Patent reform: bad for (small) business
Following up on the IPBiz post Does the current patent reform bill help small business in any way? concerning an article in NJBiz, IPBiz invites NJBiz to read the filing by Ron Katznelson concerning the manner in which the "patent reform" on the rules on continuing applications has adversely impacted small business.
It's available in the form of an amicus brief in Tafas v. Dudas:
http://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/virginia/vaedce/1:2007cv00846/221151/235/0.pdf
See also Dr. Rick Belzer's paperwork burden analysis of the Rules in Tafas' latest submission in
http://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/virginia/vaedce/1:2007cv00846/221151/253/0.pdf
Rick's paper is Exhibit 13, available at
http://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/virginia/vaedce/1:2007cv00846/221151/253/13.pdf
UPDATE.
See a post at PatentHawk describing a brief filed by Tafas which includes the text:
In short, the USPTO is saying that it intends to reduce its backlog by restricting and/or denying patent applicants the ability to make filings (e.g., continuations and multiple claims) expressly contemplated by various provisions of the Patent Act. It is only a small exaggeration to say the USPTO’s approach would be akin to the manager of an amusement park seeking to reduce lines for rides by not admitting anyone to the park. Only applying the most extreme bootleg logic could such an approach be characterized as reasonably calculated at “expediting” or “facilitating” a reduction in amusement park lines. The same is true here.
IPBiz notes a variant on this amusement park theme from an episode in South Park
IPBiz notes the Tafas brief also discusses re-work:
The USPTO has continually argued that continuation applications are inappropriately adding to its backlog as they comprise nothing more than “rework.” (See Testimony of Jon W. Dudas before the subcommittee on Intellectual Property Committee on the Judiciary April 21, 2005 (p. 9), Ex. 26 to Rueda Declaration dated December 20, 2007 (“Rueda Decl.”). Nonetheless, the USPTO cites no evidence to support this assertion in the record other than rehashing Mr. Dudas’ own earlier unsupported assertion, which type of ipse dixit statement does not become fact through mere repetition.
It's available in the form of an amicus brief in Tafas v. Dudas:
http://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/virginia/vaedce/1:2007cv00846/221151/235/0.pdf
See also Dr. Rick Belzer's paperwork burden analysis of the Rules in Tafas' latest submission in
http://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/virginia/vaedce/1:2007cv00846/221151/253/0.pdf
Rick's paper is Exhibit 13, available at
http://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/virginia/vaedce/1:2007cv00846/221151/253/13.pdf
UPDATE.
See a post at PatentHawk describing a brief filed by Tafas which includes the text:
In short, the USPTO is saying that it intends to reduce its backlog by restricting and/or denying patent applicants the ability to make filings (e.g., continuations and multiple claims) expressly contemplated by various provisions of the Patent Act. It is only a small exaggeration to say the USPTO’s approach would be akin to the manager of an amusement park seeking to reduce lines for rides by not admitting anyone to the park. Only applying the most extreme bootleg logic could such an approach be characterized as reasonably calculated at “expediting” or “facilitating” a reduction in amusement park lines. The same is true here.
IPBiz notes a variant on this amusement park theme from an episode in South Park
IPBiz notes the Tafas brief also discusses re-work:
The USPTO has continually argued that continuation applications are inappropriately adding to its backlog as they comprise nothing more than “rework.” (See Testimony of Jon W. Dudas before the subcommittee on Intellectual Property Committee on the Judiciary April 21, 2005 (p. 9), Ex. 26 to Rueda Declaration dated December 20, 2007 (“Rueda Decl.”). Nonetheless, the USPTO cites no evidence to support this assertion in the record other than rehashing Mr. Dudas’ own earlier unsupported assertion, which type of ipse dixit statement does not become fact through mere repetition.
posted by Lawrence B. Ebert at 3:16 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home