Friday, March 14, 2008

Latest Amendments to S.1145

The Senate has released the latest amendments to the Patent Reform Act in advance of Senate Floor Debate:

Interlocutory appeals: limits interlocutory appeals of claim construction orders to those which the district court determines have a reasonable basis for disagreement, and the appeal may advance the ultimate termination of the litigation;

Best Mode amendment
: best mode would be considered for obtaining a patent, but not for invalidating;

Reexamination amendment: restores third-party reexamination;

The "CAFC Telework" amendment: ensures that CAFC judges that do not reside within a 50-mile radius of Washington DC use chambers of an existing courthouse in the district where they reside.

Derivation proceedings amendment: clarifying procedures relating to derivation proceedings (which will "replace" interference practice when it is gone);

Interference appeals amendment
: allow CAFC to hear BPAI interference decisions commenced prior to the effective date of the act;

Marking provision amendment: deletes marking provision and maintains current law;

In re Seagate amendment
: codifies the "objective recklessness" standard;

Post-grant review amendment #1
: corrects inconsistency between section 337 (1) and (2) by disqualifying post-grant reviews where issues were raised (or could have been raised) in the litigation;

Post-grant review amendment #2: defines "final decision" for estoppel purposes.


More amendments are expected to follow in the coming weeks.

6 Comentários:

Anonymous said...

"best mode would be considered for obtaining a patent, but not for invalidating"

Therefore, failure to disclose best mode could not be used as a basis for invalidity, but could it be use as a basis for inequitable conduct?

Anonymous said...

Reminds me of the situation for "claims must be clear" under the European law. Requirement of the Convention, which EPO Exrs police, but no ground for invalidity post-issue. Makes sense. Was there ever an issued patent with any claim at all in it that is 100% "clear"? Same with "best mode". Was there ever an issued US patent that achieved that statutory requirement to a level of 100%. Only thing that saves the barmy "best mode" provision from complete ridicule is another two barmy provisions, namely 1) presumption of validity and 2) need for clear and convincing evidence to get a wrongly issued 20 year monopoly cancelled. Shame the Reform Bill doesn't take the opportunity to strip all the rubbish out of the US Statute, and get down to a Statute that is the "best mode" for the US patent system.

Anonymous said...

Did anyone touch the Sen. Sessions amendment? or strike it? If not, hang on to your ticket, the fat lady has not sung yet!

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Anonymous said...

How many people realize,that the Jeff Sessions ammendment to the Patent Reform Bill will cost the American tax payers upwards of One Billion Dollars in taxes ? He is attempting to remove the burden of responsibility, for patent infringement, from the banks ,where it rightfully belongs,and pass it on to the tax payers. I defy Jeff Sessions to give a logical explination as to why he is trying to get the banks off the hook and pass this unjustafied expense on the American tax payer. No Mr.Sessions,(CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS FROM LOBYISTS,GREED AND CORRUPT POLITICS ARE NOT LOGICAL EXPLINATIONS)!!!!!!!!!

Francy said...

Hi!
This is Nice Blog!

We are located in Chennai India Offering a wide range of back office and I.T Enabled Services namely data entry, data processing,
litigation and data conversion that match the high global standards in terms of efficiency and accuracy.

We offers innovative and effective outsourcing solutions for clients around the world. We deliver higher quality, increased productivity, and lower costs. Can we do that for you? Sure we can

DISCLAIMER

This Blog/Web Site ("Blog") is for educational purposes only and is not legal advice. Use of the Blog does not create any attorney-client relationship between you and Peter Zura or his firm. Persons requiring legal advice should contact a licensed attorney in your state. Any comment posted on the Blog can be read by any Blog visitor; do not post confidential or sensitive information. Any links from another site to the Blog are beyond the control of Peter Zura and does not convey his, or his past or present employer(s) approval, support, endorsement or any relationship to any site or organization.

The 271 Patent Blog © 2008. Template by Dicas Blogger.

TOPO