The 'Trump effect'?

Summary: US patent law is being 'massaged' again, with bills being pushed forth that propose a return to Armageddon, undoing much of the progress made possible by the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (AIA)

THIS weekend we shall do a 'marathon' of posts about the US patent system.

It seems to be getting ever more crucial or at least important for Techrights to return to covering US patent matters. There are some disturbing developments in the US right now and we won't have time to cover them as soon as the EPO finishes its quarterly meeting next week. We expect EPO coverage to dominate this blog again and we have literally dozens of drafts about the US system, just waiting to be properly composed and published (it typically starts with references and various notes).

"There are some disturbing developments in the US right now and we won't have time to cover them as soon as the EPO finishes its quarterly meeting next week."We are glad to say that we are not alone when it comes to fighting for patent sanity in the US. The EFF seems to have intensified its work in this domain and days ago we saw an OK (ish) response from Patent Progress to the latest disturbing move.

While we are very motivated to start writing a lot (again, as before, specifically about the US patent system), we also made the EPO a top priority, so from now on the US will be covered only when time permits.

Seeing politicians who work for the patent microcosm (bills written by lobbyists and large corporations with their lawyers), Patent Progress published "STRONGER Patents, WEAKER Innovation" regarding the "STRONG Patents Act."

It said that "Senator Coons introduced his STRONGER Patents Act. Senator Coons provided a section-by-section description of the bill, as well as the text of the bill. And after reading it, I have some concerns. Patent Progress previously covered Senator Coons’ STRONG Patents Act. Much of STRONG Patents wound up in STRONGER Patents, and our analysis back then remains valid. But, as the “ER” on the end implies, there’s more this time, and it’s even worse.

"We are glad to say that we are not alone when it comes to fighting for patent sanity in the US.""The short version? Let’s gut inter partes review, and then let’s make induced infringement extremely broad by overturning multiple Supreme Court decisions for good measure."

There is another effort similar to it -- one that we shall cover separately. In case we lack the time to cover all that, there's always "Patent Progress", "United for Patent Reform", the EFF, TechDirt etc. They typically do decent work. Even "Patent Progress" has improved (we used to be critical of it).

Quite a few sites out there tackle the issues associated with patent maximalism in the US and the same cannot be said about Europe, hence our focus on the EPO, UPC etc. There needs to be response not only to Battistelli's regime but also Team UPC and think tanks that pretend to be publications, e.g. IAM.

"The bottom line is, it's reassuring to know that patent abuse (or excess if not aggression), especially in the US, is already being tackled by quite a few sites or groups."IAM has already commented about the above, saying (in the headline) that it's "smart politics" to push for laws written and pushed for by the patent microcosm. Remember who sponsors IAM.

The bottom line is, it's reassuring to know that patent abuse (or excess if not aggression), especially in the US, is already being tackled by quite a few sites or groups. We shall limit our coverage on these matters until or unless things calm down at the EPO. ⬆