Patent Law

"Coalition for Patent Fairness" whacks new patent reform proposals

By Lawrence B. Ebert, Esq.

?It?s fair to say the high-tech community is highly alarmed by the draft of the compromise we?ve seen,? said Mark Isakowitz, a lobbyist who represents the coalition. ?The patent counsels reviewed the draft compromise and believe that it not only doesn?t accomplish our goals for patent reform, but actually is worse than current law.?

See previous IPBiz posts:

Senator Leahy on patent reform

The significance of current patent reform efforts

S. 515. ??Patent Reform Act of 2010??

Note

??§118. Filing by other than inventor

??A person to whom the inventor has assigned or is

under an obligation to assign the invention may make an

application for patent.

(...)

??(c) SEQUENCING.?Any party may request that a
patent-infringement trial be sequenced so that the trier

of fact decides questions of the patent?s infringement and

validity before the issues of damages and willful infringe-

ment are tried to the court or the jury.

(...)

??§311. Inter partes review

only on a ground that could be raised under
section 102 or 103 and only on the basis of prior art con-
sisting of patents or printed publications.
(...)
shall be filed after the later of either
?(1) 9 months after the grant of a patent or
issuance of a reissue of a patent; or

(...)
a reasonable likelihood that the
petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the
claims challenged in the petition.

(...)

??§321. Post-grant review

(...)

A petition for a post-grant
review shall be filed not later than 9 months after the
grant of the patent or issuance of a reissue patent.

(...)
would demonstrate
that it is more likely than not that at least 1 of the claims
challenged in the petition is unpatentable.
(...)
The determination re-
quired under subsection (a) may also be satisfied by a
showing that the petition raises a novel or unsettled legal
question that is important to other patents or patent ap-
plications.
(...)
may not re-
quest or maintain a proceeding before the Office
with respect to a claim on any ground that the peti-
tioner raised or reasonably could have raised during
a post-grant review of the claim that resulted in a
final written decision under section 328(a).

(...)

SEC. 9. FEE SETTING AUTHORITY.

(...)
shall be reduced by 75 per-
cent with respect to their application to any micro
entity as defined in section 123 of that title.

(...)

SEC. 10. SUPPLEMENTAL EXAMINATION

(...)

A patent owner may request
supplemental examination of a patent to consider, recon-
sider, or correct information believed to be relevant to the
patent.

Full post as published by IPBiz on March 04, 2010 (boomark / email).