S.23 - Patent Reform Act of 2011

A bill to amend title 35, United States Code, to provide for patent reform. view all titles (6)

All Bill Titles

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

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.

Comments Feed

  • kevinmcc 02/01/2011 9:48am

    Three supports of this bill with no text? How can you support an unknown bill?

    I will be tracking this bill, but not supporting until I have read the the text.

  • SmilingAhab 02/03/2011 5:53pm

    The bill will allow the Patent office to grant a patent claim to the first “inventor” (which is redefined) which files, instead of an inventor with proof of invention.

    This means essentially that international corporations and the G3 will buy up scientists like bullets and ensure that as little indie innovation as possible occurs without corporate supervision.

    The mentions of capping damages for minor patent infringements may stop companies like Apple from patenting every last button on their newest toy and suing anyone they want, but it also means that if a massive corporation starts copying the crap out of indie innovation, there’s no longer any way to punish the corporation for stepping on the inventor.

    This bill is more Republicrat fluff and should be ignored by anyone set on actual patent reform. This will be as effective in patent reform as the “financial reform” fluff bill will be in keeping Wall St. from pissing our country’s wealth away on gambling.

  • Comm_reply
    fakk2 02/28/2011 2:58pm


    This bill was sponsored by a Democrat, and out of 11 co-sponsors, only 4 are Republicans, 6 are Democrats, and 1 is Independent. Thankfully they’re not from my state.

  • spamiseveil666 02/24/2011 7:35pm

    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?

  • GaryLauder 03/01/2011 10:03am

    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

  • concernedcitzen 03/01/2011 11:58am

    I don’t like this bill in its current form especially:
    - 14 b) “the term ‘tax liability’ refers to any liability for a tax under any Federal, State, or local law, or the law of any foreign jurisdiction.” that does not mention having American citizens and depends on the laws of ‘foreign jurisdiction, when that seems unnecessary since we live in America.
    - Sec 291, Dervived Patents: “(a) In General- The owner of a patent may have relief by civil action against the owner of another patent that claims the same invention and has an earlier effective filing date.” We don’t need to encourage more civil cases. We need to use arbitration, negotiation or mediation.
    - The so-called ‘director’ gets too much power in deciding cases. If he is to have that much power he must have a limit on how long he can be in that position because he/she will become an entrenched bureaucrat in government if that doesn’t happen.
    - Unnecessary paperwork for the inventor.
    If these are fixed, I’ll support it.

  • hafeed 06/14/2011 11:41pm

    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.

  • Rhotundra 07/29/2011 9:30pm

    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?

Vote on This Bill

27% Users Support Bill

18 in favor / 48 opposed

Send Your Senator a Letter

about this bill Support Oppose Tracking
Track with MyOC

Top-Rated Comments