// API callback
related_results_labels({"version":"1.0","encoding":"UTF-8","feed":{"xmlns":"http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom","xmlns$openSearch":"http://a9.com/-/spec/opensearchrss/1.0/","xmlns$blogger":"http://schemas.google.com/blogger/2008","xmlns$georss":"http://www.georss.org/georss","xmlns$gd":"http://schemas.google.com/g/2005","xmlns$thr":"http://purl.org/syndication/thread/1.0","id":{"$t":"tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6851300"},"updated":{"$t":"2024-09-02T03:28:06.312-05:00"},"category":[{"term":"USPTO"},{"term":"patent litigation"},{"term":"CAFC"},{"term":"patent reform"},{"term":"patent reform act of 2007"},{"term":"BPAI"},{"term":"continuation rule changes"},{"term":"obviousness"},{"term":"patentable subject matter; 35 USC 101"},{"term":"USPTO; continuation rule changes"},{"term":"patentable subject matter"},{"term":"inequitable conduct"},{"term":"KSR v. Teleflex"},{"term":"Bilski"},{"term":"KSR"},{"term":"claim construction"},{"term":"software patents"},{"term":"willful infringement"},{"term":"patent quality"},{"term":"EPO"},{"term":"FTC"},{"term":"Patent Refom Act"},{"term":"USPTO; patentable subject matter; 35 USC 101"},{"term":"double patenting"},{"term":"indefiniteness"},{"term":"patent licensing"},{"term":"innovation"},{"term":"inter partes reexamination; USPTO"},{"term":"sanctions"},{"term":"2007 patent reform"},{"term":"CAFC statistics"},{"term":"E.D. Texas"},{"term":"Ebay"},{"term":"Intellectual Ventures"},{"term":"Microsoft"},{"term":"Patent Troll Tracker"},{"term":"S.1145"},{"term":"WIPO"},{"term":"declaratory judgment"},{"term":"patent litigation; inequitable conduct"},{"term":"patent troll"},{"term":"35 USC 101"},{"term":"China"},{"term":"IDS Rule Changes"},{"term":"Leahy"},{"term":"Medimmune"},{"term":"Michel"},{"term":"PTO rule changes"},{"term":"Quanta"},{"term":"S. 1145"},{"term":"USPTO fees"},{"term":"divided infringement; patent litigation"},{"term":"doctrine of equivalents"},{"term":"end software patents"},{"term":"inventorship"},{"term":"joint infringement"},{"term":"patent damages"},{"term":"patent exhaustion"},{"term":"patent infringement"},{"term":"patent litigation; patent damages"},{"term":"patent litigation; patentable subject matter"},{"term":"patent litigation; willful infringement"},{"term":"patent policy"},{"term":"patent prosecution"},{"term":"patent searching"},{"term":"patent standardization"},{"term":"permanent injunction"},{"term":"prosecution history estoppel"},{"term":"reexamination"},{"term":"tafas"},{"term":"unintentional abandonment"},{"term":"110th Congress"},{"term":"35 USC 112"},{"term":"Alcatel"},{"term":"Berman"},{"term":"Congress"},{"term":"Dudas"},{"term":"Ex Parte Nehls USPTO"},{"term":"IEEE; patent portfolio"},{"term":"ITC"},{"term":"In Re Seagate"},{"term":"Infringement"},{"term":"LES"},{"term":"NPE"},{"term":"Nujten"},{"term":"OMB"},{"term":"Ocean Tomo"},{"term":"PCT"},{"term":"Patent Cafe"},{"term":"Rambus"},{"term":"SCOTUS"},{"term":"Supreme Court"},{"term":"USPTO; Appeal Brief Rule Changes"},{"term":"USPTO; BPAI"},{"term":"WIPO patent report 2008"},{"term":"antitrust"},{"term":"certificate of correction"},{"term":"district court delaware"},{"term":"eBay v. MercExchange; permanent injunction"},{"term":"enablement"},{"term":"ex parte appeal rule changes"},{"term":"ex parte reexamination"},{"term":"examination support document"},{"term":"false patent marking"},{"term":"glaxo litigation"},{"term":"inherency"},{"term":"injunction"},{"term":"inter partes reexamination"},{"term":"lobbying"},{"term":"motion to stay"},{"term":"niro"},{"term":"patent litigation financing"},{"term":"patent litigation;"},{"term":"patent litigation; NPE; trolls"},{"term":"patent litigation; Seagate"},{"term":"patent litigation; damages"},{"term":"patent litigation; indefiniteness"},{"term":"patent pools"},{"term":"patent statistics"},{"term":"patent valuation"},{"term":"patents"},{"term":"priority"},{"term":"tax patents"},{"term":"top patent filers"},{"term":"translogic"},{"term":"venue"},{"term":"written description"},{"term":"'069 Patent"},{"term":"200 letter"},{"term":"5\/25"},{"term":"AIPLA Model Patent Jury Instructions"},{"term":"AQS"},{"term":"ATI"},{"term":"ATT"},{"term":"AUTM annual report; technology transfer"},{"term":"Acumed"},{"term":"Adam Jaffe"},{"term":"Ampex"},{"term":"Apotex"},{"term":"Appeal"},{"term":"Aristocrat"},{"term":"AvaMed"},{"term":"BIO"},{"term":"BPAI. text search"},{"term":"BPAI; USPTO"},{"term":"BPAI; USPTO; Appeal Brief Rule Changes"},{"term":"BPMC"},{"term":"Becerra"},{"term":"Berman letter"},{"term":"Biomedino"},{"term":"BlueJ"},{"term":"CAFC; incorporation by reference"},{"term":"CAFC; means-plus-function; infringement"},{"term":"CAFC; safe harbor; Hatch-Waxman"},{"term":"CBT"},{"term":"CHI"},{"term":"CJ Asset Management"},{"term":"CLP"},{"term":"CSIRO"},{"term":"CWU Pilot Program"},{"term":"Cargill"},{"term":"Chicago IP Day"},{"term":"Citizens Against Government Waste"},{"term":"Cominskey"},{"term":"Commerce Department Letter"},{"term":"Common Application Format"},{"term":"Cross"},{"term":"Cybor"},{"term":"DTV patents; patent licensing; patent pools"},{"term":"Daiichi"},{"term":"Daniel Ravicher"},{"term":"Detkin"},{"term":"Dickson"},{"term":"DirecTV"},{"term":"Dystar"},{"term":"EON-Net"},{"term":"EchoStar"},{"term":"Edwards"},{"term":"Elbex Video"},{"term":"Eon"},{"term":"Ex Parte Letts"},{"term":"Federal Circuit"},{"term":"Federal Register"},{"term":"Festo"},{"term":"Finisar"},{"term":"Fisher-Price"},{"term":"Franklin Electric"},{"term":"Fulbright Jaworsky litigation survey; patent litigation"},{"term":"GPH"},{"term":"Genomic Research and Accessibility Act"},{"term":"Google Earth"},{"term":"HR 2365"},{"term":"Halliburton"},{"term":"Hatch"},{"term":"IAM"},{"term":"IP Australia"},{"term":"IP econonomics"},{"term":"IP investing"},{"term":"IP litigation; China"},{"term":"IP valuation"},{"term":"ISO"},{"term":"India"},{"term":"Innovation Alliance"},{"term":"Intellectual Property Prospector"},{"term":"JPO"},{"term":"John Love"},{"term":"Kennedy"},{"term":"Kolling"},{"term":"Korea"},{"term":"Leapfrog"},{"term":"LegalForce"},{"term":"LegalMetric"},{"term":"Lemley"},{"term":"Lemley Sampat"},{"term":"Lichtman"},{"term":"Litigation Survey 2007"},{"term":"Liu Sharon study"},{"term":"Loyola"},{"term":"M. Henry Heines"},{"term":"MDMA"},{"term":"Mark Myers"},{"term":"Marshall Phelps"},{"term":"MassMEDIC"},{"term":"McKesson"},{"term":"McNeil"},{"term":"Medtronic"},{"term":"MercExchange"},{"term":"Micron"},{"term":"Microsoft v. ATT"},{"term":"Monsanto"},{"term":"N-Data"},{"term":"NTP"},{"term":"Netcraft"},{"term":"OIRA"},{"term":"PCT filings 2006"},{"term":"POPA"},{"term":"PTO rumors"},{"term":"PWC Patent Litigation Study"},{"term":"Paice"},{"term":"Patent Advisory Committee"},{"term":"Patent Enforcement Team"},{"term":"Patent Focus Report"},{"term":"Patent Monkey"},{"term":"Patent Pendency"},{"term":"Patent for Business"},{"term":"Peer to Patent"},{"term":"Perrigo"},{"term":"Pharmastem"},{"term":"PowerOasis"},{"term":"Price Waterhouse Cooper"},{"term":"Priority Document Exchange"},{"term":"QPC"},{"term":"RFID"},{"term":"Reid"},{"term":"Representation"},{"term":"Reuning"},{"term":"Rule 8"},{"term":"SBS"},{"term":"SDNY"},{"term":"SRI International"},{"term":"SanDisk"},{"term":"Sarbanes-Oxley"},{"term":"Shabaz Crabb"},{"term":"Sherman Act"},{"term":"Skyline"},{"term":"SparkIP"},{"term":"State Street"},{"term":"Stephen Pinkos"},{"term":"Stryker"},{"term":"Suzanne Michel"},{"term":"Symbian"},{"term":"Syngenta"},{"term":"TGIP"},{"term":"Tech Policy Summit"},{"term":"Teleflex"},{"term":"Texas MP3 Technologies"},{"term":"The Resolution"},{"term":"Toyota"},{"term":"Twombly"},{"term":"UK-IPO"},{"term":"USPTO IDS Rule Changes"},{"term":"USPTO training"},{"term":"USPTO; IDS; Applicant Quality Submissions"},{"term":"USPTO; KSR Guidelines; continuation rule changes"},{"term":"USPTO; Peterlin"},{"term":"USPTO; flat goal of production"},{"term":"USPTO; patent litigation; presumption of validity"},{"term":"USPTO; reexaminations"},{"term":"USPTO; teleworking"},{"term":"Validity"},{"term":"ValueVest"},{"term":"Verizon"},{"term":"Vonage"},{"term":"W.D. Wisconsin"},{"term":"WIPO patent report 2007"},{"term":"WLAN"},{"term":"Walker Process"},{"term":"Waters Technologies"},{"term":"Wi-LAN; patent litigation"},{"term":"Woodlock"},{"term":"Yet2.com"},{"term":"accelerated examination"},{"term":"allison"},{"term":"allowance rates"},{"term":"anticipation"},{"term":"appointments"},{"term":"biotech"},{"term":"blackboard"},{"term":"calim construction"},{"term":"claim contruction"},{"term":"claim differentiation"},{"term":"claim preclusion"},{"term":"clustering"},{"term":"coalition for patent fairness"},{"term":"communit patent review"},{"term":"community review"},{"term":"convoyed sales"},{"term":"cost"},{"term":"declarations"},{"term":"deputy commissioner"},{"term":"desire2learn"},{"term":"district courts"},{"term":"economist"},{"term":"employee survey"},{"term":"equitable estoppel"},{"term":"ethernet"},{"term":"filing fees"},{"term":"final rule"},{"term":"first to file"},{"term":"foreign patent searches"},{"term":"fuel cell patents"},{"term":"gene patents"},{"term":"gsk"},{"term":"hardware"},{"term":"hedge funds"},{"term":"house hearings"},{"term":"indifiniteness"},{"term":"infringment"},{"term":"inter partes reexamination; Cooper Technologies; USPTO"},{"term":"interviews"},{"term":"inventor mobility; patents"},{"term":"kahaulelio-gregory"},{"term":"klemens"},{"term":"kop"},{"term":"kunin"},{"term":"laches"},{"term":"lawsuit"},{"term":"licensing"},{"term":"litigation"},{"term":"mann"},{"term":"media coverage"},{"term":"medical techniques"},{"term":"misconduct"},{"term":"mossinghoff"},{"term":"nanotubes"},{"term":"notice"},{"term":"oaths"},{"term":"offer for sale"},{"term":"open source"},{"term":"opposition"},{"term":"patent auctions"},{"term":"patent bounties"},{"term":"patent busting"},{"term":"patent disclaimer"},{"term":"patent harmonization"},{"term":"patent holdup"},{"term":"patent intelligence"},{"term":"patent intermediaries; Raymond Millen; Ron Laurie"},{"term":"patent litigation; Rule 11 sanctions"},{"term":"patent litigation; SDNY; Rule 11 sanctions"},{"term":"patent litigation; assignment"},{"term":"patent litigation; divided infringement"},{"term":"patent litigation; equitable estoppel"},{"term":"patent litigation; inter partes reexamination"},{"term":"patent litigation; reexamination"},{"term":"patent litigation; reexamination; willful infringement"},{"term":"patent litigaton"},{"term":"patent market"},{"term":"patent ownership"},{"term":"patent tools"},{"term":"pharma"},{"term":"pleadings"},{"term":"preliminary injunctions"},{"term":"presumption of validity"},{"term":"presumptions"},{"term":"prior art"},{"term":"private equity"},{"term":"privilege"},{"term":"product by process claims"},{"term":"prosecution history"},{"term":"rader"},{"term":"reasearch and development"},{"term":"recapture"},{"term":"reexamination; patent litigation"},{"term":"reissue"},{"term":"remand"},{"term":"representative claims"},{"term":"royalties"},{"term":"royalty stacking"},{"term":"sanctions. protective orders"},{"term":"senate"},{"term":"sovereign immunity"},{"term":"standing"},{"term":"statutory subject matter"},{"term":"stndardization groups"},{"term":"supplemental jurisdiction"},{"term":"thomson reuters patent study"},{"term":"top patent holders; USPTO"},{"term":"unextected results"},{"term":"vitiation"},{"term":"vuestar; patent litigation"},{"term":"waiver"},{"term":"webcast"},{"term":"world growth"}],"title":{"type":"text","$t":"The 271 Patent Blog"},"subtitle":{"type":"html","$t":"By Peter Zura"},"link":[{"rel":"http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#feed","type":"application/atom+xml","href":"http:\/\/271patent.blogspot.com\/feeds\/posts\/default"},{"rel":"self","type":"application/atom+xml","href":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/feeds\/6851300\/posts\/default\/-\/patent+reform?alt=json-in-script\u0026max-results=5"},{"rel":"alternate","type":"text/html","href":"http:\/\/271patent.blogspot.com\/search\/label\/patent%20reform"},{"rel":"hub","href":"http://pubsubhubbub.appspot.com/"},{"rel":"next","type":"application/atom+xml","href":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/feeds\/6851300\/posts\/default\/-\/patent+reform\/-\/patent+reform?alt=json-in-script\u0026start-index=6\u0026max-results=5"}],"author":[{"name":{"$t":"Two-Seventy-One Patent Blog"},"uri":{"$t":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/profile\/02481083706071978817"},"email":{"$t":"noreply@blogger.com"},"gd$image":{"rel":"http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail","width":"16","height":"16","src":"https:\/\/img1.blogblog.com\/img\/b16-rounded.gif"}}],"generator":{"version":"7.00","uri":"http://www.blogger.com","$t":"Blogger"},"openSearch$totalResults":{"$t":"29"},"openSearch$startIndex":{"$t":"1"},"openSearch$itemsPerPage":{"$t":"5"},"entry":[{"id":{"$t":"tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6851300.post-3479893990506463024"},"published":{"$t":"2010-08-17T19:37:00.000-05:00"},"updated":{"$t":"2010-08-17T19:37:07.774-05:00"},"category":[{"scheme":"http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#","term":"patent reform"}],"title":{"type":"text","$t":"RIP Patent Reform 2010?"},"content":{"type":"html","$t":"\u003Cblockquote\u003E\"I used to be indecisive; now I'm not sure.\"\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp; - Anonymous\u003C\/blockquote\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003E\nWell, in the on-again-off-again world of patent reform, it appears that Congress has its finger on the \"off\" switch.\u0026nbsp; From a recent EE Times article:\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cblockquote\u003EBacking for a draft patent reform bill in the U.S.  Senate appears to have waned while support is rising for a more recent  proposal to give the patent office more funds to deal with its historic  backlog of applications.\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\nObservers say neither initiative is likely to  pass in the current Congress though change is urgently needed.\u0026nbsp; A patent reform bill that passed out of the Senate Judiciary  Committee last year has lost key industry backing, say several sources. A  separate bill introduced in May to bolster funding for the patent  office faces \"a civil war\" between warring House committees, said one  observer.\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\"The prospects are fairly limited,\" for all the proposed bills, said Paul Michel, former\u003Cspan\u003E\u0026nbsp; \u003C\/span\u003EChief Judge of the U. S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit .\u003C\/blockquote\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003E\nRead EE Times, \"\u003Ci\u003ESupport for patent office rises as reform bill wanes\u003C\/i\u003E\" (\u003Ca href=\"http:\/\/www.eetimes.com\/electronics-news\/4206090\/Patent-office-patent-reform-bill\"\u003Elink\u003C\/a\u003E)"},"link":[{"rel":"replies","type":"application/atom+xml","href":"http:\/\/271patent.blogspot.com\/feeds\/3479893990506463024\/comments\/default","title":"Post Comments"},{"rel":"replies","type":"text/html","href":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/comment.g?blogID=6851300\u0026postID=3479893990506463024\u0026isPopup=true","title":"4 Comments"},{"rel":"edit","type":"application/atom+xml","href":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/feeds\/6851300\/posts\/default\/3479893990506463024"},{"rel":"self","type":"application/atom+xml","href":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/feeds\/6851300\/posts\/default\/3479893990506463024"},{"rel":"alternate","type":"text/html","href":"http:\/\/271patent.blogspot.com\/2010\/08\/rip-patent-reform-2010.html","title":"RIP Patent Reform 2010?"}],"author":[{"name":{"$t":"Two-Seventy-One Patent Blog"},"uri":{"$t":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/profile\/02481083706071978817"},"email":{"$t":"noreply@blogger.com"},"gd$image":{"rel":"http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail","width":"16","height":"16","src":"https:\/\/img1.blogblog.com\/img\/b16-rounded.gif"}}],"thr$total":{"$t":"4"}},{"id":{"$t":"tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6851300.post-1721117974563617344"},"published":{"$t":"2010-07-01T10:27:00.001-05:00"},"updated":{"$t":"2010-07-01T10:33:31.423-05:00"},"category":[{"scheme":"http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#","term":"patent reform"}],"title":{"type":"text","$t":"Leahy Post-Bilski Comments and Patent Reform"},"content":{"type":"html","$t":"As the summer recess approaches, it is all but certain that Congress will (again) postpone efforts to enact patent reform.\u0026nbsp; Since the manager's amendment (S. 515) was \u003Ca href=\"http:\/\/leahy.senate.gov\/imo\/media\/doc\/041910PatentReformSupport.pdf\"\u003Eforwarded to the Senate in April\u003C\/a\u003E, very little has been done in advancing the legislation.\u0026nbsp; Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy is understandably frustrated over the lack of any progress, stating in a \u003Ca href=\"http:\/\/money.cnn.com\/2010\/06\/21\/technology\/patent_reform\/index.htm\"\u003Erecent interview\u003C\/a\u003E \"I don't know why this hasn't gotten floor time . . . This has nothing to do with ideology. We need an updated patent system  to create and protect jobs, and it wouldn't add a penny to the deficit.\"\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\nFor whatever reason, Leahy apparently believes that the manager's amendment is a \"done deal\" in the Senate, and will be passed quickly, once the Senate has a chance to vote on it:\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cblockquote\u003ELeahy noted that the bill has three Republican co-signers, along with  three Democrats. As a result, \u003Cb\u003Ehe predicted that once it gets floor time,  the bill could get passed in just three days\u003C\/b\u003E -- a blink of an eye  compared to the marathon sessions it took to get stimulus, health care  and financial reform passed. \u003C\/blockquote\u003EWhat is even more interesting is that Leahy has openly come out against business method patents after \u003Ci\u003EBilski\u003C\/i\u003E, and appears to be under the impression that patent reform legislation can \"fix\" what Bilski could not.\u0026nbsp; From \u003Ca href=\"http:\/\/leahy.senate.gov\/press\/press_releases\/release\/?id=9577014f-32d2-41a8-b189-ac07d86cc336\"\u003ELeahy's website\u003C\/a\u003E:\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cblockquote\u003EIn \u003Ci\u003EBilski v. Kappos\u003C\/i\u003E, the Court unanimously affirmed the  judgment of the Federal Circuit that the application for a patent on a  business method should be rejected.\u0026nbsp; The Court’s opinion, joined by only  five of the Justices, however, \u003Cb\u003Eneedlessly left the door open for  business method patents to issue in the future, and I am concerned that  it will lead to more unnecessary litigation\u003C\/b\u003E.\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\nSince the debate over comprehensive patent reform began many years  ago, the Supreme Court has demonstrated an increased interest in patent  law cases. \u0026nbsp;The Court’s decisions have moved in the direction of  improving patent quality.\u0026nbsp; While today’s decision will take time to  analyze and may not have advanced the law and created the stability and  certainty that it could have, it appears to continue this trend, which  is consistent with the goal of patent reform legislation pending in  Congress.\u0026nbsp; \u003Cb\u003EThe courts, however, are constrained by the text of our  outdated statutes, and it is time for Congress to act\u003C\/b\u003E.”\u003C\/blockquote\u003EIn the meantime, scholars, attorneys and businesspeople have continued to publish critiques of pending patent reform legislation, pointing out that many aspects of the Patent Reform Act have unintended, and potentially adverse, consequences.\u0026nbsp; Most recently, \u003Ca href=\"http:\/\/leahy.senate.gov\/press\/press_releases\/release\/?id=9577014f-32d2-41a8-b189-ac07d86cc336\"\u003EMedical Innovation \u0026amp; Business\u003C\/a\u003E ran a special edition on patents and patent reform, which included articles such as:\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Ca href=\"http:\/\/journals.lww.com\/medinnovbusiness\/Fulltext\/2010\/06010\/Patent_Reform__Effects_On_Medical_Innovation.3.aspx\"\u003EPatent  Reform: Effects On Medical Innovation Businesses\u003C\/a\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003E\nKaswan, Renee; Boundy, David; Katznelson, Ron\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cdiv id=\"ctl00_SPWebPartManager1_g_1e820d28_fcca_40e6_b121_dcb32149f2ba__fa246c4c2cf_sectionListControl_sectionListView_ctrl2_sectionDisplayControl_subSectionListView_ctrl0_Div1\"\u003E\u003Cdiv id=\"itemListContainer__1804610548\" style=\"overflow: hidden;\"\u003E\u003Cdiv id=\"ej-featured-article\"\u003E\u003Cdiv id=\"ej-featured-article-info\"\u003E\u003Cdiv id=\"ej-featured-article-details\"\u003E\u003Cdiv id=\"ej-article-indicator-actions-container\"\u003E\u003Cdiv id=\"ej-article-actions\"\u003E\u003Cdiv class=\"ej-article-actions-abstract-hide\" id=\"absHide__1065586103\" style=\"display: none;\"\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Ca href=\"javascript:adcHideAbs('pnlAbstractText_489673914',%20'absShow_950837412',%20'absHide__1065586103')\"\u003E                             Abstract \u003C\/a\u003E                        \u003C\/div\u003E\u003C\/div\u003E\u003C\/div\u003E\u003Cdiv id=\"pnlAbstractText_489673914\" style=\"display: none; margin: 12px 0pt 0pt; overflow: hidden; width: 100%;\"\u003E\u003Cdiv id=\"ej-article-abstract\"\u003E\u003Ch5\u003EAbstract:\u003C\/h5\u003E\u003Ca href=\"http:\/\/journals.lww.com\/medinnovbusiness\/Fulltext\/2010\/06010\/Venture_Capital___The_Buck_Stops_Where_.4.aspx\"\u003EGo  to Full Text of this Article\u003C\/a\u003E                     \u003C\/div\u003E\u003C\/div\u003E\u003C\/div\u003E\u003C\/div\u003E\u003C\/div\u003E\u003C\/div\u003E\u003C\/div\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cdiv class=\"ej-toc-subheader\"\u003EAlternatives to Legislative Patent Reform  \u003C\/div\u003E\u003Cdiv id=\"ej-featured-article\"\u003E\u003Ca href=\"http:\/\/journals.lww.com\/medinnovbusiness\/Fulltext\/2010\/06010\/Conversations_with_Two_Chief_Judges.12.aspx\"\u003EConversations  with Two Chief Judges\u003C\/a\u003E\u003C\/div\u003E\u003Cspan id=\"checkBoxListContainer\"\u003EDowd, Matthew J.\u003C\/span\u003E                           \u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cdiv class=\"ej-featured-article-author\"\u003E\u003Ca href=\"http:\/\/journals.lww.com\/medinnovbusiness\/Fulltext\/2010\/06010\/Patent_Reform_s_Weakened_Grace_Period__Its_Effects.6.aspx\"\u003EPatent  Reform's Weakened Grace Period: Its Effects On Startups, Small  Companies, University Spin-Offs And Medical Innovators\u003C\/a\u003E\u0026nbsp;\u003C\/div\u003E\u003Cdiv class=\"ej-featured-article-author\"\u003EBoundy, David E.; Marquardt, Matthew J.                           \u0026nbsp;\u003C\/div\u003E\u003Cdiv class=\"ej-featured-article-author\"\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003C\/div\u003E\u003Cdiv class=\"ej-featured-article-author\"\u003E\u003Ca href=\"http:\/\/journals.lww.com\/medinnovbusiness\/Fulltext\/2010\/06010\/Would_Derivation_Proceedings_Be_The_Same_As.7.aspx\"\u003EWould  Derivation Proceedings Be The Same As Derivation Interferences?\u003C\/a\u003E\u003C\/div\u003E\u003Cdiv id=\"ej-featured-article-text\"\u003E\u003Cdiv id=\"ej-featured-article\"\u003E\u003Cdiv id=\"ej-featured-article-info\"\u003E\u003Cdiv id=\"ej-featured-article-details\"\u003E\u003Cdiv id=\"ej-featured-article-thumb-text\"\u003E\u003Cdiv id=\"ej-featured-article-text\"\u003E\u003Cdiv class=\"ej-featured-article-author\"\u003EGholz, Charles L.\u0026nbsp;\u003C\/div\u003E\u003Cdiv class=\"ej-featured-article-author\"\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003C\/div\u003E\u003Cdiv class=\"ej-featured-article-author\"\u003E\u003Ca href=\"http:\/\/journals.lww.com\/medinnovbusiness\/Fulltext\/2010\/06010\/Post_Grant_Review_Our_Next_Nightmare__VC.8.aspx\"\u003EPost-Grant  Review-Our Next Nightmare? VC Perspective\u003C\/a\u003E\u0026nbsp;\u003C\/div\u003E\u003Cdiv class=\"ej-featured-article-author\"\u003ENeis, John\u0026nbsp;\u003C\/div\u003E\u003Cdiv class=\"ej-featured-article-author\"\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003C\/div\u003E\u003Cdiv class=\"ej-featured-article-author\"\u003E\u003Ca href=\"http:\/\/journals.lww.com\/medinnovbusiness\/Fulltext\/2010\/06010\/Post_Grant_Review_of_U_S__Patents__Will_Past_Be.9.aspx\"\u003EPost-Grant  Review of U.S. Patents: Will Past Be Prologue?\u003C\/a\u003E\u003C\/div\u003E\u003C\/div\u003E\u003C\/div\u003E\u003C\/div\u003E\u003C\/div\u003E\u003C\/div\u003E\u003Cdiv id=\"ej-featured-article\"\u003E\u003Cdiv id=\"ej-featured-article-info\"\u003E\u003Cdiv id=\"ej-featured-article-details\"\u003E\u003Cdiv id=\"ej-featured-article-thumb-text\"\u003E\u003Cdiv id=\"ej-featured-article-text\"\u003E\u003Cdiv class=\"ej-featured-article-author\"\u003ENoonan, Kevin E                           \u0026nbsp;\u003C\/div\u003E\u003Cdiv class=\"ej-featured-article-author\"\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003C\/div\u003E\u003Cdiv class=\"ej-featured-article-author\"\u003E\u003Ca href=\"http:\/\/journals.lww.com\/medinnovbusiness\/Fulltext\/2010\/06010\/The_Gatekeeper_Patent_Damages_Compromise_of_S__515.10.aspx\"\u003EThe  Gatekeeper Patent Damages Compromise of S. 515\u003C\/a\u003E\u0026nbsp;\u003C\/div\u003E\u003Cdiv class=\"ej-featured-article-author\"\u003EJohnson, Philip S.\u003C\/div\u003E\u003Cdiv class=\"ej-featured-article-author\"\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003C\/div\u003E\u003Cdiv class=\"ej-featured-article-author\"\u003E\u003Ca href=\"http:\/\/journals.lww.com\/medinnovbusiness\/Fulltext\/2010\/06010\/The_Proposed_Interlocutory_Appeals_Provision_of.11.aspx\"\u003EThe  Proposed Interlocutory Appeals Provision of Patent Reform: Is It Dead  Yet?\u003C\/a\u003E\u003C\/div\u003E\u003Cdiv class=\"ej-featured-article-author\"\u003EReines, Edward; Greenblatt, Nathan\u003C\/div\u003E\u003C\/div\u003E\u003C\/div\u003E\u003C\/div\u003E\u003C\/div\u003E\u003C\/div\u003E\u003Cdiv class=\"ej-featured-article-author\"\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003E\nWhile patent reform is not a partisan issue, it is certainly a regional and industry-specific issue, and both parties are split on it.\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\nTo read these, and other articles from Medical Innovation and Business on patents and patent reform, click here (\u003Ca href=\"http:\/\/journals.lww.com\/medinnovbusiness\/pages\/default.aspx\"\u003Elink\u003C\/a\u003E)\u003C\/div\u003E\u003C\/div\u003E"},"link":[{"rel":"replies","type":"application/atom+xml","href":"http:\/\/271patent.blogspot.com\/feeds\/1721117974563617344\/comments\/default","title":"Post Comments"},{"rel":"replies","type":"text/html","href":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/comment.g?blogID=6851300\u0026postID=1721117974563617344\u0026isPopup=true","title":"9 Comments"},{"rel":"edit","type":"application/atom+xml","href":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/feeds\/6851300\/posts\/default\/1721117974563617344"},{"rel":"self","type":"application/atom+xml","href":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/feeds\/6851300\/posts\/default\/1721117974563617344"},{"rel":"alternate","type":"text/html","href":"http:\/\/271patent.blogspot.com\/2010\/07\/leahy-post-bilski-comments-and-patent.html","title":"Leahy Post-Bilski Comments and Patent Reform"}],"author":[{"name":{"$t":"Two-Seventy-One Patent Blog"},"uri":{"$t":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/profile\/02481083706071978817"},"email":{"$t":"noreply@blogger.com"},"gd$image":{"rel":"http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail","width":"16","height":"16","src":"https:\/\/img1.blogblog.com\/img\/b16-rounded.gif"}}],"thr$total":{"$t":"9"}},{"id":{"$t":"tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6851300.post-6411424403133711704"},"published":{"$t":"2010-05-17T12:59:00.000-05:00"},"updated":{"$t":"2010-05-17T12:59:44.529-05:00"},"category":[{"scheme":"http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#","term":"patent reform"}],"title":{"type":"text","$t":"Comprehensive Patent Reform Stalled; USPTO Fee -Setting Provisions to be Passed Tomorrow"},"content":{"type":"html","$t":"Patent reform has stalled yet again in Congress; \u003Cspan id=\"printableContent\"\u003EHouse Judiciary Chairman  John  Conyers Jr. recently remarked \u003C\/span\u003E\u003Cspan id=\"printableContent\"\u003E “we’re intransigent now. We seem to be  stuck.”\u0026nbsp; Accordingly, \u003C\/span\u003E\u003Cspan id=\"printableContent\"\u003EThe House is scheduled to vote on a bill  tomorrow that would give the USPTO new  authority to set or adjust patent and trademark fees. The measure will  be considered under suspension of the rules, an expedited process that  requires a two-thirds majority for passage.\u003C\/span\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cspan id=\"printableContent\"\u003ERead CQ Politics: \"\u003C\/span\u003E\u003Ci\u003EWith Overhaul of  Patent Law Stalled, House To Consider Narrower Bill\u003C\/i\u003E\" (\u003Ca href=\"http:\/\/www.cqpolitics.com\/wmspage.cfm?parm1=1\u0026amp;docID=cqmidday-000003664380\"\u003Elink\u003C\/a\u003E)\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\nOn Tuesday, the House will meet at 12:30 p.m. for Morning Hour and 2:00 p.m. for legislative business with votes postponed until 6:30 p.m..\u0026nbsp; The \"Patent and Trademark Office Fee Modernization Act of 2010\" is one of 18 bills scheduled for a vote under suspended rules\u0026nbsp; (see more \u003Ca href=\"http:\/\/democraticleader.house.gov\/links_and_resources\/whip_resources\/weeklyleader.cfm?pressreleaseID=4194\"\u003Ehere\u003C\/a\u003E)"},"link":[{"rel":"replies","type":"application/atom+xml","href":"http:\/\/271patent.blogspot.com\/feeds\/6411424403133711704\/comments\/default","title":"Post Comments"},{"rel":"replies","type":"text/html","href":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/comment.g?blogID=6851300\u0026postID=6411424403133711704\u0026isPopup=true","title":"5 Comments"},{"rel":"edit","type":"application/atom+xml","href":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/feeds\/6851300\/posts\/default\/6411424403133711704"},{"rel":"self","type":"application/atom+xml","href":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/feeds\/6851300\/posts\/default\/6411424403133711704"},{"rel":"alternate","type":"text/html","href":"http:\/\/271patent.blogspot.com\/2010\/05\/comprehensive-patent-reform-stalled.html","title":"Comprehensive Patent Reform Stalled; USPTO Fee -Setting Provisions to be Passed Tomorrow"}],"author":[{"name":{"$t":"Two-Seventy-One Patent Blog"},"uri":{"$t":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/profile\/02481083706071978817"},"email":{"$t":"noreply@blogger.com"},"gd$image":{"rel":"http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail","width":"16","height":"16","src":"https:\/\/img1.blogblog.com\/img\/b16-rounded.gif"}}],"thr$total":{"$t":"5"}},{"id":{"$t":"tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6851300.post-1273580367128508832"},"published":{"$t":"2010-05-04T15:08:00.000-05:00"},"updated":{"$t":"2010-05-04T15:08:27.179-05:00"},"category":[{"scheme":"http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#","term":"patent reform"}],"title":{"type":"text","$t":"Startups Push Congress to Maintain One-Year \"Grace Period\" for Patent Reform"},"content":{"type":"html","$t":"A group of 100 startup companies sent a letter petitioning the U.S. Congress to support the current one-year grace period for filing a patent application.\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp; Current reform measures directed to a \"first-to-file\" regime arguably weaken or eliminate any grace period for disclosed inventions.\u0026nbsp; That, according to the group, would be a really, really bad idea:\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cblockquote\u003EWithout the grace period, the patent system would become far more expensive and less effective for small companies. It would create the need to “race to the patent office” more frequently and at great expense before every new idea is fully developed or vetted. The pressure for more filings will affect all American inventors – not only a few that end up in interferences under current law. Because filing decisions must be made based on information that will be preliminary and immature, the bill forces poor patenting decisions. Applicants will skip patent protection for some ultimately valuable inventions, and will bear great costs for applications for inventions that (with the additional information that is developed during the grace period year of current law) prove to be useless, and subsequently abandoned. The evidence for this high abandonment trend under systems having no grace period is readily available from European application statistics.\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\nThe proponents of S. 515 suggest that the harm of the weak grace period of proposed § 102(b) can be overcome if an inventor publishes a description of the invention, allowing filing within a year following such publication. Underlying this suggestion are two errors. First, no business willingly publishes complete technical disclosures that will tip-off all competitors to a company’s technological direction. We generally do not, and will not, publish our inventions right when we make them, some 2.5 years before the 18-month publication or 5-7 years before the patent grant. Confidentiality is crucial to small companies.\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\nSecond, even if we were to avail ourselves of such conditional grace period by publishing first before filing, we would instantly forfeit all foreign patent rights because such publication would be deemed prior art under foreign patent law. No patent attorney will advise their client to publish every good idea they conceive in order to gain the grace period of S. 515. The publication-conditioned “grace period” in S. 515 is a useless construct proposed by parties intent on compelling American inventors to “harmonize” de facto with national patent systems that lack grace periods. S. 515 forces U.S. inventors to make the “Hobson’s Choice” of losing their foreign patent rights or losing the American grace period. It should be clear that the only way for American inventors to continue to benefit from a grace period and be able to obtain foreign patent rights, is to keep intact the current secret grace period that relies on invention date and a diligent reduction to practice.\u003C\/blockquote\u003ERead the letter in its entirety here (\u003Ca href=\"http:\/\/works.bepress.com\/cgi\/viewcontent.cgi?article=1057\u0026amp;context=rkatznelson\"\u003Elink\u003C\/a\u003E)\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\nSee EETimes, \"Startups petition Congress on patent reform\" (\u003Ca href=\"http:\/\/www.eetimes.com\/news\/latest\/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=224700551\"\u003Elink\u003C\/a\u003E)\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\nSee also \u003Ca href=\"http:\/\/www.ipadvocate.org\/patentreform\/pdfs\/Boundy%20Letter%20to%20Senate%20on%20S515.pdf\"\u003EDavid Boundy letter of February 1, 2010\u003C\/a\u003E: \u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cblockquote\u003EUnder the amendment to 35 U.S.C. § 102 proposed in S.515, the one-year grace period becomes extremely fragile—every business must assume there is no grace period, and that an application must be filed before any discussion of the invention with any other investor or strategic partner. S.515’s weak grace period will impose huge costs on every innovator that cannot assemble all necessary financial, R\u0026amp;D, manufacturing and marketing resources within a single firm, or that has to do significant testing outside the firm. Independent inventors, startups, and university inventors will be forced to make “use it or lose it” patent decisions about a year earlier than under current law, which in turn will require filing of many more patent applications. Each application drains many thousands of dollars of capital from productive uses to speculative patent filings, many of which will turn out to be useless. S.515 will strangle many companies in their cribs, by sucking capital out to the patent attorneys.\u003C\/blockquote\u003E"},"link":[{"rel":"replies","type":"application/atom+xml","href":"http:\/\/271patent.blogspot.com\/feeds\/1273580367128508832\/comments\/default","title":"Post Comments"},{"rel":"replies","type":"text/html","href":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/comment.g?blogID=6851300\u0026postID=1273580367128508832\u0026isPopup=true","title":"3 Comments"},{"rel":"edit","type":"application/atom+xml","href":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/feeds\/6851300\/posts\/default\/1273580367128508832"},{"rel":"self","type":"application/atom+xml","href":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/feeds\/6851300\/posts\/default\/1273580367128508832"},{"rel":"alternate","type":"text/html","href":"http:\/\/271patent.blogspot.com\/2010\/05\/startups-push-congress-to-maintain-one.html","title":"Startups Push Congress to Maintain One-Year \"Grace Period\" for Patent Reform"}],"author":[{"name":{"$t":"Two-Seventy-One Patent Blog"},"uri":{"$t":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/profile\/02481083706071978817"},"email":{"$t":"noreply@blogger.com"},"gd$image":{"rel":"http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail","width":"16","height":"16","src":"https:\/\/img1.blogblog.com\/img\/b16-rounded.gif"}}],"thr$total":{"$t":"3"}},{"id":{"$t":"tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6851300.post-6625354521951720373"},"published":{"$t":"2010-03-04T15:47:00.000-06:00"},"updated":{"$t":"2010-03-04T15:47:28.614-06:00"},"category":[{"scheme":"http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#","term":"patent reform"}],"title":{"type":"text","$t":"Senate Releases Lastest Amendments to the Patent Reform Act"},"content":{"type":"html","$t":"The Senate Judiciary Committee announced today the details of  an agreement on long-pending legislation to reform the  patent system.\u0026nbsp; Senators Leahy, Hatch, and Senators Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.), the Committee’s  ranking Republican, and Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.), and  Ted Kaufman (D-Del.) are pushing the latest amendments (see below) for Senate consideration. \u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\nAccording to Leahy's\/Sessions' \u003Ca href=\"http:\/\/leahy.senate.gov\/press\/press_releases\/release\/?id=8b0f5bb3-121b-484a-b0b7-092d7bdee1ac\"\u003Epress release\u003C\/a\u003E:\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cblockquote\u003EWith this agreement, we are closer than ever to advancing patent reform  legislation through the Senate . . .\u003Cstrong\u003E\u003C\/strong\u003E Senator  Hatch and I have worked through many Congresses to make meaningful  reforms to the nation’s patent system, and I appreciate his commitment  to this effort.\u0026nbsp; This compromise may not be everything that everyone  wants, but it makes important reforms to the outdated patent system.\u0026nbsp;  Strengthening American patents will improve the quality of our  inventions and innovations, which will translate into jobs and economic  growth in Vermont and across the country.\u0026nbsp; Congress is committed to  strengthening our economy, and the Patent Reform Act is an important  component of that effort.\u0026nbsp; I hope the leaders will soon schedule floor  time for this important legislation.\u003Cstrong\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003C\/strong\u003EThis  important bipartisan agreement would institute reforms that  significantly streamline and strengthen the U.S. Patent System . . .\u0026nbsp;\u003Cstrong\u003E\u003C\/strong\u003EIn doing so we are strengthening our ability to  protect Americans’ ideas and inventions—developments that have done, and  will continue doing, so much to improve and to enrich the world.\u0026nbsp; These  reforms would guard individuals, small businesses, and universities  from frivolous legal challenges and help prevent abuse of the  administrative process.\u0026nbsp; They would also provide greater clarity and cut  red tape that needlessly wastes time, money, and resources. American  innovation goes to the heart of our economy, and our success as a nation  must be protected.\u0026nbsp; I urge the Senate to consider and act on this  legislation and hope these needed reforms will soon be signed into law.\u003C\/blockquote\u003EThe proposed agreement makes changes to first-window post-grant review,  inter partes review, willfulness, interlocutory appeals, Patent and  Trademark Office funding, and supplemental examinations.\u0026nbsp; The agreement  retains several critical improvements in the Committee-reported bill,  including the transition to a first-inventor-to-file system, the  gatekeeper compromise on damages, the new district court pilot program,  and more.\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\nThe full text of the substitute amendment is available here (\u003Ca href=\"http:\/\/judiciary.senate.gov\/legislation\/upload\/PatentReformAmendment.pdf\"\u003Elink\u003C\/a\u003E)\u0026nbsp;"},"link":[{"rel":"replies","type":"application/atom+xml","href":"http:\/\/271patent.blogspot.com\/feeds\/6625354521951720373\/comments\/default","title":"Post Comments"},{"rel":"replies","type":"text/html","href":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/comment.g?blogID=6851300\u0026postID=6625354521951720373\u0026isPopup=true","title":"2 Comments"},{"rel":"edit","type":"application/atom+xml","href":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/feeds\/6851300\/posts\/default\/6625354521951720373"},{"rel":"self","type":"application/atom+xml","href":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/feeds\/6851300\/posts\/default\/6625354521951720373"},{"rel":"alternate","type":"text/html","href":"http:\/\/271patent.blogspot.com\/2010\/03\/senate-releases-lastest-amendments-to.html","title":"Senate Releases Lastest Amendments to the Patent Reform Act"}],"author":[{"name":{"$t":"Two-Seventy-One Patent Blog"},"uri":{"$t":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/profile\/02481083706071978817"},"email":{"$t":"noreply@blogger.com"},"gd$image":{"rel":"http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail","width":"16","height":"16","src":"https:\/\/img1.blogblog.com\/img\/b16-rounded.gif"}}],"thr$total":{"$t":"2"}}]}});