Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Court Blocks Controversial New Patent Rules

Posted by Zonk on from the walking-a-fine-line dept.

An anonymous reader writes "InformationWeek is reporting that a court in Virginia has issued an injunction against controversial new patent rules that were supposed to go into effect tomorrow. The court granted a motion filed by GlaxoSmithKline, which is suing the US patent office over the issue. Among other things, the new rules would limit the extent to which existing patent applications can be modified. The patent office says the new rules would speed up the patent process, but critics say they hurt inventors."

5 of 119 comments (clear)

  1. Playing devil's advocate by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Having submitted several patents through my company, I can attest that they need to be rewritten all the time because patent reviewers are idiots. They take a one sentence claim, pick a two 'big' words out it and do a literature search. If those two words appear in any publication remotely related to the field related to your patent, they mark it as prior art.

    1. Re:Playing devil's advocate by Anonymous+Crowhead · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I'll give you an example. If you claim you have discovered a novel way to screen for a cancer, say pancreatic cancer, in a tissue sample using some lab technique, say PCR, the patent clerk is going to hand you back the first published article that mentions pancreatic cancer and PCR, even when the paper is discussing something like a pathway involved pancreatic cancer and PCR is mentioned in the materials and methods section.

      I have had patents rejected in very similar circumstances.

  2. Re:Please... by steveshaw · · Score: 5, Interesting
    I personally know of dozens of "little guys" for whom the patent system has provided massive benefits. I know because I drafted their patents and helped them with the sale/licensing. Ask most any patent attorney and they will have the same report.

    Please stop believing all the /. FUD regarding patents and IP in general.

    On another note, from the perspective of a patent attorney, these Proposed Rules are a nightmare. This Preliminary Injunction was a great thing, and anybody who has any thought of ever filing a patent application should be glad they've been stopped.

  3. I'm curious... by wizardforce · · Score: 2, Interesting

    The new rules are intended to speed patent reviews by the chronically understaffed USPTO. Among other things, they limit so-called "continuing applications" through which inventors can modify existing patent applications. Murphy said the new rules would "severely limit the level of patent coverage you can get for an invention" if they are allowed to take effect.
    so basically the argument that is being made is that if company A patents a technology/drug whatever and finds a new use for it they can extend the patent to include that finding? To what end?

    The drug manufacturer contends that it, and other companies that invest heavily in research and development, needs the freedom to broaden their patent claims when new applications for their inventions are discovered.
    so if someone other than them discovers a new application of their drug, who gets the rights to that finding? the company that developed the drug in the first place or the one that made use of it in a compeltely new way?
    --
    Sigs are too short to say anything truly profound so read the above post instead.
  4. Re:Please... by steveshaw · · Score: 2, Interesting
    Can you afford not to patent your dozen inventions and watch as you release your product(s) and Microsoft simply incorporates them into their latest product(s) without paying you dime 1? The vast majority of companies will not even look at a product for potential licensing unless patent protection is at least an option. Before you even start negotiating with a company, they are going to want to see that you have either filed one or more patent applications or done a prior art search (bad idea, by the way).

    What's your alternative? Should I work for free? Abolish the patent system? What are your ideas for reform? Have you ever filed a patent application?

    Legal costs are simply part of doing business in a civilized society that uses courts of law to protect rights and enforce standards of conduct. You seem like a smart guy, draft your own patent applications if you can't afford my expertise.