<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>Medical Device Daily Perspectives &#187; Patents</title>
	<atom:link href="http://mdd.blogs.medicaldevicedaily.com/tag/patents/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://mdd.blogs.medicaldevicedaily.com</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 13 Jun 2013 11:50:27 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en-US</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
			<item>
		<title>First-to-file vs. first-to-invent: Which patent system would be better for the U.S.?</title>
		<link>http://mdd.blogs.medicaldevicedaily.com/2011/03/04/first-to-file-vs-first-to-invent-which-patent-system-would-be-better-for-the-u-s/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=first-to-file-vs-first-to-invent-which-patent-system-would-be-better-for-the-u-s</link>
		<comments>http://mdd.blogs.medicaldevicedaily.com/2011/03/04/first-to-file-vs-first-to-invent-which-patent-system-would-be-better-for-the-u-s/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 04 Mar 2011 23:15:16 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Holland Johnson</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Intellectual Property]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Patents]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Diane Feinstein]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[John Kyl]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Orrin Hatch]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://mdd.blogs.thompson.com/?p=129</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Patent reform legislation has been in the news quite a bit the past few weeks in the U.S., with both chambers of Congress working on legislation that could affect the way patents are currently registered. The U.S. patent system is...]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://mdd.blogs.medicaldevicedaily.com/2011/03/04/first-to-file-vs-first-to-invent-which-patent-system-would-be-better-for-the-u-s/capitol-faded/"></a><a href="http://mdd.blogs.medicaldevicedaily.com/files/2011/03/capitol-faded.jpg" rel="shadowbox[sbpost-129];player=img;"></a><a href="http://mdd.blogs.medicaldevicedaily.com/files/2011/03/capitol-faded.jpg" rel="shadowbox[sbpost-129];player=img;"><img class="alignleft size-medium wp-image-137" src="http://mdd.blogs.medicaldevicedaily.com/files/2011/03/capitol-faded-300x112.jpg" alt="" width="300" height="112" /></a>Patent reform legislation has been in the news quite a bit the past few weeks in the U.S., with both chambers of Congress working on legislation that could affect the way patents are currently registered.</p>
<p><span id="more-129"></span></p>
<p>The U.S. patent system is currently based on a first-to-invent doctrine, which means that the inventor who first conceived of the invention and then reduced it to practice by filing a patent application is considered the first inventor and is entitled to patent protection. Every other country in the world, except the Phillipines, has a patent system based on the first-to-file doctrine, in which the patent is granted to the inventor who is the first to file a patent application, regardless of the date of invention.</p>
<p>Last week, Sen. Diane Feinstein (D-California) proposed an amendment to the patent reform bill (<a title="s. 23" href="http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d112:s.23:">S. 23</a>) to strike the first-to-file provision. Feinstein, whose amendment was soundly defeated, said that she believed that first-to-file “would be severely harmful to innovation and especially burdensome on small inventors.” She added that, “under first-to-invent, we have been the world’s leader in innovation, and the first-to-file countries have been playing catch-up.”</p>
<p>Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah), one of the architects of patent reform, rebutted Feinstein’s claims that the current system is better for the small inventor than first-to-file. He said that under the current system, “if there’s a dispute, it costs applicants an average of $500,000 in legal fees to prove they were the first to invent,” a sum he said would fall to $100 under first-to-file.</p>
<p>Sen. John Kyl (R-Arizona), added that first-to-file has “been the subject of debate for about 20 years” and was thoroughly vetted in both chambers of Congress in previous attempts at reform. “This provision . . . is supported by all three patent organizations,” including the <strong><a title="American Bar Association" href="http://www.americanbar.org/aba.html">American Bar Association </a></strong>(Washington), “and very importantly, has the support of independent inventors.”</p>
<p>Some opponents of the first-to-file system also raise a constitutional argument, citing Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution which says: &#8220;The Congress shall have power&#8230;To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries.&#8221;</p>
<p>So for a first-to-file system to be constitutional would there need to be a change in the way an inventor is constitutionally defined?</p>
<p>Which patent filing system do you prefer for the U.S. and why?</p>
<p><a class="a2a_dd a2a_target addtoany_share_save" href="http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Fmdd.blogs.medicaldevicedaily.com%2F2011%2F03%2F04%2Ffirst-to-file-vs-first-to-invent-which-patent-system-would-be-better-for-the-u-s%2F&amp;title=First-to-file%20vs.%20first-to-invent%3A%20Which%20patent%20system%20would%20be%20better%20for%20the%20U.S.%3F" id="wpa2a_2"><img src="http://mdd.blogs.thompson.com/wp-content/plugins/add-to-any/share_save_171_16.png" width="171" height="16" alt="Share"/></a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://mdd.blogs.medicaldevicedaily.com/2011/03/04/first-to-file-vs-first-to-invent-which-patent-system-would-be-better-for-the-u-s/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>

<!-- Performance optimized by W3 Total Cache. Learn more: http://www.w3-edge.com/wordpress-plugins/

Minified using apc
Page Caching using apc
Database Caching 11/28 queries in 0.017 seconds using apc
Object Caching 336/371 objects using apc

Served from: mdd.blogs.medicaldevicedaily.com @ 2013-06-18 17:51:34 -->