Patent Reform 101…video and/or audio for you to download for free

June 12, 2006 on 12:58 pm | In Legislation/Regulation, USPTO |

The Matt Buchanan (Promote the Progress® Blog) patent reform roadshow first stopped in Idaho (May 5, 2005) and has now travelled on to Oklahoma/Texas where he recently put on a CLE for the IP Section of the Oklahoma Bar.  I’ve heard this presentation…it is well worth your time watching the video via the file links provided at the PHOSITA® blog.

If you did it right you could probably submit it for CLE credit with your state bar…

Print This Post Print This Post | Email This Post Email This Post | | Subscribe via e-mail

Related Posts:

2 Comments

  1. Hi,

    THANK YOU FOR YOUR –TRULY SUPERB– BLOG!!!
    YOUR TIPS ON BROWSER FIXES ALONE ARE WORTH THE PRICE OF ADMISSION!

    Maybe if I put this question (which I find beguiling) here you would be kind enough to enlighten me on this issue which I find highly troubling:

    If the courts hold that even if the owner of a valid & infringed patent cannot obtain a permanent injunction against an infringer, they still are entitled to “a reasonable royalty” from them; and further if in the case of real estate seized in the name of emminent domain, if the owner of the seized property can expect to be compensated for the market value of the lost property, then how is it that the proposed changes in Continuation practice can be considered fair or even Constitutional???

    I ask because countless patent appplicants have filed applications in the good faith belief that everything they disclose in their specifications will be afforded an opportunity to be granted protection. If those applicants believed otherwise they would have omitted inventions from their specs at the time of filing. In essence, with the wave of a signatory pen huge swaths of already disclosed inventions would effectively be seized, without even consideration of compensation, and “donated” not even to the public domain, but to the handful of large corporations capable of exploiting those seized inventions. Without question, those corporations subsequently using their windfall inventions will do so to their own financial gain; not to the public’s much less to the rightful inventor’s. So how is that even remotely fair? Or even Constitutional?

    Additionally, if the Continuation rule changes go through, future applicants will only disclose that which they know they can afford to claim (for the moment). Future applicants will thus be compelled to hide portions of their inventions with each filing made. How on earth does this fit in with the Constitutional goal of “promoting the useful arts”? It wreaks of anti-Constitutionality?

    P.S. Bless those of you who are standing up for fairness, and law bloggers ESPECIALLY like you for supplying a platform to keep the system from being subverted.

    Comment by beguiled & troubled — June 17, 2006 #

  2. Hi,

    THANK YOU FOR YOUR –TRULY SUPERB– BLOG!!!
    YOUR TIPS ON BROWSER FIXES ALONE ARE WORTH THE PRICE OF ADMISSION!

    Maybe if I put this question (which I find beguiling) here you would be kind enough to enlighten me on this issue which I find highly troubling:

    If the courts hold that even if the owner of a valid & infringed patent cannot obtain a permanent injunction against an infringer, they still are entitled to “a reasonable royalty” from them; and further if in the case of real estate seized in the name of emminent domain, if the owner of the seized property can expect to be compensated for the market value of the lost property, then how is it that the proposed changes in Continuation practice can be considered fair or even Constitutional???

    I ask because countless patent appplicants have filed applications in the good faith belief that everything they disclose in their specifications will be afforded an opportunity to be granted protection. If those applicants believed otherwise they would have omitted inventions from their specs at the time of filing. In essence, with the wave of a signatory pen huge swaths of already disclosed inventions would effectively be seized, without even consideration of compensation, and “donated” not even to the public domain, but to the handful of large corporations capable of exploiting those seized inventions. Without question, those corporations subsequently using their windfall inventions will do so to their own financial gain; not to the public’s much less to the rightful inventor’s. So how is that even remotely fair? Or even Constitutional?

    Additionally, if the Continuation rule changes go through, future applicants will only disclose that which they know they can afford to claim (for the moment). Future applicants will thus be compelled to hide portions of their inventions with each filing made. How on earth does this fit in with the Constitutional goal of “promoting the useful arts”? It wreaks of anti-Constitutionality?

    P.S. Bless those of you who are standing up for fairness, and law bloggers ESPECIALLY like you for supplying a platform to keep the system from being subverted.

    Comment by beguiled & troubled — June 17, 2006 #

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.