[Ip-health] Schumer asks patent office to delay new rules

[Prof. Michael H. Davis]

This is called being bought-and-paid-for. There is no public interest serve=
d by delaying these rules.


Mickey Davis
_________________________________

Prof. Michael H. Davis
Professor of Law
Cleveland State Univ. College of Law
1801 Euclid Ave.
Cleveland, OH 44115-2214 (mailing address: 2121 Euclid Ave. LB 234)
216-687-2228
_________________________________

_________________________________
Patent Attorney Admitted to Practice Before the US Patent and Trademark Off=
ice Reg.No. 45,863
____________
This message was sent on a Treo680 in transit via Chatteremail


-----Original Message-----
From: Sarah Rimmington <srimmington@essentialinformation.org>
Date: Wednesday, Oct 31, 2007 8:40 am
Subject: [Ip-health] Schumer asks patent office to delay new rules
To: Ip-health@lists.essential.org

pharmalot.com
>Schumer Asks Patent Office To Delay New Rules
>October 30th, 2007 3:29 pm By Ed Silverman
>http://www.pharmalot.com/2007/10/schumer-asks-patent-office-to-delay-new-r=
ules/
>
>Which new rules? Well, the US Patent and Trademark Office on Nov. 1 will
>implement new rules, including one concerning the continuation of patent
>applications. What=92s that? Current US patent law allows an inventor to
>file several different types of patent applications to cover new
>improvements to their inventions, or to cover different aspects of their
>inventions. One type is a continuation.
>
>You may recall that Glaxo filed a lawsuit against the PTO, claiming the
>new rules are arbitrary and will prevent it from pursuing patent
>applications and obtaining patents on or more of its inventions,
>especially since the drugmaker has hundreds of various types of
>applications in the works. In essence, Glaxo fears the new rules will
>make it harder to make such filings, therefore threatening its investments=
.
>
>And Chuck Schumer, the Democratic Senator from New York, wrote a letter
>to Jon Dudas, a PTO official, suggesting a delay. To bolster his
>reasoning, Chuck cites the Glaxo litigation. And he notes Congress is
>considering a patent reform bill that may address the issues raised in
>the PTO=92s new rules. =93A delay would allow the courts to assess the
>merits of the pending suit,=94 he writres. =93The proposed rules may have
>the unintended consequence of stifling such innovation and I urge you to
>delay their implementation.=94
>
>Hat tip to PLI Blog
>
>--
>Sarah Rimmington
>Attorney
>Essential Action, Access to Medicines Project
>Washington, DC
>Tel: (202) 387-8030
>Cell: (202) 422-2687
>www.essentialaction.org/access/
>
>_______________________________________________
>Ip-health mailing list
>Ip-health@lists.essential.org
>http://lists.essential.org/mailman/listinfo/ip-health
>