Comments on: Weak IP protection hurts small business http://www.inventorsdigest.com/?p=2715 The Magazine for Idea People Thu, 09 Sep 2010 14:17:37 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4 hourly 1 By: ted sabety http://www.inventorsdigest.com/?p=2715&cpage=1#comment-2208 ted sabety Fri, 15 Jan 2010 23:52:40 +0000 http://www.inventorsdigest.com/?p=2715#comment-2208 Current patent law requires the applicant to prove validity where the examiner comes forward with prima facie evidence of invalidity. But the point is having done all that, the proposed post grant procedures provide additional hurdles to tie up the inventor in a manner than is expensive to the inventor, but doesn't require much commitment on the part of the challenger. Current law says the challenger that loses the post grant challenge cannot make the same argument with the same prior art in a later case. Some want to do away with that. Note that the legislation is constantly in motion, so don't be surprised if a cogent commenter has found a later version of the bill in negotiation that has dealt with some issues. It would be great to find the "latest version" so to speak. -t Current patent law requires the applicant to prove validity where the examiner comes forward with prima facie evidence of invalidity. But the point is having done all that, the proposed post grant procedures provide additional hurdles to tie up the inventor in a manner than is expensive to the inventor, but doesn’t require much commitment on the part of the challenger. Current law says the challenger that loses the post grant challenge cannot make the same argument with the same prior art in a later case. Some want to do away with that.

Note that the legislation is constantly in motion, so don’t be surprised if a cogent commenter has found a later version of the bill in negotiation that has dealt with some issues. It would be great to find the “latest version” so to speak.

-t

]]> By: Bruce Berman http://www.inventorsdigest.com/?p=2715&cpage=1#comment-2207 Bruce Berman Fri, 15 Jan 2010 22:06:43 +0000 http://www.inventorsdigest.com/?p=2715#comment-2207 3Com had to fire its entire 4,000 person Ethernet workforce because patent infringements made that segment of its business no longer viable. (Recently they were acquired by H-P.) In this case infringers were mainly foreign companies. The US needs strong patents to keep businesses growing, workers employed and innovation truly cutting edge. 3Com had to fire its entire 4,000 person Ethernet workforce because patent infringements made that segment of its business no longer viable. (Recently they were acquired by H-P.) In this case infringers were mainly foreign companies. The US needs strong patents to keep businesses growing, workers employed and innovation truly cutting edge.

]]> By: Ashok http://www.inventorsdigest.com/?p=2715&cpage=1#comment-2203 Ashok Fri, 15 Jan 2010 14:18:04 +0000 http://www.inventorsdigest.com/?p=2715#comment-2203 Thanks for the informative article. I didn't know that the new law forces small businesses to prove the validity of their inventions. Thanks for the informative article. I didn’t know that the new law forces small businesses to prove the validity of their inventions.

]]> By: Edison Nation — Blog http://www.inventorsdigest.com/?p=2715&cpage=1#comment-2186 Edison Nation — Blog Thu, 14 Jan 2010 14:06:42 +0000 http://www.inventorsdigest.com/?p=2715#comment-2186 [...] Read the full article on InventorsDigest.com » [...] [...] Read the full article on InventorsDigest.com » [...]

]]>