A common theme of most proposed changes is to make it more difficult to obtain or keep a patent by granting a government administrator or judge greater discretion in various procedures to determine whether a patent should issue or remain in force. These procedures go by various names — enhanced examination, opposition, re-examination and second-window review. In addition, the U.S. Supreme Court just raised the bar for obviousness in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727.

The common goal is to make it easier for decision-makers to reject patents, usually on the basis of “prior art” — whether the claimed invention was previously known. This may seem like a good idea: Its proponents claim it will cut costs and eliminate patents on things that are already being done. But on closer inspection, it creates more problems than it solves.

This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.

To view this content, please continue to their sites.

Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now

Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now

Why am I seeing this?

LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.

For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]