By Donald Zuhn —

On Wednesday, the House introduced its own version of the "America Invents Act" (H.R. 1249).  Although the legislation introduced in the House and the bill that was passed in the Senate earlier this month (S. 23) share the same name, the two bills are not identical (a discussion of the differences between the House and Senate bills can be found here). Since the House bill was introduced, patent organizations, industry groups, and members of the House have begun to line up in support of or opposition to the new legislation.

Earlier today, the Biotechnology Industry Organization (BIO) issued a press release in which BIO president and CEO Jim Greenwood "praise[d] House Judiciary Committee Chairman Lamar Smith (R-TX) for his introduction of a comprehensive patent reform bill similar to the bill adopted by the U.S. Senate earlier this month by a nearly unanimous vote."  Mr. Greenwood called the House legislation "a clear improvement over prior House versions of patent reform legislation" (readers may recall that the House passed a patent reform bill in September 2007; see "Patent 'Reform' Bill Passes House of Representatives").  He also noted that BIO was "pleased that the legislation will end, once and for all, the diversion of fees collected by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, allowing the agency to use all of its fees to hire more examiners, reduce the backlog of pending applications, and make other improvements to its operations."  With regard to the first-inventor-to-file provisions of the House bill, Mr. Greenwood suggested that the inclusion of this and "many other reforms" would "improve the patent system and enhance patent quality."

The biotech industry group was not satisfied with everything in the House version of legislation, however.  Mr. Greenwood stated that "BIO has serious concerns with several significant changes made in the House bill regarding the inter partes review system," concluding that:

Taken as a whole, these changes would make it easier to bring frivolous challenges to patents, harder for patent owners to enforce them, and more likely that patent owners will find themselves in duplicative and costly patent-related proceedings.  These changes negatively alter the carefully-crafted balance between patent owners and accused infringers that was achieved in the Senate bill — a bill that won support not only from 95 Senators, but from a wide range of industries, universities, and small businesses across the spectrum of American innovation.

BIO was also concerned about "the inclusion of broader prior user rights in the House bill, and believes that this issue, coupled with the harmful inter partes review changes, could set back efforts to pass meaningful patent reform this year by undermining the broad coalition of American innovators currently supporting patent reform."  Noting that small biotech companies rely on IP to attract investment, Mr. Greenwood asserted that "[i]t is critical that patent reform legislation preserves and enhances the incentives necessary to sustain our nation's global leadership in biotechnology innovation and to spur the creation of high-wage, high-value jobs throughout the country."

On Tuesday, nine organizations representing U.S. small businesses, startup entrepreneurs, independent inventors, and technical professionals sent a letter to each member of the House "to clarify [their] objections to the House version of the America Invents Act, in its current form," and highlight "troubling provisions pertaining to matters that are critical to small businesses." The organizations signing onto the letter included the American Innovators for Patent Reform, CONNECT, IEEE-USA, IP Advocate, National Association of Patent Practitioners, National Congress of Inventor Organizations, National Small Business Association, Professional Inventors Alliance USA, and U.S. Business and Industry Council.  In their letter, the groups contend that "[t]he proposed Act has several features that will increase our costs sharply and reduce our access to the patent system, increase the Patent Office's delay and backlog, and decrease our ability to enforce our patents" (emphasis in original).  Among the bill's problematic features is the first-inventor-to-file provision, which the letter argues will lead to a "weakening of the grace period," which in turn "raises risk of loss of patent rights by our members, as it impedes the important process of incubating and vetting inventions."

The letter suggests that the America Invents Act "limits the grace period to that which is commercially similar to a failed system that the U.S. abandoned in 1839, when the U.S. recognized that inventors need a commercially-reliable opportunity to work and market their inventions before the deadline for patenting."  The letter also notes that the "constitutionality of the 'first to file' provision has been questioned among legal scholars," adding that "this complex constitutional legal question and its uncertainty will disrupt investment until it is decided."  The groups also expressed "serious concerns" about the post-grant review provision of the House bill, stating that "[i]ncreased filings driven by the Act's 'use it or lose it' grace period rules and by post-grant review will further burden the U.S. Patent & Trademark Office (PTO) at a time when its backlogs are unacceptable."  As with their objections to the Senate bill, the groups contend that "[c]hanging U.S. patent law to be like the less-successful patent systems of the rest of the world cannot be regarded as positive 'reform.'"  The letter concludes by "urg[ing] Congress to shift its attention away from the broad and technically difficult America Invents Act, and instead pass a streamlined, targeted bill that focuses only on long-term PTO funding."

On Wednesday, two members of the House issued statements in opposition to H.R. 1249.  Rep. Don Manzullo (R-IL) (at right) stated that he was "deeply concerned" that the House bill "will stall American innovation and send more of our jobs overseas."  He suggested that "[t]his legislation reflects an approach to patent reform that stalled previously, in 2007, in the face of massive opposition from American innovators."  Rep. Manzullo called the first-inventor-to-file section "an unfortunate provision that would shift America's current patent system — where the first person to conceive of an invention is granted a patent — to a 'first to file' system that would turn our system into a foot race to the Patent Office," and noted that "[t]he Constitution . . . mandates that inventors have exclusive right to their discoveries."  As for those who promote harmonization, Rep. Manzullo stated that "[w]ith all due respect to our friends and allies abroad, I would not trade America's record of innovation for that of any of those first-to-file countries."  He also suggested that the bill would "devastate small inventors by effectively eliminating the one-year 'grace period' that U.S. inventors currently have," which he said was "critical to small inventors, who can use that year to develop their invention, seek investors and raise funds to begin the expensive patent application process."  Rep. Manzullo concluded by noting that "[m]any of America's inventors and innovators are alarmed over these fundamental changes to our patent system," and recommended that "we must hear them out and address their concerns."

Rep. Mike Michaud (D-ME) (at left) also issued a statement in opposition to the House bill, stating that he was "disappointed and concerned with the 'America Invents Act,'" and suggesting that "[p]atent reform should focus on addressing the Patent and Trademark Office's backlog, first, and do no harm, second."  He contended that "[a]s introduced, this bill would be bad for American inventors, bad for American manufacturers, and bad for our economy."  Rep. Michaud called two of the provisions in the bill "particularly troubling" saying that the post-grant review process and changes to inter partes reexamination would "allow infringers to challenge patents more easily," particularly because "the bill does not include all necessary safeguards to prevent strategic attacks of patents that are often used to the disadvantage of American inventors."  He also found fault with the first-inventor-to-file and prior user rights provisions, which would be "particularly problematic for universities, tech startups, and small inventors."  Rep. Michaud urged the House Judiciary Committee "to take testimony and input from a broad range of stakeholders so that we can find a better way forward on this important issue."

The Innovation Alliance also issued a press release opposing the House bill.  On Wednesday, the group, which represents innovators, patent owners, and stakeholders from a diverse range of industries, said it was "disappointed" that the House bill "does not include some important safeguards against the potential for abuse of the post-grant review procedures at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO)."  The group contended that the bill "includes a weak threshold for 'second window' inter partes review proceedings, one that will allow virtually all challenges to proceed to a trial-like hearing before an administrative patent judge," and argued for "a higher threshold . . . to enable the USPTO to manage the increased workload of the new administrative review system fairly and efficiently by screening out meritless or unsubstantiated petitions."  The Innovation Alliance also said it was "deeply concerned" that the House bill:

[I]ntroduces new standards that may preclude the enforceability of patents in court and at the International Trade Commission (ITC) pending completion of a post-grant administrative review at the USPTO, lengthens the time period defendants in infringement actions have to decide whether to pursue a post-grant administrative review, expands prior user rights to the detriment of early stage innovation and job growth, and unduly prejudices rights in an overly broad category of so-called 'business method patents' regardless of whether they survive a validity challenge.

The group did find some "positive aspects" in the bill, including "language that would end the diversion of USPTO fees," and create "some critical safeguards against abuse of the new post-grant administrative review system, including 'could have raised' estoppel and a presumption of validity for patents."  Notwithstanding the few positives, the Innovation Alliance concluded that it would oppose the America Invents Act absent "significant improvement" in the areas of concern the group raised in its statement.

By Kevin E. Noonan  —

Today, the Chairman of the Judiciary Committee in the House of Representatives, Lamar Smith (R-TX) (at right), introduced a version of the America Invents Act (passed by the Senate as S. 23).  While identical in most respects, the bill has come provisions that differ from the Senate bill.  (Update: the House bill has been assigned bill number H.R. 1249).

The House bill as set forth on Representative Smith's website has the following sections (sections that are unique to the House bill are indicated in italics; where the numbering of sections differs, the Senate section number is indicated in brackets):

Sec. 1.  Short title; table of contents
Sec. 2.  First inventor to file
Sec. 3.  Inventor's oath or declaration
Sec. 4.  Defense to Infringement Based on Earlier Inventor
Sec. 5.  Post-grant review proceedings
Sec. 6.  Patent Trial and Appeal Board
Sec. 7.  Preissuance submissions by third parties
Sec. 8.  Venue
Sec. 9.  Fee setting authority
Sec. 10.  Fees for patent services
Sec. 11.  Supplemental examination [Sec. 10, S. 23]
Sec. 12.  Funding agreements [Sec. 13, S. 23]
Sec. 13.  Tax strategies deemed within the prior art [Sec. 14, S. 23]
Sec. 14.  Best mode requirement [Sec. 15, S. 23]
Sec. 15.  Marking [Sec. 4, S. 23]
Sec. 16.  Advice of counsel [Sec. 4, S. 23]
Sec. 17.  Ownership; assignment
Sec. 18.  Transitional program for covered business method patents
Sec. 19.  Clarification of jurisdiction [Sec. 17, S. 23]
Sec. 20.  Technical amendments [Sec. 16, S. 23]
Sec. 21.  Travel expenses and payment of administrative judges [Sec. 19, S. 23]
Sec. 22.  Patent and Trademark Office funding [Sec. 20, S. 23]
Sec. 23.  Satellite offices [Sec. 21, S. 23]
Sec. 24.  Patent Ombudsman Program for small business concerns [Sec. 22, S. 23]
Sec. 25.  Priority examination for technologies important to American competitiveness [Sec. 23, S. 23]
Sec. 26.  Designation of Detroit satellite Office [Sec. 24, S. 23]
Sec. 27.  Effective date [Sec. 25, S. 23]
Sec. 28.  Budgetary effects [Sec. 26, S. 23]

Sec. 11 (Residency of Federal Circuit Judges) and Sec. 12 (Microentity defined) from S. 23 are not included in the House version of the bill.

Section 4 of the House bill, contains a more extensive revision to 35 U.S.C. § 273 than S. 23, as follows (with differences indicated by strikethrough or underlining):

35 U.S.C. 273 Defense to infringement based on earlier inventor.

(a) DEFINITIONS.- For purposes of this section-

(1) the terms "commercially used" and "commercial use" mean use of a method in use of the subject matter of a patent inside or outside the United States, so long as such use is in connection with an internal commercial use or an actual arm's-length sale or other arm's-length commercial transfer of a useful end result, whether or not the subject matter at issue is accessible to or otherwise known to the public, except that the subject matter for which commercial marketing or use is subject to a premarketing regulatory review period during which the safety or efficacy of the subject matter is established, including any period specified in section 156(g), shall be deemed "commercially used" and in "commercial use" during such regulatory review period;

(2) in the case of activities performed by a nonprofit research laboratory, or nonprofit entity such as a university, research center, or hospital, a use for which the public is the intended beneficiary shall be considered to be a use described in paragraph (1), except that the use-

(A) may be asserted as a defense under this section only for continued use by and in the laboratory or nonprofit entity; and

(B) may not be asserted as a defense with respect to any subsequent commercialization or use outside such laboratory or nonprofit entity;

(3) the term "method" means a method of doing or conducting business; and

(4) (3) the "effective filing date" of a patent is the earlier of the actual filing date of the application for the patent or the filing date of any earlier United States, foreign, or international application to which the subject matter at issue is entitled under section 119, 120, or 365 of this title.

(b) DEFENSE TO INFRINGEMENT.-

(1) IN GENERAL.- It shall be a defense to an action for infringement under section 271 of this title with respect to any subject matter that would otherwise infringe one or more claims for a method in the patent being asserted against a person, if such person had, acting in good faith, actually reduced the subject matter to practice at least 1 year before the effective filing date of such patent, and commercially used the subject matter before the effective filing date of such patent.

(2) EXHAUSTION OF RIGHT.- The sale or other disposition of a useful end product produced by a patented process method, by a person entitled to assert a defense under this section with respect to that useful end result shall exhaust the patent owner's rights under the patent to the extent such rights would have been exhausted had such sale or other disposition been made by the patent owner.

(3) LIMITATIONS AND QUALIFICATIONS OF DEFENSE.- The defense to infringement under this section is subject to the following:

(A) PATENT.- A person may not assert the defense under this section unless the invention for which the defense is asserted is for a method.

(B) (A) DERIVATION.- A person may not assert the defense under this section if the subject matter on which the defense is based was derived from the patentee or persons in privity with the patentee.

(C) NOT A GENERAL LICENSE.- The defense asserted by a person under this section is not a general license under all claims of the patent at issue, but extends only to the specific subject matter claimed in the patent with respect to which the person can assert a defense under this chapter, except that the defense shall also extend to variations in the quantity or volume of use of the claimed subject matter, and to improvements in the claimed subject matter that do not infringe additional specifically claimed subject matter of the patent.

(D) FUNDING. –

(i) DEFENSE NOT AVAILANLE IN CERTAIN CASES. -  A person may not assert the defense under this section if the subject matter of the patent in which the defense is based was developer pursuant to a funding agreement under chapter 18 of this title of be a nonprofit institution of higher education, or a technology transfer organization affiliated with such an institution, that did not receive funding from a private business enterprise in support of that development.

(ii) DEFINITIONS. – In this subparagraph –

(I)  the term "institution of higher education" has the meaning given that term in section 101(a) of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1001(a); and

(II)  the term "technology transfer organization" means an organization the primary purpose of which is to facilitate the commercialization of technologies developed by one or more institutions of higher education.

(4) BURDEN OF PROOF.- A person asserting the defense under this section shall have the burden of establishing the defense by clear and convincing evidence.

(5) ABANDONMENT OF USE.- A person who has abandoned commercial use of subject matter may not rely on activities performed before the date of such abandonment in establishing a defense under this section with respect to actions taken after the date of such abandonment.

(6) PERSONAL DEFENSE.-

(A) IN GENERAL: The defense under this section may be asserted only by the person who performed or caused the performance of the acts necessary to establish the defense, as well as any other entity that controls, is controlled by, or is under common control with such person, and, except for any transfer to the patent owner, the right to assert the defense shall not be licensed or assigned or transferred to another person except as an ancillary and subordinate part of a good faith assignment or transfer for other reasons of the entire enterprise or line of business to which the defense relates.

(B) EXCEPTION. – Notwithstanding subparagraph (A), any person may, ion the person's own behalf, assert a defense based on the exhaustion of rights provided under paragraph (2), including any necessary elements thereof.

(7) LIMITATION ON SITES.- A defense under this section, when acquired as part of a good faith assignment or transfer of an entire enterprise or line of business to which the defense relates, may only be asserted for uses at sites where the subject matter that would otherwise infringe one or more of the claims is in use before the later of the effective filing date of the patent or the date of the assignment or transfer of such enterprise or line of business.

(8) UNSUCCESSFUL ASSERTION OF DEFENSE.- If the defense under this section is pleaded by a person who is found to infringe the patent and who subsequently fails to demonstrate a reasonable basis for asserting the defense, the court shall find the case exceptional for the purpose of awarding attorney fees under section 285 of this title.

(9) INVALIDITY.- A patent shall not be deemed to be invalid under section 102 or 103 of this title solely because a defense is raised or established under this section.

In addition, Section 2 lacks the provisions of S. 23 relating to amending the False Marking statute (35 U.S.C. § 291) to restrict actions under subsection (a) to the U.S., and to restrict private plaintiffs to those that can allege a competitive injury under subsection (b).

Regarding Section 5, the post-grant review provisions, the House amendments to the inter partes reexamination provisions differ from the Senate version by maintaining the current standard for granting inter partes reexamination, i.e., raising a substantial new question of patentability (rather than showing a "reasonable likelihood that the petition would prevail with respect to at least one of the claims challenged in the petition" in S. 23).  The House version also gives the Director less time to initiate an inter partes reexamination where the patentee does not respond to the petition (§ 314(b)).  The House version also contains provisions in § 315 requiring an automatic stay of "civil proceedings" if an inter partes reexamination request is filed (and exempt counterclaims of invalidity from these provisions (§ 315(a)(2) and (a)(3)).  The House bill also includes a new section not in the Senate version, § 320, providing that, when a party seeks a stay in a "civil action" (including patent infringement litigation as well as actions before the International Trade Commission), the court "shall decide" whether to grant the stay based on "whether the stay, or denial thereof, will simplify the issues . . . and streamline the trial" (§ 320(1)); "whether discovery is complete and whether a trial date has been set" (§ 320(2)); "whether a stay, or the denial thereof, would unduly prejudice the nonmoving party or present a clear tactical advantage for the moving party" (§ 320(3)); or "whether a stay, or the denial thereof, will reduce the burden of litigation on the parties and on the court" (§ 320(4)).  (These provisions are in both the Senate and House versions of the section relating to expedited Patent Office review of business method patents; Sec. 18(c).)  Moreover, the House bill does not contain the exception in S. 23, that the provisions as amended do not apply to an inter partes reexamination request filed prior to the date of enactment.

With regard to the new post-grant review provisions relating to review after a patent grants, there are some important differences between the House and Senate bills (in addition to formatting changes in some of the provisions).  These differences include expanding the time for filing a petition from 9 months to 12 months from grant (Sec. 321(c)), permitting as the basis of review an assertion of "a novel legal question that is important to other patents or patent applications" (Sec. 324(b)), and outlining the considerations courts should make regarding whether to grant a stay in a civil action (§ 330).

There are also some minor differences in where certain provisions can be found in the two bills.  For example, the definition of "micro-entity" is set forth in a separate section in S. 23 (Sec. 12) and is contained in Section 9 on Fee Setting Authority in the House bill; the only substantive difference in the definition is that the House bill requires an applicant claiming the benefits of micro-entity status not to have been named on 4 or more previously filed application, while in the Senate bill the requirement is 5 or fewer.  The Fees for Patent Services provisions in Section 9 of S. 23 are set forth in a separate section (Sec. 10) in the House bill, which contains a specified amount for Patent Office services (which will be presumably subject to adjustment by the Director under the provisions of Section 9).  The virtual marking and changes to the False Marking provisions found in S. 23 in Sec. 4 and Sec. 4 are together in Sec. 15 of the House bill, and the advice of counsel provisions in Sec. 4 of S. 23 are separately set forth in Sec. 16 of the House version of the bill.

The provisions regarding tax strategy patents being considered to be within the prior art is slightly more precisely worded in the House bill, exempting not only computer programs for tax filing but also any "method, apparatus, technology, computer program product or system used solely for financial management, to the extent that it is severable from any tax strategy or does not limit the use of any tax strategy by any taxpayer of tax advisor" (Sec. 13(e)(2)).

Section 17 of the House bill uniquely amends 35 U.S.C. § 261 by adding the following provision:

35 U.S.C. 261 Ownership; assignment.

Subject to the provisions of this title, patents shall have the attributes of personal property.

Applications for patent, patents, or any interest therein, shall be assignable in law by an instrument in writing. The applicant, patentee, or his assigns or legal representatives may in like manner grant and convey an exclusive right under his application for patent, or patents, to the whole or any specified part of the United States.

A certificate of acknowledgment under the hand and official seal of a person authorized to administer oaths within the United States, or, in a foreign country, of a diplomatic or consular officer of the United States or an officer authorized to administer oaths whose authority is proved by a certificate of a diplomatic or consular officer of the United States, or apostille of an official designated by a foreign country which, by treaty or convention, accords like effect to apostilles of designated officials in the United States, shall be prima facie evidence of the execution of an assignment, grant, or conveyance of a patent or application for patent.

An assignment, grant, or conveyance shall be void as against any subsequent purchaser or mortgagee for a valuable consideration, without notice, unless it is recorded in the Patent and Trademark Office within three months from its date or prior to the date of such subsequent purchase or mortgage and identifies all real parties in interest and those entities that control, directly or indirectly, such real parties in interest.

The provisions for institution of a transitional program for covered business-method patents (Sec. 18 in both bills) differ only in that the House bill has an extensive section on venue, limiting venue for business method patent infringement to be brought "only in a judicial district . . . (1) where the defendant has its principal place of business or is incorporated" [or] "(2) has committed acts of infringement and has a regular and established place of business" [or] "(3) where the defendant has agreed or consented to be sued" [or] "(4) for foreign defendants [that do not meet the requirements of (1) or (2)] in accordance with [28 U.S.C. § 1391(d)." (Sec. 18(d)).  The House bill also contains provisions of recovery of attorney's fees for the prevailing party (Sec. 18(e)) and exempts automated teller machines from the definition of a "physical facility" for venue purposes (Sec. 18(f)).

The House bill does not contain provisions relating to the residency requirements for Federal Circuit judges (Sec. 11 of S. 23).

The House held a hearing before the Subcommittee on Intellectual Property, Competition and the Internet on its version of the America Invents Act today; there has been no announcement by Rep. Smith regarding any additional hearings or timing of bringing the bill to a vote by the full Judiciary Committee.

By Donald Zuhn —

On Wednesday afternoon, the House Subcommittee on Intellectual Property, Competition and the Internet will hold a hearing on the House version of Senate bill S. 23, otherwise known as the "America Invents Act."  The hearing on the as yet unnumbered House bill, which begins at 1:30 pm (ET), will consist of two panels of witnesses, with U.S. Patent and Trademark Director David Kappos on the first panel, and Steve Bartlett, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Financial Services Roundtable; Steven W. Miller, Vice President and General Counsel for Intellectual Property for the Procter & Gamble Co.; Mark Chandler, Senior Vice President, General Counsel and Secretary for Cisco Systems, Inc.; and John Vaughn, Executive Vice President of the Association of American Universities on the second panel.

Last week, the Intellectual Property Owners Association (IPO) reported that the House bill was likely to be introduced on Tuesday in advance of tomorrow's hearing.  However, it does not appear that the House version of S. 23 was introduced during today's legislative session.  The IPO also reported that while many observers expect the House bill to be similar to S. 23, the inter partes review procedure may differ.  One area where the bills are not expected to differ is with respect to the first-inventor-to-file provision.

Tomorrow's hearing will be the Subcommittee's third patent-related hearing in the past month and a half.  On February 11, the Subcommittee held a hearing on "Crossing the Finish Line on Patent Reform — What Can and Should be Done," where it heard testimony from David Simon, Associate General Counsel, Intellectual Property Policy for Intel Corp.; Carl Horton, Chief Intellectual Property Counsel for General Electric, who spoke on behalf of the Coalition for 21st Century Patent Reform; and the Honorable Paul Michel  former Chief Judge for the U.S. Court of Appeals for Federal Circuit.  On March 10, the Subcommittee held a hearing on "Review of Recent Judicial Decisions on Patent Law," where it heard testimony from Dan L. Burk, Chancellor's Professor of Law at the University of California, Irvine; Andrew J. Pincus, Partner at Mayer Brown; and Dennis D. Crouch, Associate Professor of Law at the University of Missouri School of Law (and founder of the patent weblog Patently-O).

While the House has picked up the patent reform discussion from the Senate, the debate in the patent community over the Senate bill, which was passed on March 8 (see "Senate Passes S. 23"), continues.  The latest group to voice its opposition to S. 23 is American Innovators for Patent Reform (AIPR), a trade association dedicated to promoting innovation by strengthening the U.S. patent system, which issued a press release last week stating that the Senate bill "does not address the needs of the innovation community: inventors, small businesses and universities."  AIPR founder and president Dr. Alexander Poltorak said that notwithstanding the bill's new name "the America Invents Act is still anti-inventor and anti-small-business legislation."

The AIPR contends that that there are two "problematic" elements in the legislation that "will hinder American innovation and weaken the U.S. patent system":  the first-inventor-to-file provision, which the AIPR believes "will result in a flood of patent applications as applicants rush to the patent office with half-baked inventions afraid of losing their priority date," which in turn "will further clog a Patent Office that already has a 700,000 patent application backlog," and post-grant review, a third patent challenge that the AIPR calls "a dream-come-true for infringers."  Although the AIPR found fault with the above provisions of S. 23, it found favor with the bill's reduction in the fee small entities would pay for accelerated examination and end to fee diversion (the AIPR believed the bill could have gone even farther, however, by calling for a return of the nearly one billion dollars diverted from the USPTO since 1992).

For additional information regarding this and other related topics, please see:

• "The Disappearance of Deceptive Intent in S. 23," March 23, 2011
• "'Reform' at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office," March 22, 2011
• "Few 'Reform' Provisions Remain in S. 23 Relating to the Judiciary," Marech 21, 2011
• "Additional Opportunities for Pre- and Post-grant Review, and Brand New Patent Trial and Appeal Board in S. 23," March 17, 2011
• "Post-grant Review Provisions of S. 23," March 16, 2011
• "Inventor's Interests, If Not Rights, Limited by S. 23," March 15, 2011
• "What Are the Provisions of the Proposed "First-Inventor-to-File" System in S. 23?" March 14, 2011
• "Obama Administration Supports S. 23," March 9, 2011
• "Reaction to Senate Passage of S. 23," March 8, 2011
• "Senate Passes S. 23," March 8, 2011