18 thoughts on “Patent Reform 2015

  1. 8

    Ultimate parent entity definition will be deadly.
    Tucked into this bill are provisions that didn’t emerge from rule making after much uproar…. Incorporation by reference here is criminal….

  2. 7

    I just found out the other day one of the patents I may have worked on was bought up by a troll.

    So at least trolls now have at least one high-quality patent!

    1. 7.1

      Silly 6 – long ago long ago it was noted on another blog (271 Blog), that typically speaking, the so called “Tr011s” routinely had high quality patents due to the fact that they vetted them for enforcement purposes.

      You are victim to the propaganda.

      1. 7.1.1

        Yeah but the high-quality ones probably aren’t infringed. Just like the one I’m talking about probably never will be. It’s too obscure.


          “Obscure and not imfringable”

          …6’s definition of a high quality patent….

          Yeah buddy 😉

  3. 6

    If half the commentators denounce this proposed legislation as dangerously pro-troll and the other half denounce it as pro-big-business-anti-patent, will that make it enactable as bi-partisan compromise legislation?

  4. 5

    Chuck Grassley and Chuck Schumer,

    Have introduce a New Bill that would have all P * $$ y Holders to Provide a certificate that they have $5 Million to pay for the Rich guy who the P * $$ y Holder is accusing of violating its P * $$ y.

    New York Time : Interview

    NYT : Mr Chuck, Why have we introduced this new Certificate / Bond provision in your new proposed Law.

    Chuck : Well, we have been made aware of about 10 P * $$ y Holder who have been accused of sending demand letters to 100 of guys in United States.

    NYT : We have been writing about those 10 P * $$ y Holders a lot in our weekly Op-Eds as well. (wink wink)

    A P * $$ y Holder representative: But there are 100 Million P * $$ y Holders in United States, Mr Chuck this new legislation will affect ALL of them.

    Chuck : Too Bad, But to placate some of my university friends, I have a provision there to make sure if you are a P * $$ y Holder AND you are a University Professor. The $5 million certificate does not apply to you.

    P * $$ y Holder : But 10 bad behaving P * $$ y Holder out of 100 Million is a very very small percentage.

    Chuck and NYT : Both Chime in Off the record to P * $$ y Holder : We have some Rich guys who like to Violate as many P * $$ y Holders as they can. And they don’t want any repercussions. There like violate some Old P * $$ y Holder and also potential New P * $$ y Holder coming to market every day and these Rick Guys and their softie sons like to violate all of them.

    Chuck : The Rick Guys don’t believe in Right of P * $$ y Holders. They believe it is holding them and their software sons in CREAting new things with these new and old P * $$ y Holders.

    NYT: With all due respect P * $$ y Holder : there are some pretty $TUPID P * $$ y . The Rich guys have funded a lot of non profits to point One or two $TUPID P * $$ y every month.

    Chuck : Some Rick Soft guys have a believe that once a P * $$ y Holder has shown the P * $$ y to the world if should be a free ride for all the Softies ! And I have been paid enough money to agree with that.

    USPTO : I think we should argue for P * $$ y being a Public right. That way we don’t have to deal with Jury trials for our Rich friends who like to violate P * $$ y Holders.

    NYT : I think we need to write more about those 10 bad P * $$ y Holders in our OP-Ed every day. Let us come up with a new bad name for those 10 bad P * $$ y Holder , P * $$ y Trolls W H O * * $.

    USPTO Head : We will never define who is a Trolls W H O * * $ is. This way we can pass the new legislation. Obviously I am here to serve one of the Rich guys.

  5. 3

    So now we see a toothless loser pays provision that will probably be applied only against small innovative companies sued by patent trolls. Then there’s a useless copy of what is already happening with the abolition of Form 18. And finally there’s a set of provisions to make the best reform of the past decades against trolls less useful by weakening IPRs.

    This is an objectively pro-troll bill.

    If I were a troll, I’d be absolutely behind this.

    Innocent small businesses would lose important defenses in IPR, small companies would be threatened with paying my fees because I’ll just file in EDTX where only defendants will ever have fees assessed by the judges’ discretion, and the limits on costs I can impose on defendants are weak. Best of all, the pressure for reform will be removed and Congress may wait years while the troll cancer makes me richer and richer before doing anything else.

    CBR expansion, mandatory loser-pays, and any real cost saving procedures in litigation are gone from the bill and off the radar.

    This is christmas for trolls. They’ve won completely in the legislative process and even the bill that was supposed to slow them down is now in their favor.

    Decent people should call their congressmen and ask them to vote this steaming pile down.

    1. 3.1

      There are small innovative companies sued by patent trolls? I thought the patent trolls preferred to sue the big-to-huge companies like Apple?

      1. 3.1.1

        There are small innovative companies sued by patent trolls

        Any successful company or, even more accurately, any company or individual who has money can and will be sued by the bottom-feeders who love junk patents.

  6. 2

    The Judicial Conference has already abrogated Form 18, along with the rest of Rule 84, in the FRCP amendments submitted to Congress. The retention of the Form 18 provision seems to suggest inattention to this event.

  7. 1

    Some compromise…it still makes investors and inventors potentially personally liable if the business asserting a patent gets deemed a “troll” (and without telling us how likely that is to happen for those who license their technology out, which for many inventions is the only viable way to commercialize it).

    According to Grassley et al, if I can’t afford the risk of that happening to me, then I’m just too poor to invent.

    1. 1.1

      t still makes investors and inventors potentially personally liable if the business asserting a patent gets deemed a “troll”

      Awesome. As it should be.

      Get the scumbags out of the system.

      1. 1.1.1

        Yes – the name calling and propaganda machine this demand this action.

        Um wait, who exactly coined that term, and to whose benefit was that propaganda launched (and did not a more objective – albeit still Lemley data driven study – debunk the “Tr011” witch hunt, and how HAS the government responded to Ron Katznelson’s request for corrections (you know, to help squelch some of that propaganda)…?

        Answers please.

    2. 1.2

      No, you are just too poor to sue on weak patents; or, more accurately, it just changes your settlement algebra.

Comments are closed.