Page 2 of 1 of Patent Law Summaries » New Proposed Legislation
After Patrick J. Leahy of Vermont filed in April 2007 a bill entitled "Patent Reform Act of 2007," Senate Minority Whip Jon Kyl of Arizona filed his own bill that he called "Patent Reform Act of 2008. More...
The United States Senate unanimously passed on September 26, 2008 a bill that provides stronger protection to intellectual property ("IP") rights. Two days later, on motion to suspend the rules, the House of Representatives passed the same legislation by a vote of 381 to 41. The bill will be submitted… More...
The Senate has referred to the Committee on Judiciary a bill that will allow for harsher civil penalties to be accessed to those found guilty of violating intellectual property ("IP") laws and improve the civil remedies available to the victims.
The bill, known as the “Enforcement of Intellectual… More...
This historic proposed legislation, which seeks to overhaul the patent review process and deter litigation, was introduced in the Senate by Sen. Patrick J. Leahy (VT) on April 18, 2007, and co-sponsored by seven others, and shall be known as the “Patent Reform Act of 2007.”
A counterpart… More...
This proposed bill is entitled “To Amend Title 35, United States Code, To Limit Damages And Other Remedies With Respect To Patents For Tax Planning Methods.” Rep. Rick Boucher (Va.) introduced this bill on the floor on May 17, 2007. Forty other congressmen co-sponsored this bill on patents.
… More...
Page 2 of 1 of Patent Law Summaries » New Proposed Legislation
Following are Patent Law Commentaries elaborating on the significance of the most important of the Patent Law Summaries.
Commentary: In an effort to attack its notorious backlog, the USPTO enacted a group of rule changes that placed limits on, among other things, the number of claims a patent applicant could include and the number of times an applicant could amend and continue his application. Traditionally, patent applicants could take unlimited bites at the apple in their pursuit of their patent. In Tafas, the court struck down the rule changes as null and void, and exceeding the scope of the USPTO’s authority. While the Office has the power to enact procedural rules regarding the process, it cannot enact substantive rules – these rules are substantive since they dramatically alter existing policy and the rights and obligations of patent applicants. More...
Related summary: USPTO Rules Are Void For Being Contrary to Law, VA District Court Declares
Commentary: The decision in McKesson Information Solutions Inc. v. Bridge Medical Inc., 487 F.3d 897 (Fed. Cir. 2007), has been referred to by many as “frightening,” “burdensome,” and “a whopper.” Indeed, the decision places a high burden on patent prosecutors to disclose essentially every action in any related co-pending application. The failure to do so may result in a declaration that the patent is unenforceable due to inequitable conduct. More...
Related summary: Federal Circuit Affirms Inequitable Conduct Ruling in McKesson Information Solutions Suit
Commentary: Despite what it called a "harmonizing trend" among the world's patent courts, the Federal Circuit chose not to create a more unified global system of enforcing patents worldwide. Instead, the court effectively eliminated a district court's ability to assert supplemental jurisdiction over claims of foreign patent infringement, forcing patent holders to seek enforcement in parallel suits in courts all over the world. More...
Related summary: District Court Has No Jurisdiction over Foreign Patent Claims, Federal Circuit Holds in Voda v. Cordis
Commentary: The central issue that faced this court is how to determine if an invention is truly innovative or is just the result of linking together prior inventions in a way that was inevitable or an apparent next step. The Supreme Court emphasized flexibility in making that determination, whereas the Federal Circuit had been choosing predictability instead. The Court held that the Federal Circuit had too rigidly applied its “teaching, suggestion, motivation” test, under which a patent claim is only invalidated for obviousness if prior art contains some motivation or suggestion to combine the prior art teaching. This application resulted in erroneously finding that the patent at issue was not invalid for obviousness. More...
Related summary: KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc.
Enter our NEW discussion forums to interact with other readers about Patent Law.
Manual for Patent Examining Procedure (pdf, 56mb)
Patent Act (pdf, 1.4mb)
Patent Rules (pdf, 3.4mb)
The lawyers at Zuber & Taillieu LLP have top credentials, and offer exceptional services in all areas of law found on LawUpdates.com.
