American Innovation at Risk: The Case for Patent Reform : Hearing Before the Subcommittee on Courts, the Internet, and Intellectual Property of the Committee on the Judiciary, House of Representatives, One Hundred Tenth Congress, First Session, February 15, 2007U.S. Government Printing Office, 2007 - 112 lappuses |
Bieži izmantoti vārdi un frāzes
antitrust bad patents Balance of Competition biotechnology business method patents challenge claimed invention committee competition and patent competition policy competitors Congress costs economic Federal Circuit Federal Trade Commission FEENEY filing firms Foundation American Innovation FTC report FTC's granted Hearings participants important increase industries Innovation at Risk intellectual property inventors issuance issued patents JAFFE Law and Policy legislation license litigation MYERS number of patents obviousness Patent and Trademark patent applications patent examiners Patent Foundation American patent holders patent infringement patent law patent office patent policy Patent Reform February patent system patent thickets patent trolls patent validity patentable subject matter poor patent quality post-grant opposition post-grant review prior art problem procedure Promote Innovation PTO's Public Patent Foundation questionable patents Rational Ignorance Ravicher recommendations Reform February 15 require royalties standard Statement of Daniel Subcommittee tion Trademark Office U.S. patent USPTO
Populāri fragmenti
99. lappuse - Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
100. lappuse - In addition to questionable patents, other portions of the patent system raise competitive concerns. This section briefly describes each issue and the Commission's recommendation(s) to address it. Recommendation 7: Enact Legislation to Require Publication of All Patent Applications 18 Months After Filing. Until relatively recently, patents were published only when issued; patent applications were not published. During the time that would pass between the filing of a patent application and the issuance...
88. lappuse - By limiting the duration of a patent, "(t]he Patent Clause itself reflects a balance between the need to encourage innovation and the avoidance of monopolies which stifle competition without any concomitant advance in the 'Progress of Science and useful Arts.
20. lappuse - Open Review" procedure. Congress should pass legislation creating a procedure for third parties to challenge patents after their issuance in a proceeding before administrative patent judges of the USPTO. The grounds for a challenge could be any of the statutory standards — novelty, utility, nonobviousness, disclosure, or enablement — or the case law proscription on patenting abstract ideas and natural phenomena. The time, cost, and other characteristics of this proceeding should make it an attractive...
88. lappuse - Accordingly, copyright holders do not have a property interest "in preventing the authors and thinkers of the future [in] making use of, or building upon, [their] advances."14 Likewise, "the Federal patent laws have embodied a careful balance between the need to promote innovation and the recognition that imitation and refinement through imitation are both necessary to invention itself and the very lifeblood of a competitive society."15 In its recent decision in Fogerty v.
94. lappuse - Office personnel are reminded that they must treat as true a statement of fact made by an applicant in relation to an asserted utility, unless countervailing evidence can be provided that shows that one of ordinary skill in the art would have a legitimate basis to doubt the credibility of such a statement.
110. lappuse - USPTO needs additional resources to hire and train additional examiners and implement a robust electronic processing capability. Further, the USPTO should create a strong multidisciplinary analytical capability to assess management practices and proposed changes, provide an early warning of new technologies being proposed for patenting, and conduct reliable, consistent, reputable quality reviews that address office-wide as well as individual examiner performance.
18. lappuse - But there are several reasons to suspect that more issued patents are substandard, particularly in technologies newly subject to patenting. One reason to believe that quality has suffered, even before...
94. lappuse - The examiner has the initial burden, after a thorough reading and evaluation of the content of the application, of presenting evidence or reasons why a person skilled in the art would not recognize that the written description of the invention provides support for the claims.