Sentences with phrase «over patent reform»

While Congress dithers over patent reform, the EFF is taking action against the software patents it considers are suppressing noncommercial and small - business innovation or limiting free expression online.

In a relatively short period of time, the debate over patent reform has transformed an arcane, low - salience issue into one that sparks fierce controversy and national headlines.

«Anecdotally, I've heard that some of the litigation that would have been filed in this quarter was shifted up and filed in Q2 because of concern over patent reform,» he added.

Not exact matches

I have disagreed with the Innovation Alliance on FRAND issues, but today it issued a press release relating to U.S. patent reform that I believe raises some legitimate concern over one particular aspects of the current patent policy debate.

U.S. Senator Patrick Leahy (D - VT) is calling for a renewed push for patent reform, in the wake of the FTC's settlement with MPHJ and its law firm Farney Daniels P.C. over allegations they «used deceptive sales claims and phony legal tactics in demand letters accusing thousands of businesses of patent infringement.»

Microsoft on its anti-piracy and copyright enforcement programme in New Zealand, and during its engagement with New Zealand Government agencies over recent patent reform where, among other changes, the New Zealand parliament significantly amended New Zealand law on the patentability of software

As Dennis Crouch pointed out over at Patently - O, the release of an informally proposed amendment to the current patent reform bill that would set April 24 as a cutoff date for retroactive application of fee shifting provisions set off a surge of patent case filings just before the deadline.

Published by patent analytics firm Lex Machina, the report adds new grist to a debate over U.S. innovation policy at a time when patent reform in Congress has foundered once again.

On previous occasions, opponents have been able to portray patent reform as a pet project of Silicon Valley, and suggest reformers were no more than slick tech villains looking to ride roughshod over inventors.

From the The Beacon: Over at R Street, Zach Graves has a good piece up looking at the American Conservative Union's opposition to patent reform pending in the Congress.

We will continue to work with the White House and Congress to move patent reform legislation over the finish line as soon as possible.

A recent independent study by economist Dr. Everett Ehrlich projected that the Patent Reform Act of 2009, as written, would create 100,000 new jobs over the next five years.

Later, President Obama expressed his concern over patent trolls and called for reform.

Although the purpose of the patent system is to promote innovation, the numerous hearings held by your two committees over the past five years have demonstrated that some aspects of the system today are in urgent need of reform.»

We've watched over the past few years as the momentum in Congress on patent reform has ebbed and flowed, and sometimes it seems that there's no end in sight.

With Congress in gridlock over proposed patent reform legislation and four Justices concerned about the potential threat of both patent trolls and business methods to innovation, you can expect many more petitions to the Supreme Court to address these issues.

In recent years, the USPTO has come under increasing scrutiny over the quality of its patent examinations.1 The growing push for reform of the patent system is fueled by the rapid rise of technology, financial services, telecommunications, and other innovations driving the information economy, all straining the USPTO's ability to evaluate and issue quality patents.2 Problems with patent quality occur when the Patent Office grants patents on claims that are broader than what is merited by the invention and the prior art. 3 In fact, a number of these problematic patents have been issued and publicized to much fanfare, including the infamous Smuckers» peanut butter and jelly patent where the company asserted a patent on their method of making the UncrustiblesTM crust-less peanut butter and jelly sandwiches, among others.4 These «bad» or improvidently granted patents impact the USPTO's ability to promote overall patent quality which, I will show, has serious implications for the public dpatent examinations.1 The growing push for reform of the patent system is fueled by the rapid rise of technology, financial services, telecommunications, and other innovations driving the information economy, all straining the USPTO's ability to evaluate and issue quality patents.2 Problems with patent quality occur when the Patent Office grants patents on claims that are broader than what is merited by the invention and the prior art. 3 In fact, a number of these problematic patents have been issued and publicized to much fanfare, including the infamous Smuckers» peanut butter and jelly patent where the company asserted a patent on their method of making the UncrustiblesTM crust-less peanut butter and jelly sandwiches, among others.4 These «bad» or improvidently granted patents impact the USPTO's ability to promote overall patent quality which, I will show, has serious implications for the public dpatent system is fueled by the rapid rise of technology, financial services, telecommunications, and other innovations driving the information economy, all straining the USPTO's ability to evaluate and issue quality patents.2 Problems with patent quality occur when the Patent Office grants patents on claims that are broader than what is merited by the invention and the prior art. 3 In fact, a number of these problematic patents have been issued and publicized to much fanfare, including the infamous Smuckers» peanut butter and jelly patent where the company asserted a patent on their method of making the UncrustiblesTM crust-less peanut butter and jelly sandwiches, among others.4 These «bad» or improvidently granted patents impact the USPTO's ability to promote overall patent quality which, I will show, has serious implications for the public dpatent quality occur when the Patent Office grants patents on claims that are broader than what is merited by the invention and the prior art. 3 In fact, a number of these problematic patents have been issued and publicized to much fanfare, including the infamous Smuckers» peanut butter and jelly patent where the company asserted a patent on their method of making the UncrustiblesTM crust-less peanut butter and jelly sandwiches, among others.4 These «bad» or improvidently granted patents impact the USPTO's ability to promote overall patent quality which, I will show, has serious implications for the public dPatent Office grants patents on claims that are broader than what is merited by the invention and the prior art. 3 In fact, a number of these problematic patents have been issued and publicized to much fanfare, including the infamous Smuckers» peanut butter and jelly patent where the company asserted a patent on their method of making the UncrustiblesTM crust-less peanut butter and jelly sandwiches, among others.4 These «bad» or improvidently granted patents impact the USPTO's ability to promote overall patent quality which, I will show, has serious implications for the public dpatent where the company asserted a patent on their method of making the UncrustiblesTM crust-less peanut butter and jelly sandwiches, among others.4 These «bad» or improvidently granted patents impact the USPTO's ability to promote overall patent quality which, I will show, has serious implications for the public dpatent on their method of making the UncrustiblesTM crust-less peanut butter and jelly sandwiches, among others.4 These «bad» or improvidently granted patents impact the USPTO's ability to promote overall patent quality which, I will show, has serious implications for the public dpatent quality which, I will show, has serious implications for the public domain.

She also commented that patent law needed to be reformed to find «a balance between adequately producing innovation while reducing the payday for those pursuing litigation over patents held on small advances in complex technologies.»

The comment period closed just recently, on April 15, 2013, and over 50 comments are posted online discussing various aspects of software patent reform.

This week, EFF joined over 5,600 individuals in a letter (PDF) pressing the Senate for meaningful patent reform — reform that goes beyond the current Senate proposals and provides strong fixes to the patent troll problem.

Within a week, over 5,000 individuals have urged the Senate to pass meaningful patent reform.

In a letter organized by the Innovation Alliance, over 100 academic institutions urged the Senate not to pass patent reform legislation.