tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6851300.post6131561780676091772..comments2023-11-05T06:06:12.057-06:00Comments on The 271 Patent Blog: Ex-PTO Commisioners Weigh in on Patent ReformTwo-Seventy-One Patent Bloghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02481083706071978817noreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6851300.post-69707183547739912892008-02-04T08:02:00.000-06:002008-02-04T08:02:00.000-06:00"it" is patent reform as set forth by companies wh..."it" is patent reform as set forth by companies who seek nothing but promoting their corporate bottom line.<BR/><BR/>Thankfully, our Founding Fathers were wiser than that.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6851300.post-21821268326424859342008-02-03T14:55:00.000-06:002008-02-03T14:55:00.000-06:00Simply unable to take any meaning from that last c...Simply unable to take any meaning from that last cryptic comment. Too high-flown for me. What's "it", and what was "bad" about your dream? Pray elucidate, can't thou?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6851300.post-71321171521841968562008-02-02T17:59:00.000-06:002008-02-02T17:59:00.000-06:00And then I awoke, and lo, it was just a bad dream....And then I awoke, and lo, it was just a bad dream.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6851300.post-31616800964513390872008-02-02T11:24:00.000-06:002008-02-02T11:24:00.000-06:00Now there's a thought: 1) A: We must have oppositi...Now there's a thought: 1) A: We must have oppositions! 2) B: But they will be horrible expensive! 3)A: Don't worry, they will be very rare. 4) B: In that case, what benefit do they bring to the system? 5)A: The benefit that comes from Applicants disciplining themselves. For fear of getting bogged down in an interminable opposition prosecuted by their deadliest competitor, all Applicants will voluntarily eschew dubious claims, those that will fold under pressure from that competitor, in all their pending apps..Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6851300.post-9835187519574368262008-02-02T07:57:00.000-06:002008-02-02T07:57:00.000-06:00Re: "there is a realistic fear that subjecting the...Re: "there is a realistic fear that subjecting the 1.7 million U.S. patents now in force to a 'Second Window' Post-Grant Review could result in disastrous resource and administrative problems for the USPTO and the U.S. patent system."<BR/> This exact same argument was made in 1999 to prevent inter partes reexaminations for any patents from applicatons filed before then, so as not to "overwhelm" the PTO, and by now has been proven completely unfounded. ALL reexaminations, public use proceedings and protests take an insignificantly small percentage of the PTO budget, and there is no valid basis for assuming that [far more expensive for the parties] oppostions would be used more extensively than reexaminations have been.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6851300.post-24284659735044583482008-02-01T19:57:00.000-06:002008-02-01T19:57:00.000-06:00Reasonable comments overall, but the statements ab...Reasonable comments overall, but the statements about the venue provisions obviously reflect that these ex-PTO commissioners have never been involved in actual patent litigation. <BR/><BR/>"The popularity or consternation about filing patent cases in certain judicial districts waxes and wanes over time. The popularity of the Eastern District of Virginia's 'rocket docket' has faded in the past several years, while the popularity of the Eastern District of Texas grew." <BR/><BR/>The flaw with this reasoning is that the Eastern District of Virginia, and later Wisconsin, eventually "waned" because the judges in those districts followed the venue laws and routinely granted 1404(a) motions to transfer where neither side had any connection to the forum. Plaintiffs stopped flocking to those districts because the judges put an end to their blatant forum shopping. <BR/><BR/>The Eastern District of Texas, on the other hand, disregards the venue laws, denies motions to transfer in all cases (except where there's a previously-filed case in another district), and actively encourages forum shopping. Thus, the the factors that caused the "waning" of other "rocket dockets" are not applicable to E.D. Texas. There is no evidence that E.D. Texas has, or ever will, "wane" without Congressional action.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6851300.post-45753220513221483552008-02-01T08:31:00.000-06:002008-02-01T08:31:00.000-06:00Maybe the safe harbor stated above should apply on...Maybe the safe harbor stated above should apply only in instances where intent to deceive is inferred from the materiality of the reference. In rare cases where intent to deceive is shown by direct evidence, it seems there should be no safe harbor.dcpatentassociatehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07535960771601417325noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6851300.post-89789189899751614832008-02-01T06:54:00.000-06:002008-02-01T06:54:00.000-06:00Peter, the paper was not funded by CPF (it makes t...Peter, the paper was not funded by CPF (it makes too much sense and isn't anti-American like RIM and Chinese companies want). It was funded by the Coalition for 21st Century Patent Reform.<BR/><BR/>http://www.patentsmatter.com/Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com