Patent News

2005: A Good Year for Congress

In 2005, the Patent Reform Act, H.R. 2795, began its journey to Congress. It was the largest reform in patent law since 1790 when the first Patent Act was signed. H.R. 2795 had too many radical changes that would affect small businesses and individual inventors in the USA. The Patent Act of 1790 was designed to protect inventions. In 2005, this protection would cease if the Patent Reform Act was to pass into law. Probably the most controversial element of the bill was changing the first to invent system of filing for a patent to the first to file method.

By ratifying the Patent Reform Act, our country would be in step with European and Asian markets, reducing us to a level playing field. The truth was and still is we don’t have a need to fit in with people who are less innovative than we are. In 2005, Congress refused to ratify this bill for several reasons. Most importantly, this bill contradicts the patent clause in our Constitution. It would allow for lesser quality inventions by reducing the amount of research and development necessary to achieve a high standard of quality. In addition, the Patent Reform Act of 2005 would favor big businesses thereby destroying innovation at the very core of our American ideals. The people who made our country thrive and succeed because of their hard work, while discovering and inventing everything from the light bulb to the sewing machine would be dishonored if we were to begin a flimsy method of application for patents.

With our first to invent strategy, no matter who files first, the original inventor is the one who is entitled to protection. The strict disclosure that is required as part of the application process, would be removed if this system of application was compromised. With our system in place, the inventor has to prepare the application with all due diligence. Thorough and continuous review, revisions, and investigation of prior art make the application thorough. Currently, a complete investigation of any prior art is necessary in order to be sure that the invention is not an infringement of someone else’s rights. Congress could not ratify a bill that eliminated all the critical procedures that ensure a tested and well-developed invention.

Last but not least, significant technological advances under the first to file system have a greater chance of infringement and rejection due to inadequate disclosure. Litigation is the by product, and the large corporations with less than acceptable innovation would still come out on top, because they can afford the in-house attorneys along with the cost of litigation, whereas the individual inventors and the smaller businesses would fail simply because they lack the capital. Congress made the right choice in 2005, for if they had compromised and forsaken over two hundred years of solid legal precedent, how could we have ever trusted them again?

Originally posted 2011-06-10 04:39:00. Republished by Old Post Promoter

In nearly two decades of service as a United States congressman, Lamar Smith has frequently raised his voice as an opponent of illegal immigration. Smith made his name for himself in 1996 when he constructed a bill that overhauled how the nation handles the deportation of illegal immigrants.

Firm stances on increased funding for border patrols and denying citizenship to both illegal immigrants and their children who are born in the U.S. has earned the Texas congressman his fair share of enemies and critics. Smith has raised ire by his recent opposition of the Dream Act on the grounds that it would simply foster increased illegal immigration.

Smith is a member of the Christian Science denomination. What factor do his beliefs play into his legislative practices? Christian Scientists are a group who combine biblical teachings with spiritual healing concepts. This sect professes a belief in God and accepts Christ as savior. But Christian Scientists believe that sin, sickness and death are just a by-product of one’s state of mind and honing your mind to accept the divine science, or the Holy Ghost, can free a person from these things.

There is no indication that Christian Science directly influences the majority of Smith’s legislation. His viewpoints are quite typical of many Evangelical Christians who serve in political position in the southern states. Smith is anti-big government, anti-healthcare reform, anti-taxes, and anti-immigration. He also paints himself as a zealous upholder and defender of the U.S. Constitution. This is no different than many of the tea-party Republicans who have risen to prominence in recent years.

Smith’s Christian Science beliefs probably come into play most in the realm of healthcare reform. Most members of this sect have little use for traditional medicine. They choose their own healing system over opting for drugs or surgery when dealing with a medical situation.

With thorny issues like illegal immigration, Smith is simply embracing the view that the radical right wing of his party already espouses. It has little connection to his own personal religious beliefs. Instead, it is more of a reflection on the platform the Republican Party has set forth on the issue.

With issues such as patent reform, as held within the proposed America Invents Act, people should be well aware of the potential impact of this legislation

Originally posted 2011-06-10 01:16:08. Republished by Old Post Promoter

The Patent Reform Act of 2011 is different from its predecessors in a variety of ways. Supporters claim it will streamline the patent approval process, protect inventors, and improve patent quality. Opponents say it will hurt individuals and small businesses and is unconstitutional. Supporters also say it is the most significant updates to the patent system in 60 years.

Supporters have included Democratic Senator Patrick Leahy (Vermont) and Republican Senators Orrin Hatch (Utah) and Charles Grassley (Iowa). Leahy claims the reform measure will boost the economy.

The new bill would call for the first person or business to file a patent on a technology to be the one who receives the patent for it, regardless of when the technology was created or who created it. Under the current system, the person who creates a technology and who reduces it to practice by filing a patent application or by practicing the invention is the one who is granted to the right to a patent. Most countries in the world currently use the first to file procedure.

The bill would also add checks and procedures as to how a judge would deal with damages in a case involving a patent. It would also require that instances of patent infringement be dealt with.

While some praise the proposed law by saying it would stimulate the economy and would streamline the application process, others are more critical. They say the new system would unfairly discriminate against individuals and small businesses that are at a disadvantage when competing with larger businesses. They say the process could be streamlined without such a drastic change. Those who oppose the bill also say small businesses and individuals might not be able to afford the attorney fees that might be necessary in a costly legal battle about a patent, while big businesses would have no problem affording them.

The Patent Reform Act of 2011 was sponsored by Leahy, Grassley, Hatch, Republican Senators Jon Kyle of Arizona, Jeff Sessions of Alabama; Democratic Senators Chris Coons of Delaware, Al Franken of Minnesota, Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota; and Independent Senator Joseph Lieberman of Connecticut.

The bill passed the United States Senate by a vote of 95 to 5 on March 8, 2011. It has not yet passed the United States House of Representatives yet.

Some of the organizations that support the bill include the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants, the Biotechnology Industry Organization, the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, Microsoft, the Association of University Technology Managers, and the International Association for Registered Financial Consultants.

Some of those that oppose the bill include the Gun Owners of America, Eagle Forum, the Computer and Communications Industry Association, the Generic Pharmaceutical Association, and the Independent Community Bankers of America.

Originally posted 2011-06-09 06:53:50. Republished by Old Post Promoter

The FDIC maintains a list of US banks that it considers to be at risk for failure, but it does not release that list to the public for fear that panicked customers would run to their banks to withdraw funds causing many of the banks on the list to in fact fail. The number of banks on the current list of FDIC troubled banks rose to 884 in the fourth quarter of 2010. So, although we know that, as of May 20, 2011, 43 US banks have failed in 2011 (the complete list of failed banks, including those that failed this year, can be found here fdic.gov/bank/individual/failed/banklist.html), we cannot know for certain which banks the FDIC has marked as most likely to fail. However, other financial institutions rank banks according to a metric called the “Texas ratio.”

The Texas ratio was developed by Gerard Cassidy and others at RBC Capital Markets (part of the Royal Bank of Canada) and it has proven to be a fairly accurate measure of a bank’s credit troubles. The Texas ratio is calculated by dividing the bank’s non-preforming assets by the sum of its tangible common equity capital and loan loss reserves. The higher the Texas ratio, the higher the risk of failure. Any bank with a Texas ratio above .9 could be at risk for failure. So which banks are at risk according to this criterion? Here are the top 10 along with their Texas ratios: (1) One Georgia Bank, Atlanta, GA (7.6); (2) Georgia Heritage Bank, Dallas, GA (6.93); (3) CreekSide Bank, Woodstock, GA (6.8); (4) First Sound Bank, Seattle, WA (6.54); (5) The First State Bank, Stockbridge, GA (6.48); (6) Patriot Bank of Georgia, Cumming, GA (6.26); (7) Security Exchange Bank, Marietta, GA (5.88); (8) Douglas County Bank, Douglasville, GA (5.77); (9) First Heritage Bank, (5.72), Snohomish, WA; and (10) Mountain Heritage Bank, Clayton, GA (5.52).

Now, even though these banks are at risk for failure according to the Texas ratio and even if these banks are also on the FDIC’s ‘problem’ bank list, that does not necessarily mean that the FDIC would consider bailing them out. The federal government used TARP funds to bailout large businesses, such as Citigroup, which received $476.2 billion dollars, during the recession. But none of the banks on the list are likely to be deemed “too big to fail.” Also, in 2010, the US Senate passed an amendment preventing future bailouts of financial institutions. So, we are not likely to see any bank bailouts in the near future.

Patent reform threatens to change the playing field for inventors and creators in the United States quite drastically, of which folks should be well aware.

Originally posted 2011-06-04 18:53:00. Republished by Old Post Promoter

People have been protecting their inventions in the United States since 1790, when congress passed the very first patent law. Since then, patent laws have been improved upon and continue to be tweaked as recently as this year with the America Invents Act of 2011. The current version of the governmental entity that oversees the registration of patents was created in 1925 and is now known as the Patent Office.

The reason that the Patent Office and inventor’s legislation is necessary is because Americans need an agency that will protect their inventions from being infringed upon by other people. One of the subjects of patents was to be those inventions that fall under the category of a utility. An example of a utility is the light bulb. Early light bulbs had technology that Thomas Edison used to invent his own light bulb which was patented, but he did not do this until he purchased the patents for earlier versions of the light bulb.

Scientists, such as Edison, improve upon the technology of the people that came before them. If someone invented the light bulb, and did not have the opportunity to register it with the Patent Office, other scientists would be able to take the technology and do whatever they feel is necessary with it. The later scientists would not have to give the prior scientists credit for their invention; they also would not have to pay the scientist for the use of the technology.

Inventor’s legislation has been written to avoid the scenario that was described above. As long as a product is under a patent, no other inventor can create a product that is just like it. This keeps people who did not create the technology from benefiting from it financially, and this is what patent legislation seeks to prevent. A technology is protected by patents for 20 years. After that amount of time has passed, then other inventors are free to make use of the technology, but they must wait until the time has passed and the patent has arrived in the public domain.

Another reason that inventor’s legislation is needed is because the founding fathers of the constitution believed that it would promote innovation. They believed this so much, that they wrote the definition of the patent into the constitution. The purpose was to ensure that inventors could reap the benefits of their inventions. Without this guarantee, inventors would not be as motivated to create new things, which is a very important reason to have inventor’s legislation. Without new products and inventions, society would not progress as quickly.

Inventor’s legislation also keeps inventors from wasting time. With the Patent Office in existence, inventors can do a patent search for technology that they are currently working on. If they find it, they know that they do not need to continue to work to re-invent the wheel.

Originally posted 2011-06-10 03:29:38. Republished by Old Post Promoter

Inventors Legislation facilitates patent applications

Recent patent legislation proposed in both houses of the US Congress (i.e., the America Invents Act (previously the Patent Reform Act of 2011)) aims to make the patent system more efficient and user friendly.

First, the backlog of patent applications, largely the result of a lack of sufficient funding for the Patent and Trademark Office (PTO), approaches crisis level. This is problematic both for new applicants hoping to get their inventions on the market relatively quickly and for current patent holders whose files become bogged down in the review process. Recently proposed inventors legislation, if enacted, would help to clear the backlog by giving the PTO the power to determine application fees (S. 23, §9) and so procure much needed funds for itself. Clearing the backlog will also make the PTO overall more efficient and reliable.

Read the rest of this entry »

Originally posted 2011-06-02 23:42:02. Republished by Old Post Promoter