USPTO Technical Training for Examiners: The USPTO is looking for folks to provide free scientific & technical training to examiners. The program does not allow guest lecturers to discuss their own pending applications or provide advice on the patentability of any particular claims. [Participate Here] - Top-25: IP Reporter Joe Mullin and his crew have created a list of "The 25 Most Influential People in IP." The list includes Professors Lemley & Duffy; PTO Director Kappos; Judges Rader, Michel, & Ward; Justice Kennedy, Senator Leahy; Bob Armitage (Lilly); John Amster (RPX, son of Mort Amster); and Chip Lutton (Apple).
- London Conference: International Patent Litigation 2010 — IBC Legal is holding a conference on International Patent Litigation 2010 in London on December 6th-7th. Use code KW8093PO to get a 10% discount. http://www.informaglobalevents.com/patlitpo.
- Reexaminations: In 1998, an anonymous requester filed a request for ex parte reexamination of U.S. Patent No. 5,583,216 owned by Takeda Pharmaceuticals. Earlier this week (and after 12-years in-process) the USPTO issued a reexamination certificate confirming that the original claims are patentable. Hal Wegner handled the reexamination for Takeda, including multiple appeals to Federal Court. The average reexamination certificate in FY10 was issued about 2.5 years after the reexamination request was filed.
USPTO Technical Training for Examiners: The USPTO is looking for folks to provide free scientific & technical training to examiners. The program does not allow guest lecturers to discuss their own pending applications or provide advice on the patentability of any particular claims. [
VIRUS Alert!
link to snopes.com
——————–
Inspiring to some of you but not all. your choice to view or not.
link to youtube.com
Why isn’t Famous Patent Attorney Ray Niro’s name on the list?
Why emeritus?
What I said was Sweeeet a while back? Or is it L&L?
sarah,
code change 11LL
Gene’s blog yes indeed. the only pronblem is i seem to have been banned. ^_^
“What more does a patent practitioner need other than the above two?”
I’d add Slusky’s excellent book: “Invention Analysis and Claiming” and Gene’s blog (sorry Malcolmtent and 6 of zero).
Jimmie V. Reyna!
Pennington,
me.
“You behave the same”
Not.
Even.
Close.
Bud!
That law.com list is biased towards Corporate Counsels (look at the banner header) and it only is based on “dozens of professionals who work in the field”, whereas there are thousands of professionals who work in the field.
The greatest impact on the practice area right now should include:
Donald Chisum is the sole author of Chisum on Patents.
Dennis Crouch is the editor of the most popular patent law weblog: Patently-O.
What more does a patent practitioner need other than the above two?
You thinking ima Gene
You behave the same, whether isolated or in your natural state.
Sunshine,
You thinking ima Gene is almost as funny as people accusing you of being the big D.
Sorry I touched a nerve. Wait. No, I’m not.
How can someone be famous and influential unless they have a wikipedia article?
link to en.wikipedia.org
Dennis belongs on the list.
ping like you haven’t been nailed before posting under multiple pseudonyms praising yourself…
Really? When was that, Gene?
Brad, ex parte.
The info is on the PTO site. Here is a summary report:
link to uspto.gov
“So what happened in 2003?”
Ned,
You might have thought that it was related to the different (and lower) “presumption of validity” standard for reexams which the Federal Circuit held in the case of In re Swanson. But Swanson didn’t come out until 2008, so it must be something else. You would assume this lower “presumption of validity” standard would encourage accused infringers to go the reexam route for litigated patents, but the problem is that the district courts are getting wise to how tardy the reexam process has been.
Ned
Where are your numbers taken from and are they ex parte, inter partes or both?
Shouldn’t Lemelson be on there?
Does 6 think he can threaten people, when he is a BIG part of the problem.
POPA is just a Union. Unions shouldn’t be allowed to help shape the wrong policies.
“But what I said was so darn smart, it wasn’t allowed.”
The illuminati are watching sarah.
Very informative post. This really helps a lot especially to the newbies on this field. Thanks for your great post and informative comments.
Patent Infringement
Dr Z:
thanks for the update about the current status of plant trips for examiners. that’s a real shame.
“Thanks for the comment, Gene.”
LOL Sunshine – like you haven’t been nailed before posting under multiple pseudonyms praising yourself…
What was the NALism? “Ewww, that’s Malcolmy“?
So what happened in 2003?
The number of crxppy patents being issued reached a critical level and people finally realized that re-exam was a decent tool for squashing some of them.
Just checked.
Re-examination requests averaged approximately 390 for year from 1992 through 1999, with litigation-related requests averaging approximately 75 during that period of time. From 2000 through 2002, requests dropped dramatically, averaging approximately 295, with litigation-related requests continuing to average around 75. Beginning in 2003, requests began to skyrocket. In order from 2003, the number requests are 392, 441, 524, 515, 511, 643, 680 and 658; and the litigation-related requests went from 109, 138, 176, 226, 369, 316, to 372.
So what happened in 2003?
Malcolm, and to be a bit cynical, it my also be interesting to see whether there is any relationship between the increase in reexamination requests and In re Morris, decided in the fall of 1997.
fisher ames, I believe the republicans did away with that program, which was paid for by money donated by applicants (or anyone else who wanted to give).
A long time ago, as a young examiner, I found it to be a sensitizing and needed experience for those without much interaction with the business world.
I assume the explosion in issued reexam certificates is directly related to an explosion in re-exam filings?
Any data on the number of patents in which a claim was invalidated during re-exam per year? Number of patents where every claim challenged by re-exam was invalidated, per year?
Just curious.
Gene may be difficult, but his series of key interviews is impressive.
Thanks for the comment, Gene.
I figured every time 6 said something smart, i’d say something smarter. But what I said was so darn smart, it wasn’t allowed.
Dana Rohrabacher
Perhaps because I largely share his views.
link to rohrabacher.house.gov
“USPTO Technical Training for Examiners”
Whatever happened to the examiner plant trips?
“Top-25”
Sen. Leahy top 25:
As the old joke goes: “If pro is the opposite of con, what is the opposite of progress?”
I assume that someone who aggregates patent news is profoundly influential. He sets the agenda for what is being discussed on any given day among the lawyers who are practicing across America.
So what? With a few notable exceptions, patent practitioners are notoriously passive. It’s obvious from most of the comments on this site that most of them have visions that extend about as far as their office walls.
I think Dennis is great, but his impact to date on educating IP lawyers and/or shaping the actual content of IP law is clearly less than that of Professor Duffy, Judges Michel, Rader, and Ward, Justice Kennedy, and, yes, even Professor Lemley.
Gene may be difficult, but his series of key interviews is impressive.
“Of course, on a list of the 25 most recognizable people in IP, or the 25 most informative people in IP, Dennis would be in the top 5.”
They still wouldn’t list Dennis because then they’d feel obligated to list Gene too.
I assume that someone who aggregates patent news is profoundly influential. He sets the agenda for what is being discussed on any given day among the lawyers who are practicing across America.
Cited papers, lectures, and other interactions are less likely to have an instantaneous impact that changes the course of discussion among practitioners.
I think the problem with these comments is that they assume that someone who aggregates patent news is influential. While certainly Dennis would be in the top 50, he is not as “visible” through cited papers, lectures, and other interactions to be ranked higher than Lemley.
Of course, on a list of the 25 most recognizable people in IP, or the 25 most informative people in IP, Dennis would be in the top 5.
Technical training in software technologies for examiners is needed.
I agree. Nobody says, “The first thing that I do at work every morning is read the daily email from Lemley.”
Whereas, if something gets posted on Patently O, the entire patent bar knows about it by 9AM on the West Coast.
unfortunate that Lemley was listed. Crouch belongs on list instead.
“…Michel vows to act as an advocate for the U.S. patent system…”
Whatever THAT means. “The” system? The existing system? The particular system that Michel favors?
Only certain parts of the entire system?
So far, what he’s been advocating for with his $1B PTO infusion proposal, is an exacerbation of precisely those conditions that lead to PTO failure.
He represents the standard “throw money at it” solution, and nothing more.
Well, some of the most influential people were clearly left off, including deceased Legislators, Judges, and Justices whose statutes and precedents have ruled the day for many years.
I wopuld have expected, also, to see Chisum, Nimmer, Landis, and other household names over those of many I don’t even recognize who made the list. I’m not sure what’s going on with that article.
A better choice might have been “anonymous contributors to Patently-O”.
Srsly, any list of 25 that left D off is out in the weeds.
Of course, since he is so well known everyone already knows this so I guess its a moot point.
Dennis,
I’m surprised you’re not on that list of The 25 Most Influential People in IP. I think you clearly deserve to be on it.
Comments are closed.