PATENT Act - Revision history

Juliette.richert at 16:02, 24 March 2017

2017-03-24T16:02:01Z

Juliette.richert at 16:00, 24 March 2017

2017-03-24T16:00:44Z

Julia at 19:07, 2 September 2016

2016-09-02T19:07:47Z

Julia at 18:18, 2 September 2016

2016-09-02T18:18:54Z

Julia at 18:04, 2 September 2016

2016-09-02T18:04:33Z

Julia at 18:04, 2 September 2016

2016-09-02T18:04:15Z

Julia at 18:04, 2 September 2016

2016-09-02T18:04:02Z

Julia at 21:40, 31 August 2016

2016-08-31T21:40:29Z

ArielSun: ArielSun moved page Patent Act to PATENT Act

2016-06-09T17:35:49Z

ArielSun moved page Patent Act to PATENT Act

ArielSun: Created page with "Return to Patent Reform '''S.1137: Protecting American Talent and Entrepreneurship (PATENT) Act (2015)''' [https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/senate-bill/1137 (..."

2016-06-09T17:33:52Z

Created page with "Return to Patent Reform '''S.1137: Protecting American Talent and Entrepreneurship (PATENT) Act (2015)''' [https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/senate-bill/1137 (..."

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:02, 24 March 2017
Line 17:		Line 17:
	[[Category: Public]]		[[Category: Public]]
	[[Public Classification::Legislation\| ]]		[[Public Classification::Legislation\| ]]
−	~~[[Category:Patent]]~~

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:00, 24 March 2017
Line 17:		Line 17:
	[[Category: Public]]		[[Category: Public]]
	[[Public Classification::Legislation\| ]]		[[Public Classification::Legislation\| ]]
		+	[[Category:Patent]]

@@ Line 15: / Line 15: @@
 The House Innovation Act and Senate Patent Act are very similar; both acts address abusive litigation through “increased transparency, more limited discovery, heightened pleading standards, and ‘loser pays’ fee shifting”.  However, there has been a delay in the passing of the bills because of controversy surrounging the shifting of attorney fees. Fee shifting was originally suggested as a way to incentivize small firms and businesses that were being unfairly accused of patent infringement to bring the case to court, so that they would not have to pay their attorney fees. However, there have been arguments stating that fee shifting would actually increase the settlement rate of small businesses being accused of patent infringement, because they don’t want to take the risk of losing and paying for the winner’s attorneys’ fees, in addition to their own. [http://www.bna.com/debate-patent-reform-n17179934625/ (Bloomberg BNA)]
-[[Category: Internal]]
+[[Category: Public]]
-[[Internal Classification::Legislation| ]]
+[[Public Classification::Legislation| ]]

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:18, 2 September 2016
Line 1:		Line 1:
−	~~[[Category: Internal]]~~
−	~~[[Internal Classification::Legislation]]~~
−
	Return to [[Patent Reform]]		Return to [[Patent Reform]]

Line 17:		Line 14:

	The House Innovation Act and Senate Patent Act are very similar; both acts address abusive litigation through “increased transparency, more limited discovery, heightened pleading standards, and ‘loser pays’ fee shifting”. However, there has been a delay in the passing of the bills because of controversy surrounging the shifting of attorney fees. Fee shifting was originally suggested as a way to incentivize small firms and businesses that were being unfairly accused of patent infringement to bring the case to court, so that they would not have to pay their attorney fees. However, there have been arguments stating that fee shifting would actually increase the settlement rate of small businesses being accused of patent infringement, because they don’t want to take the risk of losing and paying for the winner’s attorneys’ fees, in addition to their own. [http://www.bna.com/debate-patent-reform-n17179934625/ (Bloomberg BNA)]		The House Innovation Act and Senate Patent Act are very similar; both acts address abusive litigation through “increased transparency, more limited discovery, heightened pleading standards, and ‘loser pays’ fee shifting”. However, there has been a delay in the passing of the bills because of controversy surrounging the shifting of attorney fees. Fee shifting was originally suggested as a way to incentivize small firms and businesses that were being unfairly accused of patent infringement to bring the case to court, so that they would not have to pay their attorney fees. However, there have been arguments stating that fee shifting would actually increase the settlement rate of small businesses being accused of patent infringement, because they don’t want to take the risk of losing and paying for the winner’s attorneys’ fees, in addition to their own. [http://www.bna.com/debate-patent-reform-n17179934625/ (Bloomberg BNA)]
		+
		+	[[Category: Internal]]
		+	[[Internal Classification::Legislation\| ]]

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:04, 2 September 2016
Line 1:		Line 1:
		+	[[Category: Internal]]
		+	[[Internal Classification::Legislation]]
		+
	Return to [[Patent Reform]]		Return to [[Patent Reform]]

Line 14:		Line 17:

	The House Innovation Act and Senate Patent Act are very similar; both acts address abusive litigation through “increased transparency, more limited discovery, heightened pleading standards, and ‘loser pays’ fee shifting”. However, there has been a delay in the passing of the bills because of controversy surrounging the shifting of attorney fees. Fee shifting was originally suggested as a way to incentivize small firms and businesses that were being unfairly accused of patent infringement to bring the case to court, so that they would not have to pay their attorney fees. However, there have been arguments stating that fee shifting would actually increase the settlement rate of small businesses being accused of patent infringement, because they don’t want to take the risk of losing and paying for the winner’s attorneys’ fees, in addition to their own. [http://www.bna.com/debate-patent-reform-n17179934625/ (Bloomberg BNA)]		The House Innovation Act and Senate Patent Act are very similar; both acts address abusive litigation through “increased transparency, more limited discovery, heightened pleading standards, and ‘loser pays’ fee shifting”. However, there has been a delay in the passing of the bills because of controversy surrounging the shifting of attorney fees. Fee shifting was originally suggested as a way to incentivize small firms and businesses that were being unfairly accused of patent infringement to bring the case to court, so that they would not have to pay their attorney fees. However, there have been arguments stating that fee shifting would actually increase the settlement rate of small businesses being accused of patent infringement, because they don’t want to take the risk of losing and paying for the winner’s attorneys’ fees, in addition to their own. [http://www.bna.com/debate-patent-reform-n17179934625/ (Bloomberg BNA)]
−
−
−	~~[[Category: Internal]]~~
−	~~[[Internal Classification::Legislation]]~~

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:40, 31 August 2016
Line 1:		Line 1:
		+	[[Category: Internal]]
		+	[[Internal Classification::Legislation]]
		+
	Return to [[Patent Reform]]		Return to [[Patent Reform]]

← Older revision	Revision as of 17:35, 9 June 2016
(No difference)

← Older revision	Revision as of 17:33, 9 June 2016
(No difference)