More “politics as usual” in how this oxymoronic “patent law reform” legislation was handled. Other than the post-grant opposition (which the USPTO hasn’t got the ability or resources to handle) and interlocutory appeals (expect the Federal Circuit to reduce such appeals to rarely approved, if you believe the Chief Judge’s opposition) provisions, we can probably live with modified S. 515, although it’s hardly “reform” in any sense of the word. Ironically, I also understand that the big supporter of this oxymoronic bill, the oxymoronic Coalition for Patent Fairness, may oppose this modified bill (probably because the damages provisions was so watered down). Care for any sausage?

Best regards, Don

Thanks for your efforts. It must have been a little painful just to watch.

Thanks. It is a pity that our leaders rush things without consideration. Force opponents to make midnight amendments because they can’t see the actual language until late the day before a vote, and then act like the amendments are being made too late in the process. Vote first, think about issues later, read after that (if ever) is no way to govern a country.

_Gene

I think you are right. Most of this happened yesterday and the several days before. Minds were made up. Even Specter didn’t vote to make any amendments. Leahy, Specter and Feinstein want this out of Committee for some reason, and some of the others, mostly Republicans, would have preferred to keep it in Committee and work out the issues with amendments, etc. Perhaps this has more to do with the way legislation is being rushed everywhere in Congress these days, I don’t know. Leahy, Specter and Feinstein all did say that they are open to discussing amendments. It seems there is a lot more support for Hatch’s inequitable conduct amendment and perhaps Colburn’s fee amendment. For reasons I don’t understand it seems that Senator Kyl is always marginalized. Perhaps it is because they know his amendments can’t get broad enough support in the full Senate. That is unfortunate thought because his amendments should at least be discussed. They raise very important issues, and I think in many cases they are spot on. I wasn’t a fan of his “hypothetical negotiation” damages language, but he is conversant in the issues and I think debating his amendments and language would result in a much better bill, whether ultimately adopted in total or not.

_Gene