In a recent post at IPWatchdog’s Gene Quinn questioned PTAB’s strange allowance of serial challenges to patents even after rejecting other challenges to them. Suggesting a more efficient solution he said
“One and done challenges to patents are a fiscally conservative and responsible approach to government, and the only legitimate way to treat what the Patent Act tells us is supposed to be a property right – by at some point settling title of the patent at least insofar as challenges at the United States Patent and Trademark Office are concerned.” Within his post, Gene says ” a patent is not a property right like any other.”
Sadly, as the saying goes, “Truer word were never spoken!”
The status of patents as personal “property” has been shrinking for a decade, a trend that must be reversed if TTO’s expect commercialization to survive the trend’s shrinkage of investment capital. The Patent Act’s Sec 261 states that:
“Subject to the provisions of this title, patents shall have the attributes of personal property.”
Really? If you own a car, somewhere in your files is a “Certificate of Title” proving that you own it. Whatever your job, driving habits, use or non-use they have no bearing on your attributes of auto ownership. Under the law, all owners are treated equally. Produce a valid Certificate and you can trade it in. If stolen, it must be returned. Continue reading Personal Property? Not so much!
In his well-respected IP blog, Patently-O, Dennis Crouch introduced his readers to a draft law journal article by USC Professor Jonathan Barnett entitled, “Has the Academy Led Patent Law Astray? “Introducing his post, Crouch quoted one of Prof. Barnett’s findings regarding what he terms the “depropertization” status of patents in the wake of disruptive Federal Circuit decisions declaring that patent property rights are “public” rights” not private. An excerpt from Prof. Barnett’s draft article’s opening abstract quoted by Crouch (immediately below ). Continue reading ICT Efficient Infringement Drives Patent Depropertization
Every day, Hill Members and staff are assailed by lobbyists they know and like whose interests and arguments are opposed. To get to the truth many use Hill heuristics or “rules of thumb” to help them decide which side’s argument to believe. For example, they prefer arguments based on actual narratives to manipulatable numbers. Constituent experiences with an issue in conflict are easy to understand and recall and of course are politically relevant. Recent Hill appearances by inventors already harmed by AIA also have been persuasive. Sometimes it helps to “follow the money”. Which side has the most to gain or lose can provide independent understanding regarding what is really going on. Mr. Issa’s public characterization of university opposition to HR 9 (see earlier post) not only confirms the persuasive power of past direct constituent congressional contact, it can provide valuable insight into the true motivation driving his attachment to the issue. Continue reading Capitol Hill Heuristics