Patent Reform and the Ethos of the American Inventor
Although I understand the reality that most patent prosecution is handled on behalf of corporate assignees, I still hold a special place in my heart for the maverick American inventor. Some might understand the slight pangs I felt when reading the inventorship section of the Senate report on patent reform. The report suggests eliminating from the law “the antiquated notion that it is the inventor who files the application, not the company-assignee.” Perhaps it is time my thoughts of the American inventor to go the way of the Wild West and horse drawn carriages.
The Bill (S.1145) is intended to fix an understandable problem — that of inventors who fail to fulfill their contractual obligation to assign patent rights to the Corporate owner. This is a serious problem as shown by the current issue of IPToday which includes a full-length article describing the complex set of hoops currently required to overcome these so called “problem inventors.” [LINK]
Beyond the sound-bites, the specific reform provisions are not so bad. The revised statute would allow an “obligated assignee” to file the patent application on its own behalf. An inventor’s oath is still required unless the “obligated inventor” is either unable or unwilling to sign. Under the provision, a patent cannot be challenged as invalid or unenforceable based on a corporations mistaken claim that the inventor had an obligation to assign. The savings clause appears to also include protection against mistakes in correctly naming inventors in the application.

Boston Scientific SciMed v. Medtronic Vascular (Fed. Cir. 2007).




I hope that everyone has a happy Thanksgiving. Even if you are not in the U.S., I suggest that you take the day off to celebrate. Although I love turkey, I hope that you don't deep-fry yours.

If you were to see a singular Marilyn Monroe walking down the street, you probably would notice. If, however, you were to see 88 Identical Marilyn Monroes's single filing fashionably in parade-dress parade, you would likely stop whatever you were doing and stare in exasperated amazement wondering all the while what in the world was going on. . . . By extension then, a Volkswagen beetle limousine with 88 humps, does not look the same, does not function the same, and is, in fact, not the same, as a Volkswagen beetle with 1 hump because they do not share identical Automotive DNA.
IP Law Bulletin has a nice 
federal courts that have offended IPO members by denying or refusing to enforce patents. Money saved by cutting these unnecessary government jobs can be used to create a federal program to subsidize businesses known at "patent trolls," in order to increase patent licensing income and strengthen the U.S. economy. (IPO April 1 Special Report).





















