{"id":1867,"date":"2017-12-20T14:50:11","date_gmt":"2017-12-20T19:50:11","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/?p=1867"},"modified":"2017-12-20T14:50:11","modified_gmt":"2017-12-20T19:50:11","slug":"dear-santa","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/?p=1867","title":{"rendered":"Dear Santa . . ."},"content":{"rendered":"

Dear Santa:<\/p>\n

I’ve been a good patent lawyer this year, and always comply with Rule 56.\u00a0 For all of the inventors we represent, I was hoping that this Christmas you would bring:<\/p>\n

    \n
  1. A new 35 USC\u00a0\u00a7101.\u00a0 The Supreme Court broke the one we had.\u00a0 We need a law that protects all inventions, and doesn’t exclude a whole class of inventions merely because they can be reduced to a simple-sounding concept.\u00a0 A method that includes at least one non-mental step is not abstract.\u00a0 It may not be novel, it may not be non-obvious, but it is not abstract.\u00a0 Likewise, a product or machine is never abstract.<\/li>\n
  2. A new\u00a0\u00a035 USC\u00a0\u00a7102.\u00a0 Although\u00a0 the one we have is just a few years old, it never worked right.\u00a0 The most fundamental concept of any patent system is prior art, yet we don’t have clarity about what is or what is not prior art.\u00a0 Does a sale or use have to be disclosing or is the fact that the sale or use is known enough?\u00a0 Does “secret” prior art apply to obviousness?\u00a0 These are things we need to know.<\/li>\n
  3. A new 35 USC\u00a0\u00a7311 that is more fair to patent owners.\u00a0 Inter Partes Review may be here to stay, but the process can be unfair to patent owners.\u00a0 There is no standing requirement — a petition can be filed even if the patent owner has not asserted or even threatened to assert the patent.\u00a0 A patent owner can be subjected to multiple proceeding, sometimes simultaneously, and even if the patent owner wins there is essentially no estoppel against relitigating validity in the courts.\u00a0 Even after litigation is started, an accused infringer can use Inter Partes Review to change the claim construction (BRI) and the burden of proof (preponderance).\u00a0 What happened to the presumption of validity.\u00a0 You and your elves have a lot of work to fix this.<\/li>\n
  4. If it fits in your bag, how about a presumption in favor of an injunction? The Constitution promised exclusive rights, but the Supreme Court seems to think otherwise.\u00a0 How about limiting claims to what is disclosed and enabled in their accompanying specification, instead of invalidating claims to important inventions under \u00a7112?<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

    Thanks, Santa, and Merry Christmas!<\/p>\n

    \"\"<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

    Dear Santa: I’ve been a good patent lawyer this year, and always comply with Rule 56.\u00a0 For all of the inventors we represent, I was hoping that this Christmas you would bring: A new 35 USC\u00a0\u00a7101.\u00a0 The Supreme Court broke … Continue reading →<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[52,1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-1867","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-commentary-and-observations","category-uncategorized"],"post_mailing_queue_ids":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1867","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=1867"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1867\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":1869,"href":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1867\/revisions\/1869"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=1867"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=1867"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=1867"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}