Well 132 of them anyway…..that’s how many independent inventors from the National Hardware Show signed the petition for Patent Reform sent to congress this week asking for support of House Bill H.R. 1249 – The America Invents Act.
Obviously we can’t list the names on this blog of people who signed it, however we can post the text of the petition, along with a synopsis of the bill itself written by the Congressional Research Service, a well-respected nonpartisan arm of the Library of Congress.
HR 1249 America Invents Summary
America Invents Act - Amends federal patent law to define the "effective filing date" of a claimed invention as the actual filing date (by the inventor) of the patent or the application for patent containing a claim to the invention (thus replacing the current first-to-invent system), except as specified.
Establishes a one-year grace period (a prior art exception) for inventors to file an application after certain disclosures of the claimed invention by the inventor or another who obtained the subject matter from the inventor.
Revises provisions concerning novelty and nonobvious subject matter.
Sets forth derived patent provisions. Replaces: (1) interference proceedings with derivation proceedings, and (2) the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences with the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (the Board). Modifies the earlier inventor to file defense to infringement.
Allows a person who is not the patent owner to request to cancel as unpatentable one or more claims of patent by filing a petition with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) to institute: (1) post-grant review on any ground that could be raised under specified provisions relating to invalidity of the patent or any claim, and (2) inter partes review (replaces inter partes reexamination procedures) on specified novelty and nonobvious subject matter grounds based on prior art consisting of patents and printed publications.
Prohibits the USPTO Director (Director) from authorizing: (1) inter partes review unless information in the petition and any response shows a substantial new question of patentability exists; or (2) post-grant review unless information in the petition, if not rebutted, would demonstrate that it is more likely than not that at least one of the challenged claims is unpatentable, or unless such petition raises a novel or unsettled legal question important to other patents or applications.
Allows: (1) preissuance submissions by third parties, and (2) citations of prior art and written statements by any person at any time.
Allows appeals to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) from specified Board decisions, including examinations, reexaminations, post-grant and inter partes reviews, and derivation proceedings.
Sets forth: (1) USPTO fee setting authority, (2) reduced fees for qualified small entities and micro entities, and (3) filing fees and other specified fees.
Deems any strategy for reducing, avoiding, or deferring tax liability insufficient to differentiate a claimed invention from the prior art when evaluating specified conditions of patentability.
Revises and adds provisions addressing: (1) false marking actions, (2) virtual markings, (3) best mode requirements, (4) supplemental examinations, and (5) invention-related royalties given to small businesses when a nonprofit organization has a funding agreement with the federal government.
Requires the Director to establish a four-year transitional post-grant review proceeding for reviewing the validity of covered business-method patents.
Denies state courts jurisdiction over legal actions relating to patents, plant variety protection, or copyrights.
Grants the CAFC exclusive jurisdiction of appeals relating to patents or plant variety protection.
Establishes the USPTO Public Enterprise Fund (replaces the Appropriation Account).
Requires the Director to establish at least three U.S. satellite offices for the USPTO.
Allows the Director to establish a Patent Ombudsman Program.
Authorizes the USPTO to establish prioritized examination of applications important to the economy or national competitiveness
Obviously no piece of legislation is perfect, and that includes HR 1249. However, it is a step in the right direction. It’s an emotionally charges topic for inventors mixed with a lot of bad information floating around.
This is in fact, a law that requires inventors to act faster than they may have before in filing a patent – that is true. But at the same time it gives the USPTO powers over setting fees they have never had before, and resources to not only build the USPTO Inventor Assistance Program (that’s the USPTO office dedicated to helping inventors) stronger, but to fund new inventor programs, open satellite offices, hire more examiners, and in the end, process your patent application faster.
The bottom line is this – The UIA has been monitoring this process for a very long time. We have had countless meetings and conversations with many parties in Washington to gauge the impact of this legislation on the individual inventor. After all that, we feel confident the implementation of this legislation by the USPTO will ensure your rights as an inventor are protected.
If you would like to read the entire bill you will find it at http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h112-1249
Obviously no piece of legislation is perfect, and that includes HR 1249. However, it is a step in the right direction. It’s an emotionally charges topic for inventors mixed with a lot of bad information floating around.
This is in fact, a law that requires inventors to act faster than they may have before in filing a patent – that is true. But at the same time it gives the USPTO powers over setting fees they have never had before, and resources to not only build the USPTO Inventor Assistance Program (that’s the USPTO office dedicated to helping inventors) stronger, but to fund new inventor programs, open satellite offices, hire more examiners, and in the end, process your patent application faster.
The bottom line is this – The UIA has been monitoring this process for a very long time. We have had countless meetings and conversations with many parties in Washington to gauge the impact of this legislation on the individual inventor. After all that, we feel confident the implementation of this legislation by the USPTO will ensure your rights as an inventor are protected.
If you would like to read the entire bill you will find it at http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h112-1249
This is a useful post for inventors who wish to learn about updates on U.S. intellectual property in the United States. Thanks for sharing.
ReplyDelete