H.R. 1249, the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act, passed the House today with broad bipartisan support. The Senate passed its version of the bill (S. 23) on March 8th by a vote of 95 to 5.
The House and Senate will now conference to attempt to work out differences between the bills and then a final vote on a compromise bill will have to take place (likely in the Senate). The final version will include a first-to-file regime but will not likely provide the USPTO with any guarantee of full funding.
The litigation involving the interpretation of the many new provisions of the Bill will occupy Patently-O posts for at least the next decade.
Yhe only way to get congress to continue improving the patent system is through competition with other nations. The best system gets the masterinventor.
Actually there being led into believing its good for america by individuals persuing alterior motives. There not getting my full imput and corrective arguments and in some cases dont care to listen either. Fraud by neglegance and lack of the other side of the story as Rush Limbaugh would say.
Hopefully we wont to go that far to fix the corruption in there system.But what example do we set by the pile of corruption just passed.
Clearly the congressional members voting for this corruption need to be impeached and prosecuted for frauds
Good point from Ned Heller. In the 1960’s and 1970’s in Europe, patent reform proceeded smoothly, because only a small circle of specialist experts cared about it. More recently, further reforms in Europe have become increasingly difficult to push through, as industry-wide vested interests pull harder and harder, in opposite directions. Because patent law is so much more important these days, the cries from the vested interests get louder and louder. Me, I’m just delighting in the fact that patent law, these days, is big business, and glamorous, and that the clean and simple substantive law of the EPC was implemented before patent law got sexy.
In ’52, the patent bar cooperated with the PTO to craft the new patent act. The rules were that nothing would be proposed unless it had broad support among the patent bar.
This bill was opposed by about half the patent bar. It was extremely controversial. Yet it was forced down our collective throats by the few, representing a few major companies with a lot of cash for lobbying and the like. Even the AIPLA, who should not take sides unless there is a consensus of the membership, took sides. This illustrates the extent of its corruption by the major private interests. (We need to do something about that.)
Perhaps we should demand a vote of no confidence in the leadership of the AIPLA and have everyone who had anything to do with this bill removed from the leadership.
Hardworking–I agree with you, and it’s nice to see that some are doing their best to work with their clients to prevent last-minute snafus. Lulzers–here’s a hypo for you–what if everyone else in the office has gone home for the day and you get calls from two of your most important clients each asking you to add a new embodiment to their application which must be filed by the end of the day? Have fun testifying when your firm gets sued for malpractice because you couldn’t get both done in time.
Malcolm, I saw Karl Rove explain that SP is well known today, that everyone has an opinion of her and that it is not good. The public, however, had the same impression of RR until the debates. Then everything changed.
What I do not want for the Republicans is another Democrat-lite. Right now, SP appears to be the sole candidate in the field that will really go after Obama, and I like that.
I thought the manager’s amendment said 18 months for FTF.
But good point, we need a list of effective dates somewhere easily accessible for the future.
“SEC. 35. EFFECTIVE DATE.
Except as otherwise provided in this Act, the provisions of this Act shall take effect upon the expiration of the 1-year period beginning on the date of the enactment of this Act and shall apply to any patent issued on or after that effective date.”
However it is “otherwise provided” in many other sections.
I can’t be the only voter who finds it completely ridiculous that the House has stripped the least controversial provision from this bill (ending fee diversion) and passed the most contentious provisions. Without an end to fee diversion, “patent reform” is a waste, or worse.
The big thing in reconciliation is most likely going to be the handling of the money. The Senate went for eliminating fee diversion, while the House wants to keep their eyes on the money. The House budget and appropriations chairs (I think they were the ones) essentially said that the Republican majority was elected to increase, not decrease Congressional oversight of government agencies.
This is the issue that hung up floor action for about a week, until the proponents of the bill allowed this tweak. Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh jumped in opposing the legislation, and Heritage was going to use the vote in their ratings.
The result, I suspect, is that the Senate is going to have to give in to the House. And, they have a much bigger percentage margin to play with (95-5 instead of 304-117). So, my expectation right now is that the Senate votes to approve the House bill, obviating any need for reconciliation.
As for the President – several months ago we had one of the under/deputy, etc. Secretaries of Commerce in to discuss the department’s IP policies, and, no surprise, the major issue we wanted to discuss was patent reform. And his view, reflecting his marching orders, was that the Department of Commerce was 110% behind the legislation. No surprise, with former IBMer Kappos setting patent policy for the department.
That is a long way of saying that the President is highly unlikely to have any reasons not to sign the bill into law as soon as he gets it.
Bruce,
Lighten up – it’s a joke. Certain people have become so prone to seeing NAL everywhere that good advise is found, that everyone giving good advise is certainly NAL.
Well, what is worse? An absolute 102 bar or arguing about the quality of the disclosure?
Why? The general advise from others is similar – file ongoing provisional and maybe utility applications on a continuing basis, and then chain them together.
What is your advise going to be as to non-publication? Don’t you think that it would be malpractice not to mention that if the applicant did not have an intent to foreign file, and could possibly be considered to have derived his invention from another, the easiest way to prevent a derivation proceeding would be to request non-publication? I assume that you will include that as part of your standard information that you give your clients when asking whether to request non-publication or not.
Interferences have always been a red herring here. Mostly, you have to intentionally invoke them by copying claims from the senior application.
But currently, the junior party from whom the senior party derived can often still get a patent by swearing behind the senior filer’s priority date. No longer.
I have one client who was a bit blasé about the legislation. He has had a lot of his applications predated by a week or two by competitors, who just happened to attend the same conferences as his people did, etc. But, he was confident that they could prove derivation under the new procedures. Whoops.
Derivation proceedings were sold as an answer for first filers stealing inventions from second filers, a problem that naturally arises under a first-to-file system. But, it now appears that the new system is so intentionally broken that these proceedings are there as pure window dressing only, with no real belief by anyone who understands much about the patent system that they will provide any real answer to this problem.
I should also note that even if the deriving first filer failed to pay for accelerated examination or filed a request for non-publication, most second filers who were the actual inventors are not going to be reviewing all of the applications being published each week on the off chance that they will see someone they know having filed on their invention. Rather, the time when they are likely to find out is when that application is cited against them in prosecution, most likely long after the one year window for initiating a derivation proceedings has long passed. In my experience, I have found out about derivation an average of maybe 4 or 5 years after filing, which is several years too late.
This from the guy who celebrated passage of the bill in the Senate a couple of days later at an IBM facility in Burlington. Nothing like saying that you are bought and paid for.
Europe doesent have any inventors they just jump on filed inventions of my theftors or come over and do it themselves.
I think it more likley the new legislation means full economic regression to depression for all in the U.S. including patent attorneys. Big business wants to pay nothing for inventions and lack of correct inventorship determination methods give them to the theftors. Maybe we can get a good system in canada build that country up until america wakes up.
Wow Mooney, you and Inane must be really threatened that I have pointed and out and exposed your “pre-emption as the new dissection” anti-patent tactic to have gone back to your juvenile bathroom jokes.
None the less the Supremes will get the message just like they did in Bilski and you will once again find yourself on the losing side. Just remember…….
Actual Inventors win,
We always win.
A bitter disapointment compared to what it could be. 40 methods of corruption still in place. The way this congress doesent work it will take another 60 years before the fix a few of them then create a few more of them then call it patent reform again no progress just regression.Ill try it but I suspect I will have to quit inventing at least in the U.S. to primative of a system with congressional def ears to the masterinventor.
Hard, it seems to me they wanted to make a hybrid system, using parts of the EPC and parts of our own system. Harmonization was just an excuse, a pretense, and not a serious purpose.
I think they wanted to get rid of first to invent, but preserve the grace period. They wanted to make prior art universal doing away with “in the United States” limitations. They wanted to preserve our definition of invention, permit continuations directed to unclaimed subject matter, and to provide for very broad prior user rights.
They also wanted to overturn Pennock v. Dialogue and permit trade secret use for as long as one wanted and still permit one to file and obtain a patent.
Finally, I think they wanted to do away with all concepts of double patenting. They will, it seems, even permit two patents to issue on the same invention regardless of ownership as there is no provision for an interference whatsoever in the new law.
Ned I’d like to see Sarah Palin get the republican nomination. Regardless of what you think of her intelligence and education, she has the charisma to win in a landslide.
The kind of “charisma” that polls at about 20% when you ask random people if they would vote for her to be President of the United States.
It’ll never happen, Ned. And that means that Pretzelquoatl will very likely remain the least intelligent president of most of our lifetimes. We can only hope …
LOL. Seriously, AI, the biggest threat to the airplane lavatory resource management portfolio was the existence of adult diapers. Now that TSA is requiring people to take them off prior to boarding, your stock just went up.
Ned,
In your mind then, what did the powers behind this bill really want?
“They can have their choice of any two of these. It is clear your client’s choice was fast and accurate, so they don’t get cheap”
Be careful Cfyoe, even putting forth as you have the age old axiom of the three legs of project management you might be accused of driving your clients away and incurring the dire Lulzing by the School’s out/Rebecca Black’s of this world (well, at least of this blog commenting world).
Heaven forbid you entertain any semblance of risk management in your practice, and not simply follow the “what,-me-worry?” cure-all of work more quickly, more accurately (without additional client input) and more cheaply (in clear violation of the PM axiom).
NYB,
Generally speaking, provisional applications are not considered “public disclosures” of their own accord.
Not sure either if mere convenience trumps any type of rights determination. In fact, if you are depending on ease, than you sacrifice your fairness factor.
A public disclosure is not a new concept in the patent law. 35 U.S.C. 102(e) has utilized the term “public” for more than fifty years. 35 U.S.C. 119(e) also requires that an invention be “disclosed” in a provisional application in order to provide a one year grace period for a non-provisional application.
It is an easier point of reference to define than “conception”, “reduction to practice”, and “due diligence” which was the prior methodology for determining competing inventorship claims. And a much fairer method to prove than private inventor notebooks.
if the differences between the bills is small, and the obama team is behind it – when obama signs it what happens?
does the bill take effect immediately, or is there a definite future date in the bill when it will take effect?
Series C, clients seek three things: Fast, Accurate and Cheap.
They can have their choice of any two of these. It is clear your client’s choice was fast and accurate, so they don’t get cheap
assuming there really is very little to reconcile, and obama’s team is fully behind having him sign it into law, immediately, when does the bill as written take effect?
upon signature, or is there a phase in date?
Teddy, I just had a post deleted.
But tell me this: do we use our power to protect our national interests only?
If not, why not?
Hardworking–hear, hear. I wish the firm I was with would have managed their clients better. There were no limits on when we were expected to accept any changes prior to filing–more than once I was adding lots of significant material to an application at the client’s request after all the admins had left and working up until the last hour of the deadline hoping there would be no glitches with efiling etc. This despite many efforts in the weeks beforehand to get said information and add it with time left for careful review–I know the inventors were busy, but sometimes it seems like they think “I’m paying these lawyers so much that I can expect them to do anything at any time,” which I would agree with except that mistakes can happen easily under such circumstances and then not be correctable. As far as I know there were never any omissions (or complaints), but that setup was a problem and a lawsuit waiting to happen.
Ned,
You keep on interjecting tangents to the point I am making.
It is a simple point, really.
Let’s settle that one single point before we progress to other possible implications.
See my posts above at 9:36 AM and 3:58 PM. Follow the simple logic. Stay out of the weeds.
Can we do this simple thing first?
Teddy, so long as you insist that oil or any other commodity available on a world market at a price is a resource we have to “control” by means of our military we have a fundamental disagreement.
This thinking is simply archaic. Medieval.
Just for example, disk drives are a world resource. Where are they made? China?
Now, by your own logic, we are going to have to control China because they make disc drives, a vital national resource.
But this does raise a point, does it not? US laws, regulations and practices that drive disc drive manufacturing to China have to be adjusted so that manufacturing can return to these shores. Would you agree on that?
Our diagreement is simple Ned.
My saying – it says what I say it says. Keep you revisionist hands off of it, because you don’t understand what you are talking about.
And I have looked down on your modern day world – if you do not think oil is a vital national interest, you don’t understand your own world.
Our disagreement is fundamental, Teddy.
Resources.
Oil.
Vital national interests.
They are not the same thing.
In other words Ned,
You do not have to like my “theory.” That’s fine. Then just don’t use my saying, because my saying is my theory (And no, my theory is not a strawman – your use of that phrase, too, is misplaced here).
You are more than welcome to have your own theory. Just get your own saying.
I am whispering this to you and trust that you see my Big Stick – if you know what I mean.
Ned,
While you say that “Teddy, your strawman is…,” I will remind you that I have no such strawman – I am merely pointing out the fact (cold, simple and direct) that the phrase you wish to use, you cannot use, because you do not understand the full meaning of that phrase.
I refer you again to my post of 9:36 AM and invite you to understand what the phrase actually means.
No more and no less. Stay with the single idea, less you get lost in the weeds.
Teddy, your strawman is that we interfered in the affairs of our back yard and that because we could we had the right to do.
Might makes right is your law.
Mine is different. Mine is your freedom to swing your fist ends at my nose. But until you violate my rights, you are free to swing your fist.
Your theory that the whole world is our playground, I submit, depends upon your theory that might makes right.
Saddam’s taking of Kuwait did not affect American national interests. However, we had the power to push Saddam around, so we used it. Look what it got us? Nothing at all but a lot of trouble.
If you think our intervention in Kuwait was in our national interests and justifiable on that basis, please explain.
And Vince don’t forget… being Billed twice.
Don’t worry AI, your airplane lavatory resource management portfolio is safe.
“You feel fine because you work at a gas station for minimum wage.”
I’ve never heard the GOP plan for economic recovery stated quite so succinctly. Thx.
I agree that she would be the most fun, but I mean that because she would be the most hilarious.
“He who warned, uh, the British that they weren’t gonna be takin’ away our arms, uh, by ringing those bells, and um, makin’ sure as he’s riding his horse through town to send those warning shots and bells that we were going to be sure and we were going to be free, and we were going to be armed.”
Ned,
Your opinion of the Kuwait War and the attack on Libya, while important to you, are meaningless to our discussion about the phrase “Talk softly and carry a big stick,” and the application of that Big Stick in one’s own backyard.
You keep on derailing the focus of what I am telling you. Your own posts belie the position you are trying to take.
You have now stated more than once that the world has changed and has been transformed, and indeed it has. But this change works against what you are trying to say. Let me whisper this to you: re-read our exchange and understand that the world is our own backyard, then stop and hold that thought for awhile. Now, with that thought firmly entrenched, realize just what the Big Stick phrase says about that very same Big Stick (i.e., the use of that Big Stick in one’s own backyard).
When you realize that the phrase sanctions the use of the Big Stick in our own backyard, and then realize that the world is our own backyard, you should recognize that the phrase does not fit the position you are advocating (in fact, it fits the opposite position).
There is no need to introduce strawmen and then knock those strawmen down. Our discussion is on the phrase you have (attempted) to commandeer.
Vital resources?
Another term for archaic thinking.
Markets are global. Free trade has transformed the world.
We do not need to have an army sitting on top of an oil field to access its oil.
Kuwait was borderline insanity and it has cost this country dearly. Huge, huge mistake.
Now we attack Libya ? Why?
“Oh snap!!! 6 busted you!!!!!! ”
(wow – this time six exclamation marks)
School’s out – not content to c.rap all over one thread with your your usual critical, sardonic, ridiculous, incorrect, and vacuous thoughts?
You do realize the critical differences between Dudas illegally seizing power (as a legal monopoly) and a law firm setting its own intake quality standards (in a free market environment)?
“That’s about as far as you can fall on this site.”
No. You have shown how to fall even farther.
Oh snap!!! 6 busted you!!!!!!
That’s about as far as you can fall on this site.
Ned,
Why are you bringing up mercantilism or exclusive access to resources?
We are talking about vital resources and the tight-knit nature of the world today (and the US spot in that tight-knit neighborhood).
The US considered the entire western hemisphere its own backyard more than 100 years ago. There can be no doubt that today the backyard of the entire world is substantially smaller (in the political sense) than the western hemisphere of 100 years ago.
You seem to want to start arguing on a tangent – can we stick to the conversation we already have?
Ned,
Please move the goal posts back.
Oil was a mere example and is not to be taken as the only vital interest – even in that, “exclusive” is an incorrect application of the domino theory. It is plain error to attempt to take the conversation in that direction.
The Big Stick is brandished for at least two other reasons, which do fall into the evolved view from more than one hundred years ago that NOW our own backyard is the entire world.
How would design patent law change?
link to thomas.loc.gov:
Oil.
Merchantilism?
Exclusive access to resources?
Domino effect?
Teddy, this kind of thinking is only true in this sense: that if the oil of a particular field were captured by hostile powers we would be cut off — somewhat as Japan was cut off by the Allied boycott just prior to Pearl Harbor.
This kind of thinking is justified if it is in fact true. But, demonstrably, it is not true as oil is fungible and the market is global. Take Iran, for example. They can refuse to sell to us, and they do. But does that make any difference at all? No. Why? Because they do have to sell it; and when they do, it adds to the world supply because the market for oil is a world market. There is no merchantilism anymore.
Moreover, to enforce an actual embargo against the US would require naval power to block shipping lanes. Now if someone were to do that, that would be an act of war justifying a response.
All or nothing – what a nice gamble.
At least this way the poison pills that destruct this bill will mean that “patent reform” will be back on the table sooner rather than later and the Congress can once again imbibe from the largess of the special interest lobbyists.
“Everyone knew not to mess with other countries’ vital interests or else. Wars happen when nations forget those simple principles.”
On the contrary Ned, this is exactly what leads to the “world policeman” syndrome. As I directly indicated, the world is our own backyard. We were involved in the Middle East precisely because someone was messing with our country’s vital interests (oil). You are correct about the “sphere of influence,” but incorrect about the size of the sphere.
Your position fails because the sphere has become the sphere of the entire world. Isolationism cannot work and the “Speak Softly and Carry a Big Stick” will only work if you are actually willing to use the Big Stick. If others realize that the Big Stick is only a Big Show, you will get walked on Big Time.
Dissing Michelle are we? Well, lets get a good look at the president without his makeup.
link to wingtv.net
Sarah, the governor of NJ for one.
Regarding Palin, unless you are a republican who really does not want Sarah representing the party, she would be the very best candidate to face Barak. The best. What fun!!!!
Yes and no.
First, we need to learn from our mistakes.
Second, if you want to get out of a hole, you need to stop digging.
Once upon a time, there was a school of thought about spheres of influence. Everyone knew not to mess with other countries’ vital interests or else. Wars happen when nations forget those simple principles.
Being a world policman is going to get us into a lot of trouble. It already has.
We need leaders who avoid unnecessary wars. We need leaders who keep the peace and who always keep the vital interests of the United States in mind before we do anything to provoke conflicts.
“Also, only a small percentage of U.S. applications are now witheld from publication.”
This is interesting, as it has come up several times. Do you have a cite to this information or is it a “gut-feel” type of thing? Just how small is this small? Is this small when considering only those apps not seeking related patents outside of the US (because this does make a difference in the discusssion)?
Just as Perot messed up the republican side, Palin can only further mess up the republican side.
I agree that there is no republican in the field today that can win. None. I am curious as to just who in your mind are these republican heavy hitters that have not yet hit the fray (other than Palin).
Ned,
Those wanting harminization would argue that the whole world is your own backyard – the world has shrunk since Teddy’s day.
Using this reasoning, the US should be involved in its own backyard – which now coincides with the rest of the world.
Hindsight is a wonderful thing to use to say that we should not have been involved – rather like counting angels dancing on the tip of a pin – but would you not agree that isolationism is an impossibility in the internet era?
Paul, do you know how the PTO is going to prevent two different entities from obtaining patents on the same essentially invention? It seems to me that the new bill is set up to prevent the PTO from doing that or even making the inquiry.
For example, the first-to-file has received his patent and the second-to-file “proves” prior public disclosure when rejected over the first-to-file’s patent. It seems to me that PTO has to issue the second to file’s patent.
If the first to file’s patent application is still pending, on what basis can they deny him a patent if the prior public disclosure of the second-to-file is not a citable reference?
Big, one really has to ask why we simply didn’t adopt the EPC with all its case law if our objective was “harmonization?”
Perhaps the powers behind the bill never really wanted harmonization?
Teddy, you have a point there.
I think we actually have an interest in keeping powers from elsewhere out of our back yard: Spain for example, at the time of Teddy.
In contrast, look what happens if you poke your nose into someone else’s back yard? England protected Poland and look what happened. We went North of the 38th parallel and got Chinese intervention for our reward.
Kuwait, IMHO, was a huge mistake for us. That was not a US ally and our intervention got us involved in a region where we generally are not welcome.
And, just for good measure, Vietnam was a debacle because we were once again messing in China’s backyard.
As long as there are no provisions to ban software, business methods, or remove processes as a separate category in the patent statute how much harm could there be? Of course lack of any such provisions will only encourage the pre-emption as the new dissection non sense by the Anti- patent crowd. But thats the price of progress!
And, after you rush to file a crappy application, it will get hung up in endless post grant review because of all the problems with the spec.
Perhaps someone has already asked the question, but is anyone able to point me to copies of the bills actually passed by the House and Senate?
Thus far all I have ever seen are the bills as originally presented, and references to amendments that were approved, but the texts of which are nowhere to be found.
Bruce, yes, the new legislations derivation proceedings have several problems, but it’s not going to make much difference. There have been many years of relatively few derivation cases in the interference system. They are both uncommon and tough to win if you were not the first to file. Unlike Perry Mason, poeple who steal inventions do not usually confess to it, and insist under oath that they independently invented it. Also, only a small percentage of U.S. applications are now witheld from publication. Also, the present 135(b)(2) late claiming bar date for a derrivation or any other interference is easy to miss also.
Flippy must be NAL
“…and I feel fine”
LOL – You feel fine because you work at a gas station for minimum wage.
Why doesn’t “Congress” just stick to trying ruin the quality of social and economic life in America for the majority of its productive citizens through gay marriage and through other useless initiatives like universal healthcare that nobody wants rather than ruining America’s hope for a bright economic future. Recently, it was revealed that America has slipped behind India in output. I’m sure Mr. Chopra is thrilled. No wonder he is fully behind “America Invents”. No one, who does not have an anti-American business/innovation agenda, has yet to make a compelling case why this particular reform is necessary and how it will address anything that has been the traditional excuse for reform (e.g. poor examination possibly leading to “bad patents”).
“Talk softly. Carry a big stick, and mind our own business. Why not try it for awhile?”
Except the gentleman that created teh slogan thought that “our own business” was everything in the western hemisphere.
lulz, people who actually deliver service to their clients, that’s who.
LOL
Bruce, I saw a first draft of this legislation at a board meeting of the AIPLA about ten years ago. You do know who was doing the draft, don’t you?
I suspect we will hear a lot from Bob in the coming months as he tells us all what the legislation means.
Bruce must be NAL
anon, no fundamental disagreement. Wisdom is hindsight, but we are in this fix in large measure because we like to meddle in the affairs of others. Had we not thrown back Saddam from Kuwait in ’91, our forces would not be involved in the ME at all. That mistake lead to both al Quaeda and to the problem of Saddam, which in turn lead to 9/11 and to Afghanistan and Iraq. Our support for the creation of Israel also might have been a mistake. Getting involved in both WWI and WWII probably were mistakes, although, we had no choice with the Japanese in WWII. They attacked us. Had we not intervened in WWI, the parties would have soon settled with a stable compromise. There probably would not have been a WWII. Had we not backed England and France, they would have been forced to settled with Germany in ’39 and there would probably have been no general war in Europe and no genocide of Jews and Gypsies.
Now once again we are supporting European wars, this time getting us involved in a civil war in Libya and supporting revolutions across the land. How crazy can we get? Just wait until that madman in Tripoli lands a nuke on Obama’s house.
Talk softly. Carry a big stick, and mind our own business. Why not try it for awhile?
Washington was right, not only for his time when England fought it out with Napoleon, but for all time.
Is this the same AIPLA that came out in support of the legislation?
File early. File often. And if you aren’t going to foreign file, always request non-publication.
Keep in mind that that quintessential American company, IBM, from which Director Kappos came, and was apparently lobbying for this legislation before he left for the USPTO, apparently now has only approximately 1/4 of its worldwide employees in the U.S., and more employees in India than in the U.S. Not surprisingly, IBM was one of the lead companies pushing for the legislation.
Actually, the reality is that the derivation proceedings are essentially worthless. They were either designed that way, or very badly designed.
The two most obvious problems are with non-publication and accelerated or fast-track examination. You have a year from publication to request a derivation proceeding, and if the app never publishes, or issues before publication, you are SOL.
But more importantly, unless you are checking publication of applications very carefully, you are going to miss the deadline. Most often, I don’t find out about competing/derived applications until cited against my applications, most often years after publication. By then, you are SOL.
That assumes that you can find enough evidence without access to discovery to make a substantial case before filing the request, because, of course, discovery is only available AFTER the USPTO has granted the request.
The problem is that by the time that you saw it on TV, the deals had already been struck, and it was going to pass. Remember a week or so ago, when it was pulled back? Apparently, the proponents (21st Century Alliance) were doing the whipping and didn’t have the numbers. And, didn’t until they finally dropped the prohibition on fee diversion.
But before that? Amazingly non-transparent. The few hearings were completely stacked in favor of the bill, and opponents were never given a chance to point out the obvious problems with it. And, indeed, it appears that the proponents wrote it, and threw it to Rep. Smith to run with. They also threw around tens of millions of dollars in lobbying.
That is the part that wasn’t transparent.
The amendment (#11) to add severability clause apparently was withdrawn by unanimous consent.