Monday, September 17, 2007

Congr. Mike Kirk got it right on H.R. 1908

The Daily Herald had a "letter to the editor" by Jack Strom criticizing Congr. Mark Kirk for voting against HR 1908. Strom says: Lately, patent law has been widely seen to stifle innovation rather than encourage it. Far too many frivolous patents have been filed as a means to unfairly limit competition. Sounds like Strom has a case of Laffe/Jerner-itis. Strom should consider himself lucky that he has a Congressman who could see through the voodoo math of the patent "quality" folks.

EETimes has an article touching on the lack of coordination in patent reform.

Rick Merritt's article begins: The U.S. patent system is shifting under a building head of political steam. But just what all the changes and their fallout will be is still unclear, given the lack of coordination among those driving the changes in Congress, the courts and the patent office itself.

The House passed a broad and controversial patent reform bill on Sept. 7 that aims to raise the quality of patents and reduce patent litigation and abuse. A companion bill could come before the Senate within a month, setting up a tussle among legislators, lobbyists and the administration on a final bill.

Some critics have already slammed the House legislation. For one thing, they said, a handful of decisions in the past year from the nation's top courts have already rendered some of the legislation's mandates redundant or unnecessary. (...)Ocean Tomo CEO James Malackowski complained that there has been "virtually no" coordination in Washington on patent reform.

Pharmtech had the following on H.R. 1908:

Specifically, the Patent Reform Act of 2007 would grant patents to the first to file, rather than the first to invent, and would change how damages are calculated—including no longer considering the full value of a product. Some say this change, along with the bill’s post-grant review policy, which allows only one opportunity to challenge a patent, will make it more difficult for inventors to prove willful infringement on patent claims, according to Associated Press. IPBiz suspects that paragraph is filled with non sequitors, as it is not clear what those factors would have to do with proving willful infringement. Of post-grant review, HR 1908 had PREVIOUSLY been changed to eliminate the "second window" BUT inter partes re-exam (which can occur ANYTIME in the patent's life) was beefed up.

OpenCongress posts recent blog articles on H.R. 1908 ( Blog articles for H.R.1908).



Post a Comment

<< Home