US patent law reform is on the way

Dennis Crouch's invaluable Patently-O blog has put together here a very useful set of resources and introductory comments on the Patent Reform Act 2007, introduced yesterday in both Houses of the US legislature. Proposals include acceptance of the "first-to-file" principle - i.e. that the patent goes to the first person willing to disclose his invention in return for a limited monopoly, rather than to the real inventor - and a substantial rewriting of the principles by which patent infringement damages are calculated. In particular, the ability to recover damages will be linked to the economic value of the improvement disclosed in the patent when compared to the prior art.

At this stage the IPKat's katty little cranium hasn't quite taken this in, but he senses that this will be a major casus belli in the US courts. Prior art is already raked over in order to establish novelty and non-obviousness; it may also curl the edges of the file wrapper as the applied-for monopoly is trimmed to fit the gaps left to it by the prior art - and now it will be under the forensic microscope again. Merpel is glad to see the elimination of interference proceedings and the introduction of post-grant oppositions, but hopes that the latter will be dealt with more swiftly than those before the European Patent Office.

Other comments from GenEngNews, Coalition for Patent Fairness, The Salt Lake Tribune and BetaNews
US patent law reform is on the way US patent law reform is on the way Reviewed by Jeremy on Thursday, April 19, 2007 Rating: 5

No comments:

All comments must be moderated by a member of the IPKat team before they appear on the blog. Comments will not be allowed if the contravene the IPKat policy that readers' comments should not be obscene or defamatory; they should not consist of ad hominem attacks on members of the blog team or other comment-posters and they should make a constructive contribution to the discussion of the post on which they purport to comment.

It is also the IPKat policy that comments should not be made completely anonymously, and users should use a consistent name or pseudonym (which should not itself be defamatory or obscene, or that of another real person), either in the "identity" field, or at the beginning of the comment. Current practice is to, however, allow a limited number of comments that contravene this policy, provided that the comment has a high degree of relevance and the comment chain does not become too difficult to follow.

Learn more here:

Powered by Blogger.