Thanks for publishing, it is a great service to the legal community, as most law schools do not have patent class, and it is not tested on the bar (though of course it has its own bar, in most states). "The claims section are name of the game"; this is what we will litigate...
The know-it-alls at the Brookings Institute are making proposals to charge more for patent applications and do away with a tiered fee structure to the detriment of micro entities. They claim it is widely agreed that too many patents are being granted. I listened to every lecture on this series and read several books in the subject and I don’t remember that being widely agreed upon. They state “Because patent applications are legally presumed to comply with the statutory patentability requirements when led, the burden of proving unpatentability rests with the Agency” I don’t remember that either. It seems to me the burden of proof of anything is primarily on the applicant unless you have the money to take them to appeals court. The Brookings Institute people only cite one study, hardly proof of anything and they basically never cite the numerical figures but instead use vague language. These are the same people that on NPR today said women won’t file fir patents unless they know other women who have filed for a patent. The USPTO has joined the “women need special help” bandwagon and claim a black woman invented the predecessor to the modern ironing board. What she patented looks nothing like anything fir ironing in wide use today and was just for ironing sleeves or garments we don’t wear today. The Brookings Institute basically accuses the USPTO of granting a higher rate to corporations paying the higher fees and of granting patents that it knows are invalid to get more revenue any yet never mentions the possibility that the USPTO might also be incentivized to deny patents outright to save time and insure they get more revenue from the new fee structure which requires payment of additional fees soon thereafter during prosecution. They ignore any theories that don’t conform to their agenda and probably any statistics too. Just what we need, more people who have never even filed for a patent much less invented anything telling us how it should be done. Based on what I have learned it is harder that ever to get a patent past the non-obvious requirement so what are they talking about? It hasn’t even been long enough since the law was changed for them to have proper statistics. If these people ran the USPS they, like Trump, would want to charge twice what UPS charges to send a package.
Mark Pope, really? You had to bring Trump politics into this? I was appreciating your thoughts but as a MAGA guy, you totally lost my appreciation as your bitterness has skewed my opinion of your ability to provide a fair evaluation of the subject.
easily one of my favorite teaching styles so far!
Thanks for publishing, it is a great service to the legal community, as most law schools do not have patent class, and it is not tested on the bar (though of course it has its own bar, in most states). "The claims section are name of the game"; this is what we will litigate...
Thank you. The video provides the deep background information I've been looking for, unlike the 10-minute youtube videos or the Nolo book lessons.
Thank you very much preparing for uk patent exam principles are very similar I hope this will help me pass
What happens if you forget to add claim 1 in your patent infringement lawsuit?
The title is Claim Construction... you never get to it. 47 min wasted.
i just want to learn how to write a claim its been 20 minutes i you still have not gotten to the point
The know-it-alls at the Brookings Institute are making proposals to charge more for patent applications and do away with a tiered fee structure to the detriment of micro entities. They claim it is widely agreed that too many patents are being granted. I listened to every lecture on this series and read several books in the subject and I don’t remember that being widely agreed upon. They state “Because patent applications are legally presumed to comply with the statutory patentability requirements when led, the burden of proving unpatentability rests with the Agency” I don’t remember that either. It seems to me the burden of proof of anything is primarily on the applicant unless you have the money to take them to appeals court. The Brookings Institute people only cite one study, hardly proof of anything and they basically never cite the numerical figures but instead use vague language. These are the same people that on NPR today said women won’t file fir patents unless they know other women who have filed for a patent. The USPTO has joined the “women need special help” bandwagon and claim a black woman invented the predecessor to the modern ironing board. What she patented looks nothing like anything fir ironing in wide use today and was just for ironing sleeves or garments we don’t wear today. The Brookings Institute basically accuses the USPTO of granting a higher rate to corporations paying the higher fees and of granting patents that it knows are invalid to get more revenue any yet never mentions the possibility that the USPTO might also be incentivized to deny patents outright to save time and insure they get more revenue from the new fee structure which requires payment of additional fees soon thereafter during prosecution. They ignore any theories that don’t conform to their agenda and probably any statistics too. Just what we need, more people who have never even filed for a patent much less invented anything telling us how it should be done. Based on what I have learned it is harder that ever to get a patent past the non-obvious requirement so what are they talking about? It hasn’t even been long enough since the law was changed for them to have proper statistics. If these people ran the USPS they, like Trump, would want to charge twice what UPS charges to send a package.
Mark Pope, really? You had to bring Trump politics into this? I was appreciating your thoughts but as a MAGA guy, you totally lost my appreciation as your bitterness has skewed my opinion of your ability to provide a fair evaluation of the subject.