Today's Date: April 19, 2014 Search | Home | Contact | Services | Patent Attorney | Patent Search | Provisional Patent Application | Patent Application | Software Patent | Confidentiality Agreements

Posts Tagged ‘ Patent Reform ’

The Constitutional Argument Against Prior User Rights

Posted: Tuesday, Jun 14, 2011 @ 4:21 pm | Written by Gene Quinn | 49 comments
| Tags: , , , , , , , ,
Posted in: IPWatchdog.com Articles

Lately there has been much made of the attempts to argue that patent reform efforts in the House of Representatives is unconstitutional due to the inclusion of first to file provisions, which would change U.S. patent law to give a patent to the first inventor to file rather than to one who is the first inventor in time. These specious arguments have been exposed here and elsewhere.  See Does “Inventor” in the Constitution Mean “First Inventor”? and Did the Supreme Court Rule First to File is Unconstitutional?

As Patent Doc Kevin Noonan pointed out recently, what hasn’t been much discussed is the fact that prior user rights violate the intent of Article I, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution. I have alluded to this in some articles, and have also alluded to the fact that first to file provisions are more in keeping with the purpose of the so-called Patent Clause to the U.S. Constitution. The very reason for granting Congress the power authorize the granting of patents is to promote the dissemination of information. That is how society benefits, and it is how progress is promoted. I will not go so far as to say that first to invent is unconstitutional, that would be nonsensical. Neither will I go so far as to say that prior user rights are unconstitutional. Nevertheless, what I will say is that first to invent and prior user rights embrace a philosophical choice that is antithetical to the very purpose of the Patent Clause.



Does “Inventor” in the Constitution Mean “First Inventor”?

Posted: Monday, Jun 13, 2011 @ 5:59 pm | Written by Gene Quinn | 26 comments
| Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in: Gene Quinn, IP News, IPWatchdog.com Articles, Patent Reform, Patents

I have been watching in utter amazement as individuals with a variety of experience in the patent field debate the constitutionality of the first to invent proposals.   This started when those who will not allow truth and accuracy to deter from their arguments started saying that the Supreme Court ruled first to file unconstitutional in Stanford v. Roche.  That argument was, and still remains, specious because Standord v. Roche had nothing to do with the issue, nowhere in the case did Chief Justice Roberts make such statement, hint that he was thinking such a thing, or say anything colorably related to such a conclusion.  See Did the Supreme Court Rule First to File Unconstitutional?

Now the argument is morphing into a discussion of whether the word “inventor” must mean “first inventor.”  This very question is being seriously raised in some academic circles, by some patent practitioners who ought to know better, and by those who simply want to kill patent reform at all costs even if they have to engage in gross misrepresentation in order to do so.  Indeed, there are those ranging from neophyte to relatively experienced that are seeking to change history, ignore logic and refuse to acknowledge well established patent law precedent in order to twist the word “inventor” in the U.S. Constitution to mean “first inventor,” which would then call into question the constitutionality of the first to file provisions of patent reform now before the House of Representatives; H.R. 1249.



Top 10 Reasons Republicans Might Oppose the Patent Office

Posted: Sunday, Jun 12, 2011 @ 2:57 pm | Written by Gene Quinn | 64 comments
| Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in: Fun Stuff, Gene Quinn, IP News, IPWatchdog.com Articles, Patent Reform, Patents

Earlier this week two key House Republican leaders, Congressman Paul Ryan (R-WI), who is Chair of the House Committee on the Judiciary, was joined by Congressman Harold Rogers (R-KY), who is Chair of the House Committee on Appropriations, wrote Congressman Lamar Smith (R-TX) explaining that they oppose provisions in House patent reform legislation H.R. 1249 that would allow the Patent and Trademark Office to keep and use the fees collected to run the agency.  See House Republicans Oppose an Adequately Funded Patent Office.  This is an extremely myopic and ill conceived notion.  The Patent Office is unlike other government agencies in that it is completely funded by user fees, takes absolutely no taxpayer funds and provides a valuable service for a fee.

Given that House Republicans seem to fear an adequately funded Patent Office I got to thinking — What could they be afraid of?  With that in mind, here are the top 10 things that House Republicans just might be afraid of as they seek to oppose an adequately funded Patent Office.  Can you hear the black helicopter squad swirling overhead, conspiracy theories in hand?  



House Republicans Oppose Adequately Funded Patent Office

Posted: Wednesday, Jun 8, 2011 @ 2:44 pm | Written by Gene Quinn | 32 comments
| Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in: Congress, Gene Quinn, IP News, IPWatchdog.com Articles, Patent Reform, Patents, US Economy, USPTO

Congressman Paul Ryan

In a rather stunning development, key Republican leaders in the House of Representatives are opposing an adequately funded Patent Office.  Indeed, the opposition to appropriate funding for the United States Patent and Trademark Office is becoming a political matter, and the language used to describe the issues suggests that Republicans seem to believe they can score points against the Obama Administration by opposing USPTO funding.

In a letter sent to Congressman Lamar Smith (R-TX), two key Republican Chairmen are opposing the USPTO funding mechanisms currently in place in H.R. 1249, which mirror those passed by the Senate earlier this year.  Congressman Paul Ryan (R-WI), who is Chair of the House Committee on the Judiciary, was joined by Congressman Harold Rogers (R-KY), who is Chair of the House Committee on Appropriations, opposing provisions that would allow the Patent and Trademark Office to keep the user fees it collects, which are payment for services to be rendered.



Did the Supreme Court Rule First to File is Unconstitutional?

Posted: Monday, Jun 6, 2011 @ 10:20 pm | Written by Gene Quinn | 110 comments
| Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in: Congress, Gene Quinn, IP News, IPWatchdog.com Articles, Patent Reform, Patents, US Supreme Court

The ink is hardly dry on the Supreme Court decision in Stanford v. Roche and already those who oppose patent reform are concocting one of the most ridiculous arguments I have ever seen to oppose first to file provisions. There are some, including at least one Member of Congress, that have started saying that the Supreme Court’s decision in Stanford v. Roche makes it clear that the first to file provisions of patent reform are unconstitutional. Just sit right back and allow me to explain to you exactly why that is perhaps the most specious argument I have ever heard.

Let me begin with attempting to explain how presumably intelligent people erroneously conclude that the Supreme Court earlier today held first to file unconstitutional.  The argument goes like this: Chief Justice Roberts wrote, “Since 1790, the patent law has operated on the premise that rights in an invention belong to the inventor.”  This was repeated several times and in slightly different ways throughout the decision.  So those misconstruing the case twist this beyond all reasonable logic to conclude: “patent rights have to belong to the inventor, so those who file first cannot receive the patent ahead of the person who invented first.”  Oh my goodness!  Is this the level of debate in Congress?  No where in the decision is that said!  It is no wonder our leaders have failed us so miserably.



Trojan Horse Patent Reform, About Prior User Rights All Along

Posted: Tuesday, May 31, 2011 @ 8:34 pm | Written by Gene Quinn | 17 comments
| Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in: Congress, Department of Commerce, Gene Quinn, IP News, IPWatchdog.com Articles, Patent Reform, Patents

President Obama announces of new Commerce Secretary. Secretary Gary Locke (left) and Secretary Designate John Bryson (right).

Earlier today President Obama announced the nomination of John Bryson as the next Secretary of Commerce. Bryson, the former CEO of Edison International and co-founder of the Natural Resources Defense Council, will replace current Secretary of Commerce Gary Locke who has been tapped as the next United States Ambassador to China. Meanwhile, earlier in the day Secretary Locke continued to work patent reform, sending letters to Congressman Lamar Smith (R-TX), who is Chair of the House Judiciary Committee, and to Congressman John Conyers (D-MI), Ranking Member of the House Judiciary Committee, which set forth the Administration’s position on patent reform.

Notably, but not surprisingly, Secretary Locke explained: “The Administration continues to strongly support the bipartisan efforts of Congress to enact patent reform legislation that will accelerate innovation, and create new jobs, new industries and new economic opportunities for Americans.” Secretary Locke went on to elaborate more specifically about some of the specific provisions of the America Invent’s Act, explaining the Obama Administration supports first to file provisions, supports giving the Patent and Trademark Office the ability to set fees and keep the fees collected to be used to run the agency, supports post grant review and supports allowing individuals to submit prior art references to patent examiners. Unfortunately, however, Secretary Locke explained that the Administration generally supports prior user rights given that it is, on balance, a good policy.  I respectfully dissent!



The America Invents Act’s Repeal of Secret Commercial Use Bar is Constitutionally Infirm

Posted: Tuesday, May 31, 2011 @ 7:01 pm | Written by Ron Katznelson, Ph.D. | 15 comments
| Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in: Congress, Guest Contributors, IP News, IPWatchdog.com Articles, Patent Reform, Patents

The “America Invents Act,” H.R. 1249, contains several provisions that raise substantial questions of constitutionality. Discussed in this article is an important aspect of the “first-inventor-to-file” provision that received no prior public attention because its drafters have concealed its meaning ever since its introduction in previous sessions of Congress.  A day after the Senate voted to pass the bill (S. 23), a “clarification” for this poorly drafted section was entered into the Congressional Record as a fabricated “colloquy” that never actually took place on the Senate floor.  The colloquy substantially changes the ordinary meaning of the bill to a meaning that had never been discussed publically – Senators had no opportunity to either learn of the “intended” construction or to debate it.  While it is uncertain whether the courts would actually interpret the new statute as the colloquy intends, this paper analyzes H.R. 1249 under a construction which the bill’s drafters and the colloquy purport to achieve.



Eating Our Seed Corn for Job Creation

Posted: Thursday, May 5, 2011 @ 2:44 pm | Written by Henry R. Nothhaft | 35 comments
| Tags: , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in: Guest Contributors, IP News, IPWatchdog.com Articles, Patents, US Economy

Sometimes the problems facing our nation truly are difficult to solve. Reducing the country’s out-of-control budget deficit and fixing our broken public schools systems, for example, each took decades to grow into serious threats to America’s future. And each requires more political vision and national unity to resolve than seem to exist right now.

But other problems are not that difficult to solve, if only our leaders would choose to use some common sense. Take job creation, which is supposed to be the Number 1 policy objective in America right now. The mechanics of job creation are hardly a mystery, after all. We know, for example, that all net new job growth in America comes from startup businesses, not Big Business (see research by the Census Bureau and the Kauffman Foundation).   And we also know that the vast majority of these startups need patents to get the funding from investors they need to start hiring people so they can develop their innovative new products and medical treatments for the public (see the Berkeley Patent Survey of Entrepreneurs).