbrandsen to AUTM, posted at Patent Docs, Not Necessarily Patent "Reform"
Of post-grant review (aka opposition), Gulbrandsen wrote:
The proposed legislation, however, adds both a post grant review procedure where patents during the 12 months following issuance can be challenged on any grounds and an enhanced inter partes reexamination procedure. The net result is valuable patents will be more subject to challenge which increases costs for the patent owner, weakens the value of the patent, and makes it more difficult to license or raise capital funds necessary to starting a company and creating jobs.
Further, if one really wants to improve patent "quality," one would improve the examination procedure itself, not add a product inspection step. That's basic Deming.
***As a footnote
Patent Reform Act of 2011...Finally Passed Into Law?
O’Reilly Radar Desperately In Need Of Patent WD-40
See also the comments by Carl Gulbrandsen to AUTM, posted at Patent Docs, Not Necessarily Patent "Reform"
Of post-grant review (aka opposition), Gulbrandsen wrote:
The proposed legislation, however, adds both a post grant review procedure where patents during the 12 months following issuance can be challenged on any grounds and an enhanced inter partes reexamination procedure. The net result is valuable patents will be more subject to challenge which increases costs for the patent owner, weakens the value of the patent, and makes it more difficult to license or raise capital funds necessary to starting a company and creating jobs.
Further, if one really wants to improve patent "quality," one would improve the examination procedure itself, not add a product inspection step. That's basic Deming.
***As a footnote
Patent Reform Act of 2011...Finally Passed Into Law?
O’Reilly Radar Desperately In Need Of Patent WD-40
posted by Lawrence B. Ebert at 8:02 AM
1 Comments:
I know I'm not alone in being completely in favor of abolishing the practice of fee diversion, but completely against certain other provisions of the House's patent reform bill. While I'm on the fence regarding first-to-file, I think that the provisions limiting the traditional grace period (which inventors need in order to gauge market value) are certainly problematic. What's more, the post-grant review and prior user rights provisions are a nightmare waiting to happen. In other countries where such processes are permitted, there lurks always the strong potential for larger and better-funded entities to harass (and even financially destroy) inventors. If these provisions are not changed, then we can only hope that patent reform will not happen this year.
Post a Comment
<< Home