A Quick Post on Compromise Patent Reform Legislation
Sen. Patrick Leahy announced last Thursday that agreement had been reached by a bipartisan group of Senators on a compromise bill providing for patent reform. The full text of the bill can be found here.
Undoubtedly, the blogosphere and legal publications will shortly become saturated with analysis of the compromise bill and speculation about its chances for passage. Last April, we blogged about a relatively minor provision of the bill -- the provisions addressing venue. As patent litigators in Virignia, we have a particular interest in venue, because the venue provisions of the bill will direcly affect the volume of patent cases filed here.
The compromise version of the bill includes the same provisions discussed in our earlier post, which can be found here. Here are the highlights (all of which are discussed in detail in the earlier post):
- the legislation provides that a district court shall transfer a case upon finding that a transferee forum is clearly more convenient. (Sec. 8 of the bill, page 72).
- the legislation establishes a pilot program in six U.S. District Courts that provides $5 million a year for education of judges and hiring of patent law clerks. (Sec. 16 of the bill, pages 92-93).
- the legislation changes venue for civil actions appealing decisions by the BPAI relating to patent rejections and interferences, civil actions appealing decisions of the PTO relating to patent term adjustments, civil actions appealing decisions of the TTAB relating to registrations of a trademark, and civil actions appealing suspensions or exclusions from practice before the PTO from the District Court in Washington to the Eastern District of Virginia. (Sec. 8 of the bill, pages 72-73).
