May 24, 2012

Let The Reformation Begin! Patent Reform Act Passes

The Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (H.R. 1249) passed the Senate on Thursday, 89-9, after more than six years of work – sometimes sporadic – by the various interested parties. Although President Obama hailed the bill as creating jobs by streamlining the PTO (my words) during his jobs speech to Congress that evening, it is hard to see how adding several layers of pre- and post-grant challenge/review to an already nearly stalled examination process will streamline anything. Eliminating interferences, never much of an impediment for anyone, is not going to solve the backlog issue and neither is charging $4000 plus for expedited examination.  I, and many other commentators, have criticized aspects of this bill (See Posts of July 15, 2011 and April 18, 2011), among them the odd, hybrid grace period and the 102(e)/103 consequences of reversing Hillmer. (See, J. Mueller, An Introduction to Patent Law (Aspen 2003) at pages 351-352, if you have forgotten this classic PTO-CCPA debate.)

But sitting on a late Friday afternoon with the 149 page Act in my lap, I just feel tired, and a bit sad. The elegant 35 U.S.C. is going to look a lot more like the tax code by the time it gets reprinted, and 37 C.F.R. may well be multi-volume, like the FDA regulations. After all those years of work, this Act seems unworthy of its sleek forebears – a pastiche of many special interests’ interests including a single law firm, that got a “special bill” passed. (See Sec. 37.) Am I the only one who feels that this bill is turning the patent laws into the tax code? There are 37 Sections with intriguing titles like “Tax strategies deemed within the prior art”, “Study on genetic testing” and “Patent Ombudsman Program for small business concerns” that I am sure will set our collective fingers flying across keyboards. This bill embodies legislative ADHD – open it randomly and put your finger down, and there is a law review article, or at least a note. (Harvard, did you know that your professors may be micro-entities?)  I have praised Director Kappos in the past as the hardest working man in IP-biz, but he is going to have to work faster than the Flash to churn out the regulations needed to implement just Section 12 (“Supplemental examination”). The Act passed without difficulty, but Senators as diverse as Boxer, Rand Paul and McCain all voted “No”. They may yet get to do the “I told you so” dance.

© 2012 Schwegman, Lundberg & Woessner, P.A. All Rights Reserved.

About the Author

Shareholder

Warren Woessner is a registered patent attorney and a founding shareholder of Schwegman, Lundberg & Woessner. His practice focuses on chemical patent law, including biotechnology, pharmaceuticals, vaccines, medical treatments, diagnostics, and biofuels and agricultural chemistry, including related opinion and licensing matters.

612-373-6900

Boost: AJAX core statistics

Legal Disclaimer

You are responsible for reading, understanding and agreeing to the National Law Review's (NLR’s) and the National Law Forum LLC's  Terms of Use and Privacy Policy before using the National Law Review website. The National Law Review is a free to use, no-log in database of legal and business articles. The content and links on www.NatLawReview.com are intended for general information purposes only. Any legal analysis, legislative updates or other content and links should not be construed as legal or professional advice or a substitute for such advice. No attorney-client or confidential relationship is formed by the transmission of information between you and the National Law Review website or any of the law firms, attorneys or other professionals or organizations who include content on the National Law Review website. If you require legal or professional advice, kindly contact an attorney or other suitable professional advisor.  

Some states have laws and ethical rules regarding solicitation and advertisement practices by attorneys and/or other professionals. NLR does not accept advertising from attorneys or law firms. The National Law Review is not a law firm nor is www.NatLawReview.com  intended to be an advertisement or a referral service for attorneys and/or other professionals. The NLR does not wish, nor does it intend, to solicit the business of anyone or to refer anyone to an attorney or other professional.  NLR does not answer legal questions nor will we refer you to an attorney or other professional if you request such information from us. 

Under certain state laws the following statements may be required on this website and we have included them in order to be in full compliance with these rules. The choice of a lawyer or other professional is an important decision and should not be based solely upon advertisements. Attorney Advertising Notice: Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Statement in compliance with Texas Rules of Professional Conduct. Unless otherwise noted, attorneys are not certified by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization, nor can NLR attest to the accuracy of any notation of Legal Specialization or other Professional Credentials.