Today's Date: November 24, 2014 Search | Home | Contact | Services | Patent Attorney | Patent Search | Provisional Patent Application | Patent Application | Software Patent | Confidentiality Agreements

Posts Tagged ‘ Patent Reform ’

Lame Duck Patent Reform: AIA Technical Corrections

Posted: Sunday, Dec 2, 2012 @ 9:30 am | Written by Manus Cooney | 3 comments
| Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in: Congress, Guest Contributors, IP News, IPWatchdog.com Articles, Patent Reform, Patents

For a better part of the past year, there has been talk about the possibility of Congress moving a technical corrections bill to fix some “errors” within the America Invents Act (AIA).  The AIA was signed into law on September 16, 2011 and contains, as most major pieces of legislation do, some minor drafting errors.  On Friday, November, 30, 2012, a bill making technical changes to the AIA was introduced in the House of Representatives.  The bill number is HR 6621.  The proposed AIA package does NOT include a so-called “fix” to post-grant review that some considered to be substantive and not technical.

To rewind: Earlier this year, there had been some behind the scenes discussions on Capitol Hill about possibly modifying the AIA’s PGR estoppel provisions in a way that would have been problematic to patent owners.  The discussed change would have removed from the AIA the “could have raised” estoppel standard.  Concerns about weakening the PGR estoppels provisions as part of a ‘technical” package were communicated by members of the Innovation Alliance, university, inventor, and venture capital communities.

Fast forward to today:  The bill does not contain the troubling PGR “fix.” Key staff on the Hill believe the measure to be non-controversial. House passage of the measure could take place before year’s end.  What follows is the text of a draft section-by-section analysis of what was expected to be in the introduced AIA package of fixes.



Manus Cooney Part II – The Future of Patent Reform

Posted: Sunday, Sep 30, 2012 @ 7:30 am | Written by Gene Quinn | 2 comments
| Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in: America Invents Act, Gene Quinn, IP News, IPWatchdog.com Articles, Patent Reform, Patents

Manus Cooney, former Chief Counsel to the Senate Judiciary Committee and a prominent DC lobbyist.

Last week I published part 1 of my conversation with Manus Cooney, who is one of the preeminent intellectual property lobbyists in Washington, D.C. Cooney, a former Chief Counsel to the Senate Judiciary Committee, is currently a partner with American Continental Group and was intimately involved in lobbying Congress relative to the America Invents Act (AIA), primarily on behalf of his client Tessera Technologies, who aligned themselves with the Innovation Alliance.

In part 1 we discussed lobbying in general, shining some light on the process as a whole and explaining why it is unrealistic to expect you can enter the debate near the end and have any hope of affecting change. In part 2, which is reproduced below, we discuss the specifics of lobbying the AIA, as well as the fight against further erosion of patent rights. And you thought that patent reform was over. Sadly, the fight continues.

COONEY: Going back to the AIA, when it comes to passing legislation, it’s important to know how each of the Congressional bodies work. It may be an oversimplification but it is usually the case that whatever the House Majority Leadership wants to pass, it usually gets done. In the Senate, however, it’s different because of its rules. There, whatever the Majority wants to pass has a shot at getting done. In other words, if the House Leadership, the Republicans in this case today, and the Chairman of the Committee want to see a particular measure passed, more often than not, particularly on an issue as esoteric and complex as patent law, the party members of the majority party are going to adhere or defer to the wishes of Leadership, And as a result, you’re trying to either create a situation in advance of the House measure coming to the floor where you have the support of the Leadership or you have created an environment where it’s less certain to the House Leadership and the Chairman that they will in fact be able to prevail, and thereby create an environment where they have to negotiate. Oftentimes in the House, your laying the foundation for a fight in the Senate where there is less deference to the Leadership. The rules are such that, in theory, any Senator can offer an amendment to any bill at any time, and you have a better shot at winning on the merits, so to speak. That has a way of forcing consensus. So realizing that those tend to be the ground rules, the landscape you’re dealing with, you develop a strategy for your clients.



Historic Patent Reform Implemented by USPTO

Posted: Monday, Sep 17, 2012 @ 5:19 pm | Written by U.S.P.T.O. | 7 comments
| Tags: , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in: America Invents Act, IP News, IPWatchdog.com Articles, Patent Reform, Patents, USPTO

Washington – The most significant reform to the U.S. patent system in more than a century took a major step forward at 12:01 am Sunday, as numerous provisions of the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act of 2011 went into effect. The new rules will spur innovation and economic growth by streamlining the patent application process and introducing new procedures to ensure patent quality. Seven reforms to U.S. patent law went into effect one year after the signing of the bipartisan patent reform legislation by President Barack Obama on September 16, 2011.

Some of the new rules are as follows:

  • Three new administrative trial provisions — inter partes review, post-grant review, and the transitional program for covered business method patents—will offer third parties timely, cost-effective alternatives to district court litigation to challenge the patentability of an issued patent. Additional information on third party submissions can be found here.
  • The supplemental examination provision allows applicants to submit additional information relevant to the patentability of an issued patent to the Office in a new procedure that may protect the patent from an inequitable conduct charge.
  • The inventors oath and declaration provision that for the first time allows assignee filing of a patent application.
  • The citation of prior art and written statements provision will enable the Office to treat the claims in a patent consistent with how a patent owner represents its claims to the courts or in other Office proceedings.


New Patent Reform Takes Swing at Patent Trolls

Posted: Friday, Aug 3, 2012 @ 7:25 am | Written by Gene Quinn | 10 comments
| Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in: Congress, Gene Quinn, IP News, IPWatchdog.com Articles, Patent Litigation, Patent Troll Basics, Patent Trolls, Patents

Congressmen DeFazio (left) and Chaffetz (right) take on the problem of Patent Trolls.

Yesterday Congressman Peter DeFazio (D-OR) and Congressman Jason Chaffetz (R-UT) introduced the Saving High-tech Innovators from Egregious Legal Disputes Act, or SHIELD Act for short.  If ever passed into law the SHIELD Act would ostensibly adopt a variation on the English Rule, where the losing patent owner pays the legal fees of the victorious patent defendant when there was no “reasonable likelihood” that the patentee would prevail in the litigation.

The SHIELD Act is very short and is only directed at computer and software patents, which makes absolutely no sense if you ask me.  The seminal provision of the Act states:

Notwithstanding section 285, in an action disputing the validity or alleging the infringement of a computer hardware or software patent, upon making a determination that the party alleging the infringement of the patent did not have a reasonable likelihood of succeeding, the court may award the recovery of full costs to the prevailing party, including reasonable attorney’s fees, other than the United States.



The America Invents Act – Panacea or Just Pain for the PTO?

Posted: Sunday, Nov 27, 2011 @ 8:00 am | Written by Charles Gorenstein | 8 comments
| Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in: America Invents Act, Guest Contributors, International, IP News, IPWatchdog.com Articles, Patent Reform, Patents, USPTO

Anyone interested in reading this is likely old enough to have heard the old saying “Be careful what you wish for – you may get it.” Now we have it. Many people situated variously within and outside of the patent system of the United States urged the adoption of first-to-file. The underlying reasons included harmonization with the laws of other nations, and simplification or elimination of some proceedings in our own system, etc. with a view toward curing some of what has been ailing the U.S. patent system. The day, March 16, 2013, is now approaching when first-to-file will be a reality.

There are many questions about the scope and possible impact of the AIA. Exactly how it will all play out remains to be seen. A significant question is what will be the likely impact of the AIA upon the operations of the USPTO, an organization that has been so greatly over-burdened in recent times.



Two Free Webinars on America Invents Act This Week

Posted: Sunday, Oct 30, 2011 @ 2:30 pm | Written by Gene Quinn | Comments Off
| Tags: , ,
Posted in: America Invents Act, Gene Quinn, IP News, IPWatchdog.com Articles, Patent Reform, Patents

There are two free webinars this week relative to the America Invents Act to alert you to. Given the enormity of the changes and how every time I read the legislation I seem to find something new, you might want to take time to sign up for both. The first will be hosted by the United States Patent and Trademark Office on Monday, October 31, 2011 beginning at 1:00 pm ET. The second, which will focus specifically on how the AIA will impact your business, is provided by K&L Gates and will be on Thursday, November 3, 2011 from 3:00pm to 4:30 pm ET.



Point – Counterpoint: The Debate Over Prior User Rights

Posted: Thursday, Oct 27, 2011 @ 2:48 pm | Written by Gene Quinn | 53 comments
| Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in: America Invents Act, Gene Quinn, IP News, IPWatchdog.com Articles, Patent Litigation, Patent Reform, Patents

Since prior user rights first came up as an issue in the patent reform debate I have been opposed to the idea.  Whether I like prior user rights or not, the reality is that prior user rights are now a part of U.S. patent law.  Nevertheless, the debate goes on about whether prior user rights are a good idea.  In fact, the United States Patent and Trademark Office is tasked through the America Invents Act with conducting a Prior User Rights Study.  To facilitate this study a public hearing on prior user rights was held on October 25 in the Madison Auditorium at its Alexandria, Virginia campus of the USPTO.

With this in mind I thought I would once again revisit prior user rights. One of the arguments I have heard recently supporting prior user rights is that a corporation that is going to invest billions of dollars into a facility should know that their investment is safe and that the plant can’t be shut down by a later filed patent application.  This argument is so specious as to be nearly laughable if you ask me.  This strikes me as just more of corporate America wanting the government to save them from themselves.



Patent Reform and Patent Bar Review, What You Should Know

Posted: Tuesday, Oct 25, 2011 @ 7:30 am | Written by Gene Quinn & John White | 2 comments
| Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in: America Invents Act, Gene Quinn, IP News, IPWatchdog.com Articles, John White, Patent Bar Exam, Patent Bar Review, Patent Reform, Patents, Practising Law Institute

No doubt you have heard about the new law that is upon us in the land of patents; it’s in all the papers and on all the blogs.  The America Invents Act was signed by President Obama on September 16, 2011, and marks the largest single re-write of U.S. patent law ever.  Even the 1952 Patent Act pales in comparison because that was almost completely a codification of existing case law that had developed over the decades.  America Invents, however, embarks upon a new path and leads us into the great unknown in many respects.

Those preparing to take the patent bar exam or contemplating sitting for the exam at some point in time in the future likely don’t want to hear that U.S. patent law is heading into the great unknown.  How can you be expected to take a pass the patent bar examination under these circumstances?  First: Relax. You do not have to unlearn or forget what you are currently learning, or soon will learn, for the patent exam or for your practice life after you pass the exam.  That being said, the sooner you do take the patent bar exam the better off you will be!



America Invents: The Unintended Consequences of Patent Reform

Posted: Monday, Oct 24, 2011 @ 2:31 pm | Written by Gene Quinn | 18 comments
| Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in: Congress, Gene Quinn, IP News, IPWatchdog.com Articles, Patent Reform, Patents

It is virtually impossible to in any intellectually honest way truthfully determine what the legislative intent of Congress was for any particular piece of legislation.  Justice Antonin Scalia has railed against the use of legislative history for decades, saying “legislative history is irrelevant when the statutory text is clear,” and referring to the “legal fiction” that legislative history, including Committee Reports, actually reflect the intent of the Congress.  This is, of course, because it is exceptionally easy to get something into the legislative history, so anything that appears in the legislative history may only be the view of one particular Member of Congress, or worse the view of a lobbyist paying for access.  There is also the problem associated with Members of Congress saying things they simply don’t understand, and the reality that the legislative history cannot be cross examined.  Even Committee Reports are at best the view of a majority of a group that makes up a small fraction of the overall Congress.  It seems a fools errand to rely on legislative history in all but the rarest case, and Scalia’s view seems to be the prevailing view of this Supreme Court.

Notwithstanding the inherent unreliability of legislative history and the truly scary prospect of trying to get inside the head of Members of Congress, it seems fairly clear to me that the America Invents Act, which was signed into law by President Obama on September 16, 2011, contains at least a handful of things that can only be characterized as unintended consequences.  Among them are: (1) U.S. patents issued from foreign filings will be prior art as of the foreign filing date; (2) commonly owned patent applications cannot be used against each other for novelty purposes; and (3) the creation of an post grant challenge limbo because of the delay in initiating post-grant review procedures.



USPTO to Conduct Studies of Prior User Rights and International Patent Protection for Small Businesses per America Invents Act

Posted: Tuesday, Oct 18, 2011 @ 3:01 pm | Written by U.S.P.T.O. | Comments Off
| Tags: , , , , , ,
Posted in: America Invents Act, Congress, International, IP News, IPWatchdog.com Articles, Patent Reform, Patents, USPTO

The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) released two Federal Register Notices on October 7, 2011, seeking written comments and announcing two public hearings for two studies the agency is required to conduct under the America Invents Act. Specifically, Congress is requiring the USPTO to study and report on the availability of prior user rights in foreign countries as well as options to aid small businesses and independent inventors in securing patent protection for their inventions. The USPTO reports for both studies are due in mid-January 2012.

“The objective of the written comments and hearings is to collect information from the public on the scope of the two studies,” said Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and Director of the USPTO David Kappos. “Public participation in both the Prior User Rights Study and the International Patent Protection Study is necessary to assist the agency in preparing for Congress the most informed and accurate report possible.”