SUBSCRIBE TODAY!
Subscribing entitles a reader to complete stories on all topics released as they happen, special features, confidential documents and access to the complete, searchable story archive online back to 2004.
IP-Watch Summer Interns

IP-Watch interns talk about their Geneva experience in summer 2013. 2:42.

Inside Views

Submit ideas to info [at] ip-watch [dot] ch!

We welcome your participation in article and blog comment threads, and other discussion forums, where we encourage you to analyse and react to the content available on the Intellectual Property Watch website.

By participating in discussions or reader forums, or by submitting opinion pieces or comments to articles, blogs, reviews or multimedia features, you are consenting to these rules.

1. You agree that you are fully responsible for the content that you post. You will not knowingly post content that violates the copyright, trademark, patent or other intellectual property right of any third party or which you know is under a confidentiality obligation preventing its publication and that you will request removal of the same should you discover that you have violated this provision. Likewise, you may not post content that is libelous, defamatory, obscene, abusive, that violates a third party's right to privacy, that otherwise violates any applicable local, state, national or international law, that amounts to spamming or that is otherwise inappropriate. You may not post content that degrades others on the basis of gender, race, class, ethnicity, national origin, religion, sexual preference, disability or other classification. Epithets and other language intended to intimidate or to incite violence are also prohibited. Furthermore, you may not impersonate others.

2. You understand and agree that Intellectual Property Watch is not responsible for any content posted by you or third parties. You further understand that IP Watch does not monitor the content posted. Nevertheless, IP Watch may monitor the any user-generated content as it chooses and reserves the right to remove, edit or otherwise alter content that it deems inappropriate for any reason whatever without consent nor notice. We further reserve the right, in our sole discretion, to remove a user's privilege to post content on our site. IP Watch is not in any manner endorsing the content of the discussion forums and cannot and will not vouch for its reliability or otherwise accept liability for it.

3. By submitting any contribution to IP Watch, you warrant that your contribution is your own original work and that you have the right to make it available to IP Watch for all purposes and you agree to indemnify IP Watch, its directors, employees and agents against all damages, legal fees and others expenses that may be incurred by IP Watch as a result of your breach of warranty or of these terms.

4. You further agree not to publish any personal information about yourself or anyone else (for example telephone number or home address). If you add a comment to a blog, be aware that your email address will be apparent.

5. IP Watch will not be liable for any loss including but not limited to the following (whether such losses are foreseen, known or otherwise): loss of data, loss of revenue or anticipated profit, loss of business, loss of opportunity, loss of goodwill or injury to reputation, losses suffered by third parties, any indirect, consequential or exemplary damages.

6. You understand and agree that the discussion forums are to be used only for non-commercial purposes. You may not solicit funds, promote commercial entities or otherwise engage in commercial activity in our discussion forums.

7. You acknowledge and agree that you use and/or rely on any information obtained through the discussion forums at your own risk.

8. For any content that you post, you hereby grant to IP Watch the royalty-free, irrevocable, perpetual, exclusive and fully sub-licensable license to use, reproduce, modify, adapt, publish, translate, create derivative works from, distribute, perform and display such content in whole or in part, world-wide and to incorporate it in other works, in any form, media or technology now known or later developed.

9. These terms and your posts and contributions shall be governed and interpreted in accordance with the laws of Switzerland (without giving effect to conflict of laws principles thereof) and any dispute exclusively settled by the Courts of the Canton of Geneva.

The Politicization Of The US Patent System

The Washington Post story, How patent reform’s fraught politics have left USPTO still without a boss (July 30), is a vivid account of how patent reform has divided the US economy, preempting a possible replacement for David Kappos who stepped down 18 months ago. The division is even bigger than portrayed. Universities have lined up en masse to oppose reform, while main street businesses that merely use technology argue for reform. Reminiscent of the partisan divide that has paralyzed US politics, this struggle crosses party lines and extends well beyond the usual inter-industry debates. Framed in terms of combating patent trolls through technical legal fixes, there lurks a broader economic concern – to what extent ordinary retailers, bank, restaurants, local banks, motels, realtors, and travel agents should bear the burden of defending against patents as a cost of doing business.


Latest Comments
  • “We want everybody to agree on the science telling... »
  • So this is how we mankind will become extinct? No ... »

  • For IPW Subscribers

    A directory of IP delegates in Geneva. Read more>

    A guide to Geneva-based public health and intellectual property organisations. Read More >


    Monthly Reporter

    The Intellectual Property Watch Monthly Reporter, published from 2004 to January 2011, is a 16-page monthly selection of the most important, updated stories and features, plus the People and News Briefs columns.

    The Intellectual Property Watch Monthly Reporter is available in an online archive on the IP-Watch website, available for IP-Watch Subscribers.

    Access the Monthly Reporter Archive >

    New Senate Patent Reform Bill Details Released

    Published on 4 March 2010 @ 10:29 pm

    By , Intellectual Property Watch

    United States Senate Judiciary Committee bipartisan leaders today released details of much-anticipated compromise legislation aimed at reform of US patent laws. The new bill ostensibly makes significant steps toward resolving longstanding differences in legislative efforts to modernise US law for patent quality and efficiency, and make it more compatible with international laws.

    The new bill, referred to as the managers’ amendment, is being touted as providing a critical boost to innovation. The bill must go to the full Senate for a vote, and must be passed in the House of Representatives as well.

    The senators’ press release is available here.

    The proposed amendment, over 100 pages, is available here [pdf].

    According to additional background materials circulated by the senators, the major changes to the bill, and key changes it would bring to US law, are as follows (reprinted directly from original):

    “Significant Changes in the Managers’ Amendment to S. 515, as Reported

    For Background Purposes Only

    The Managers’ Amendment includes nearly all of the improvements to the patent laws that were part of the reported version of the Patent Reform Act of 2009, and contains changes to strike a more precise balance among all users of the patent system. In particular, the substitute preserves (1) the transition to a first-inventor-to-file system; (2) important changes to improve patent quality, including by allowing third parties to comment on pending patent applications; (3) a new, first-window post-grant review proceeding to weed out patents that should not have issued; (4) the gatekeeper compromise on damages; (5) the compromise on venue; (6) fee-setting authority for the PTO to address its back-log problem; (7) amendments to best mode; (8) the new district court pilot program; and (9) increased incentives for government laboratories to commercialize inventions.

    The Managers’ also makes these important changes:

    First-window post-grant review: Shortens the window from 12 months to 9 months, and raises the threshold for instituting a proceeding to a showing that it is “more likely than not” that at least one claim is unpatentable.

    Inter partes review: (1) Slightly raises the threshold for instituting an IPR to a “reasonable likelihood” that the challenger would prevail in invalidating a claim of the patent; (2) creates additional safeguards to prevent a challenger from using the administrative process to harass patent owners; and (3) inserts “reasonably could have raised” estoppel, preventing a challenger from raising in court an argument that reasonably could have been raised during an inter partes review that the challenger instituted.

    Willfulness: Codifies the recent case law on willfulness, which requires willfulness to be demonstrated by clear and convincing evidence that the infringer acted with objective recklessness, and adds additional substantive and procedural safeguards for alleged infringers, including (1) requiring willfulness to be pled with particularity; (2) preventing mere knowledge of the patent to support a finding of willfulness; (3) requiring specificity in pre-suit notifications; (4) upon motion, prohibiting increasing damages where there is a determination that a “close case” on infringement, validity or enforceability exists; (5) permitting a party to request the damages and willfulness phases be sequenced to occur after the infringement stage; and (6) failing to obtain advice of counsel may not be used to show willfulness or inducement.

    Interlocutory appeals: Removes the provision that would have required the Federal Circuit to accept interlocutory appeals of claim construction determinations.

    PTO Funding: Requires that the PTO to reduce fees by 50% for small entities and by 75% for the new classification of “micro-entities” created by the bill.

    Supplemental Examinations: Permits a patent holder to provide additional, potentially material prior art regarding the patent to the PTO. If the PTO considers the information and determines it has no effect on patentability, that additional information cannot serve as the basis for an inequitable conduct claim later in court. The information must be presented to the PTO and any reexamination must be completed prior to litigation.

    # # # # #

    Key Changes To Current Law Made By The Managers’ Amendment To S. 515,
    The Patent Reform Act

    For Background Purposes Only

    The Patent Reform Act will keep America in its longstanding position at the pinnacle of innovation. The U.S. patent system has not been updated significantly in more than 55 years. In the intervening years, our economy has changed dramatically. A well functioning and efficient patent system is critical to American invention and innovation, which are the cornerstones of our economy and job creation.

    The bipartisan Managers’ Amendment makes the following changes to current law:

    · Transitions the U.S. to a first-inventor-to-file system, which will simplify the application system and harmonize it with our trading partners, reduce costs, and improve the competitiveness of American inventors seeking protection globally;

    · Makes important changes to improve patent quality, including by allowing third parties to comment on pending patent applications and explain to the PTO why certain prior art is relevant and by establishing a new, first-window post-grant review proceeding to weed out a patent that should not have issued during the first year after the patent is granted;

    · Improves the current system for administratively challenging the validity of a patent at the PTO throughout the life of the patent by transitioning from a reexamination model to an oppositional model which the PTO can complete in 12 months, while also preventing challengers from abusing the inter partes process or pursuing unmeritorious claims, and removing uncertainty from the system that has impeded its use.

    · Includes a more robust, procedural, gate keeping role for the court, pursuant to which judges will assess the legal basis for the specific damages theories and jury instructions sought by the parties. The gate keeping provisions will ensure consistency, uniformity, and fairness in the way that courts administer patent damages law. The damages section will also provide more certainty for parties in the standard for increasing damages for willful infringement;

    · Creates a supplemental examination process to incentivize patent owners to commercialize their inventions despite potential flaws in the application process; and

    · Authorizes fee setting authority for the PTO Director to ensure the PTO is properly funded and can reduce the backlog of patent applications, but mandates a reduction of fees by 50% for small entities and 75% for micro-entities.”

    William New may be reached at wnew@ip-watch.ch.

     

    Comments

    1. James Love says:

      KEI compared the language on damages in the Senate patent reform bill to the ACTA language on the same topic. http://keionline.org/node/792 I think USTR will have to start talking to Leahy’s office about this issue.

    2. staff says:

      “The new bill ostensibly makes significant steps toward resolving longstanding differences in legislative efforts to modernise US law for patent quality and efficiency, and make it more compatible with international laws.”

      What country has led the world in technology for decades and the better part of two centuries…America. Why on earth would we want to change our laws to copy those of countries we have consistently out invented???

      Patent reform is a fraud on America. It is patently un-American.
      Please see http://truereform.piausa.org/ for a different/opposing view on patent reform.

    3. Jan Goossenaerts says:

      To reform or not to reform?

      Previous comments show there are conflicting interests at play. Can these be reconciled in a reform bill?

      I would imagine that the US Senators are doing their best in meeting the interests of all their citizens.

      If they would fail, is it on substance, or in communicating in clear language to all involved?

      From a multi-level enterprise architecture perspective I would recommend a collaborative diagnostics/therapeutics approach to evaluate the proposed reforms’ potential in removing the problems of the status quo, while keeping its strengths (& communicating about it.)

      Some first thoughts are at http://www.pragmetaknowledgeclout.be/patent-reform

    4. U.S. Senate releases details of patent reform bill | Technology Transfer Tactics says:

      [...] Intellectual Property Watch and [...]

    5. Jan Goossenaerts says:

      In WIPO’s development agenda there is a project/study on intellectual property and the public domain, intended to deepen analysis of the impact of a “deep and accessible” public domain, and promote related norm-setting activities
      http://www.ip-watch.org/weblog/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/ip-and-the-public-domain.pdf

      For the broad issue of the boundary between private and public domain, I think that the relevant framework may be in a recent book by North, Wallis & Weingast, 2009, Violence and Social Orders – A Conceptual Framework for Interpreting Recorded Human History, http://www.cup.cam.ac.uk/us/catalogue/catalogue.asp?isbn=0511512570

      The balance of access regimes is key to development (…and peace).

      How to define (and restore) the balance?

      Possible (first) steps are at: http://www.pragmetaknowledgeclout.be/target-groups

    6. Intellectual Property Watch » Blog Archive » New US Senate Patent Reform Bill Brings Many Reactions says:

      [...] Here Latest CommentsJan Goossenaerts on New Senate Patent Reform Bill Details ReleasedIn WIPO’s development agenda there is a project/st… »Tjahjokartiko Gondokusumo on Google, [...]

    7. AL says:

      Don’t reform…repeal!

    8. IP-Watch: New Senate Patent Reform Bill Details Released – Lega Digital Consulting Group says:

      [...] Link to the article: http://www.ip-watch.org/weblog/?p=9702 [...]

    9. Jamie - www.patentattorneyindex.com says:

      There has been a lot of talk about patent reforms during the years, but nothing seems to change. What are the chances that the new reform will go through?


    Leave a Reply

    We welcome your participation in article and blog comment threads, and other discussion forums, where we encourage you to analyse and react to the content available on the Intellectual Property Watch website. By participating in discussions or reader forums, or by submitting opinion pieces or comments to articles, blogs, reviews or multimedia features, you are consenting to these rules.

    We welcome your participation in article and blog comment threads, and other discussion forums, where we encourage you to analyse and react to the content available on the Intellectual Property Watch website.

    By participating in discussions or reader forums, or by submitting opinion pieces or comments to articles, blogs, reviews or multimedia features, you are consenting to these rules.

    1. You agree that you are fully responsible for the content that you post. You will not knowingly post content that violates the copyright, trademark, patent or other intellectual property right of any third party or which you know is under a confidentiality obligation preventing its publication and that you will request removal of the same should you discover that you have violated this provision. Likewise, you may not post content that is libelous, defamatory, obscene, abusive, that violates a third party's right to privacy, that otherwise violates any applicable local, state, national or international law, that amounts to spamming or that is otherwise inappropriate. You may not post content that degrades others on the basis of gender, race, class, ethnicity, national origin, religion, sexual preference, disability or other classification. Epithets and other language intended to intimidate or to incite violence are also prohibited. Furthermore, you may not impersonate others.

    2. You understand and agree that Intellectual Property Watch is not responsible for any content posted by you or third parties. You further understand that IP Watch does not monitor the content posted. Nevertheless, IP Watch may monitor the any user-generated content as it chooses and reserves the right to remove, edit or otherwise alter content that it deems inappropriate for any reason whatever without consent nor notice. We further reserve the right, in our sole discretion, to remove a user's privilege to post content on our site. IP Watch is not in any manner endorsing the content of the discussion forums and cannot and will not vouch for its reliability or otherwise accept liability for it.

    3. By submitting any contribution to IP Watch, you warrant that your contribution is your own original work and that you have the right to make it available to IP Watch for all purposes and you agree to indemnify IP Watch, its directors, employees and agents against all damages, legal fees and others expenses that may be incurred by IP Watch as a result of your breach of warranty or of these terms.

    4. You further agree not to publish any personal information about yourself or anyone else (for example telephone number or home address). If you add a comment to a blog, be aware that your email address will be apparent.

    5. IP Watch will not be liable for any loss including but not limited to the following (whether such losses are foreseen, known or otherwise): loss of data, loss of revenue or anticipated profit, loss of business, loss of opportunity, loss of goodwill or injury to reputation, losses suffered by third parties, any indirect, consequential or exemplary damages.

    6. You understand and agree that the discussion forums are to be used only for non-commercial purposes. You may not solicit funds, promote commercial entities or otherwise engage in commercial activity in our discussion forums.

    7. You acknowledge and agree that you use and/or rely on any information obtained through the discussion forums at your own risk.

    8. For any content that you post, you hereby grant to IP Watch the royalty-free, irrevocable, perpetual, exclusive and fully sub-licensable license to use, reproduce, modify, adapt, publish, translate, create derivative works from, distribute, perform and display such content in whole or in part, world-wide and to incorporate it in other works, in any form, media or technology now known or later developed.

    9. These terms and your posts and contributions shall be governed and interpreted in accordance with the laws of Switzerland (without giving effect to conflict of laws principles thereof) and any dispute exclusively settled by the Courts of the Canton of Geneva.

     

     
    Your IP address is 184.72.69.79