S.23 - Patent Reform Act of 2011

A bill to amend title 35, United States Code, to provide for patent reform. view all titles (4)

Close

All Bill Titles

  • Short: Patent Reform Act of 2011 as reported to senate.
  • Short: Intellectual Property Jurisdiction Clarification Act of 2011 as reported to senate.
  • Short: Patent Reform Act of 2011 as introduced.
  • Official: A bill to amend title 35, United States Code, to provide for patent reform. as introduced.

This Bill currently has no wiki content. If you would like to create a wiki entry for this bill, please Login, and then select the wiki tab to create it.

Bill's Views

  • Today: 51
  • Past Seven Days: 259
  • All-Time: 25,233
 
Introduced
 
Senate
Passed
 
House
Passes
 
President
Signs
 

 
01/24/11
 
03/07/11
 
 
 
 
 

Official Bill Text Comment on about 131 Pages

Sponsor

Senator

Patrick Leahy

D-VT

View Co-Sponsors (14)

Committees

 

Latest Vote

Result: Bill Passed - March 08, 2011

Roll call number 35 in the Senate

Question: On Passage of the Bill (S. 23 as Amended)

Required percentage of 'Aye' votes: 1/2 (50%)
Percentage of 'aye' votes: 95%
Close

Democrats Voting 'Abstain'

Close

Republicans Voting 'Abstain'

Close

Others Voting 'Abstain'

 

Official Summary

2/3/2011--Reported to Senate amended. Patent Reform Act of 2011 - (Sec. 2) Amends federal patent law to define the "effective filing date" of a claimed invention as the actual filing date of the patent or the application for patent containing a claim to the invention (thus establ
Close

Official Summary

2/3/2011--Reported to Senate amended. Patent Reform Act of 2011 -

(Sec. 2)

Amends federal patent law to define the "effective filing date" of a claimed invention as the actual filing date of the patent or the application for patent containing a claim to the invention (thus establishing a first-to-file system to replace the current first-to-invent system), except as specified. Requires the effective filing date for a claimed invention in an application for reissue or reissued patent to be determined by deeming the claim to the invention to have been contained in the patent for which reissue was sought. 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 (commonly referred to as conditions for patentability). Repeals provisions relating to inventions made abroad and statutory invention registration. Permits a civil action by a patent owner against another patent owner claiming to have the same invention and who has an earlier effective filing date if the invention claimed by the earlier patent owner was derived from the inventor claimed in the patent owned by the person seeking relief. Requires such an action to be filed within a specified one-year period. Replaces interference proceedings with derivation proceedings.Replaces the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences with the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (the Board). Requires reports from:
(1) the Small Business Administration (SBA) on the effects of eliminating the use of dates of invention in the patent application process, particularly on small businesses, and
(2) the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) on the operation of prior user rights in selected countries in the industrialized world.

(Sec. 3)

Modifies requirements regarding the oath or declaration required of an inventor. Allows a person to whom an inventor has assigned (or is under an obligation to assign) an invention to make an application for patent.

(Sec. 4)

Sets forth a damages determination procedure that requires the court or jury to consider only court-identified methodologies and factors. Authorizes the court to increase damages up to three times (treble damages) the amount found or assessed (inapplicable to specified royalties for provisional rights to inventions claimed in published applications). Allows any party to request that the trier of fact decide infringement and validity questions before the issues of damages and willful infringement are tried (commonly referred to as sequencing or bifurcation). Revises specified defenses and evidentiary requirements, including a bar on using an accused infringer's failure to obtain the advice of counsel to prove that any infringement was willful or induced.

(Sec. 5)

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 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. Limits the filing of petitions for post-grant review to the nine-month period beginning after the grant of patent or issuance of a reissue patent. Requires any petition for inter partes review to be filed after the later of:
(1) nine months after the grant or reissue, or
(2) the date of termination of a post-grant review. Disallows both forms of review if the petitioner (or real party in interest or privy) has filed:
(1) a related civil action, or
(2) the petition more than six months after being served with a complaint alleging infringement. Prohibits the petitioner from asserting claims in certain proceedings before the USPTO and International Trade Commission (ITC) and in specified civil actions if such claims were raised or reasonably could have been raised in the respective reviews (in the case of post-grant review, prohibits only raised claims from ITC proceedings and civil actions) that resulted in a final Board decision. Prohibits the USPTO Director (Director) from authorizing:
(1) inter partes review unless information in the petition and any response shows a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail on at least one of the challenged claims; 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. Sets forth a deadline for the Director to make such determinations, which are deemed final and nonappealable. Requires the Director to prescribe related regulations. Authorizes the Director to determine whether a substantial new question of patentability is raised by patents and publications discovered by the Director or cited under provisions related to the citation of prior art or reexamination requests. Allows any person, at any time, to cite to the USPTO:
(1) prior art bearing on the patentability of a claim, and
(2) statements of the patent owner filed in a proceeding before a federal court or the USPTO in which the patent owner took a position on the scope of any claim of a particular patent. Requires, on written request of the person citing prior art or written statements, that that person's identity be kept confidential.

(Sec. 6)

Sets forth the Board's required composition and duties. 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.

(Sec. 7)

Allows any third party to submit any publication of potential relevance to a patent application.

(Sec. 8)

Requires a district court to transfer a civil patent action if another venue is clearly more convenient than the venue in which the action is pending. Amends a variety of patent provisions plus the Act commonly known as the Trademark Act of 1946 or the Lanham Act to substitute references to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia for the current references to the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.

(Sec. 9)

Authorizes the Director to set or adjust by rule any fee established or charged by the USPTO. Establishes a $400 fee for original patent applications filed non-electronically.

(Sec. 10)

Establishes supplemental examinations to consider, reconsider, and correct information. Requires the Director to order reexamination if a substantial new question of patentability is raised by at least one item of information in the request.

(Sec. 11)

Eliminates the requirement that certain CAFC judges must reside within 50 miles of the District of Columbia.

(Sec. 12)

Defines the term "micro entity" for both an assigned and unassigned application, including specifying for both that an entity qualifies as a small entity if it is so defined in regulations issued by the Director and has not been named on five or more previously filed patent applications.

(Sec. 13)

Decreases the percentage of certain invention-related royalties and income that must be paid to the federal government and correspondingly increases the percentage that must be given to small business firms when a nonprofit organization has a funding agreement with the government for the operation of a government owned, contractor operated facility. (An existing provision defines the term "funding agreement" as a contract, grant, or cooperative agreement entered into between a federal agency and any contractor for the performance of experimental, developmental, or research work funded in whole or in part by the federal government.)

(Sec. 14)

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.

(Sec. 15)

Prohibits using a failure to disclose the best mode as a basis on which any claim of a patent may be canceled or held invalid or otherwise unenforceable.

(Sec. 17)

Intellectual Property Jurisdiction Clarification Act of 2011 - Amends the federal judicial code to deny to state courts jurisdiction over legal actions relating to patents, plant variety protection, or copyrights. Grants exclusive jurisdiction to the CAFC of appeals relating to patents or plant variety protection. Provides for the removal to a U.S. district court of legal actions involving patents, plant variety protection, or copyrights, and for the remand of unrelated matters. Requires the CAFC to transfer any appeal dealing with designs and unfair competition to the court of appeals for the regional circuit embracing the district from which the appeal has been taken.

...Read the Rest

Organizations Supporting S.23

  • Biotechnology Industry Organization
  • American Institute of Certified Public Accountants
  • Microsoft
  • Consumer Action
  • Association of University Technology Managers
  • Public Interest Research Group
  • ...and 54 more. See all.

Organizations Opposing S.23

  • Dell
  • Cisco
  • Independent Community Bankers of America
  • Financial Services Roundtable
  • Generic Pharmaceutical Association
  • Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association
  • ...and 13 more. See all.
See the money trail behind this bill for more info on how campaign contributions may be influencing senators' and representatives' votes.


FEED

Recent News Coverage

View All (484)  |  View Top Rated

02/20/12
Rose's 23 leads Bulls past Hawks

CHICAGO — Derrick Rose scored 23 points in his return from back pain, and the Chicago Bulls beat the struggling Atlanta Hawks 90-79 on Monday. Rose looked sharp after missing the previous five games, and the Bulls played more like championship ...

Source: Savannah Morning News
Add to My Political Notebook Save to Notebook Rate
02/20/12
Hockey: Strong start, Levy's 23 saves propel Clarkstown, 3-0

WEST NYACK — Seventh-seeded Clarkstown got the start it needed in Sunday’s Section 1 Division I first round playoff game, riding two first period goals to a 3-0 win over 10th-seeded Mount Pleasant at the Palisades Center Ice Rink. Clarkstown ...

Source: LoHud.com
Add to My Political Notebook Save to Notebook Rate
02/19/12
Could Knight be Stuckey's backcourt soul mate?

Stuckey did a lot of the picking up with 36 points against Sacramento as the game's fast pace suited his talents and Knight's (23 points, 10 assists and no turnovers). The Pistons have won six of eight, and Stuckey and Knight have started to ...

Source: Detroit Free Press
Add to My Political Notebook Save to Notebook Rate
Information made available by Daily Life
FEED

Recent Blog Coverage

View All (172)  |  View Top Rated

10/21/11
How Would S.23 Impact the Value of a New Patent? | BVR's IP ...

There is much ado about the 2011 version of patent reform these days and the change from a first to invent rule to a first to file rule. Some feel the change isnt that different, that the interference hearings held currently seldom ... -

Source: Randy
Add to My Political Notebook Save to Notebook Rate
10/04/11
S. 23: Patent Bill Includes Tax, Business Methods Provisions ...

Members of the Senate have voted 95-5 to pass S. 23, the America Invents Act bill - a measure that could affect insurers' and planners' ability to patent business methods and tax management strategies. Section 14 of S. 23 ... - -

Source: abell@nuco.com (ALLISON BELL)
Add to My Political Notebook Save to Notebook Rate
09/16/11
SUBSTANTIAL US PATENT STATUTE ... - Rader, Fishman & Grauer

After passing the United States House of Representatives and the United States Senate with overwhelming support, the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (H.R. 1249 and S. 23) was signed into law by President Obama on ...

Source: admin
Add to My Political Notebook Save to Notebook Rate
Information made available by Technorati



Users tracking S.23 (46) are also tracking:

Bills People Issues



Users supporting S.23 (18) are also:

Supporting Bill Supporting Senator Supporting Representative


Opposing Bill Opposing Senator Opposing Representative



Users opposing S.23 (46) are also:

Supporting Bill Supporting Senator Supporting Representative


Opposing Bill Opposing Senator Opposing Representative


Vote on This Bill

28% Users Support Bill

18 in favor / 46 opposed
 

Send Your Senator a Letter

about this bill Support Oppose Tracking
Track with MyOC
Save to Notebook Make A Bill Widget

Top-Rated Comments

Recent OC Blog Articles

OpenCongress is a free and open-source project of the Participatory Politics Foundation, a 501(c)3 non-profit organization with a mission to increase civic engagement. The non-profit Sunlight Foundation is the Founding and Primary Supporter of OpenCongress.