This act is troublesome. Looking at just the F2I section, here are a few problems:
1. Is an “offer to sell” no longer an act that causes problems? (Old statute uses “offer to sell” and new statute uses “on sale.”)
2. “before the effective filing date of the claimed invention” – if you amend the claims, does that change the filing date? (Old statute used “filing date of the application.”)
3. What does “available to the public” mean? Is confidentially seeking funding from an investor enough?
4. On the exceptions, what is a “disclosure”? Is it more or less than “printed publication, public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the pubic”?
5. Is (b)(1)(A) directed to confidential disclosures (in addition to public disclosures)? ((b)(1)(B) specifies “publicly disclosed.”)
6. This may be a stretch, but . . . In most foreign countries, you can have confidential disclosures forever without losing patent rights. Could a confidential disclosure bar filing in the United States?

For an extensive look at what’s right and wrong (more) with this bill, see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patent_Reform_Act_of_2011

There is a case to be made for reducing litigation costs with first to file. However, in doing so, we may harm small inventors and stifle information sharing at Universities. I propose two rules that should be included with the transition. 1. When filing an application, the inventor must have invented it. 2. Inventors may still file for a patent within a year of publishing a disclosure, but their publication blocks other filers. #1 makes it much easier for the first firm to file, someone else would have to prove that they stole the invention from them. #2 Enjoys the benefit of publishing information at a University and subsequently filing for a patent, which encourages more publishing and prevents University researchers from delaying publication while a patent is prepared.

I’m not certain if this is needed, or it the existing criminal laws might not already cover the problem of a major group of lawyers In Marshall TX, with deep pocket financial backers now holding corporations hostage. It is clear that a big money law group is creating shill companies with control on patents and are getting Mafia like ‘protection’ payments to avoid expensive litigation. I’m afraid this is like the immigration issue, where amnesty is the cure for Obummers decision to not protect our borders. Why not close down this Marshall TX group of corrupt lawyers on racketeering charges instead of a new law?