Media Mentions
2011
“Lawyers Brace for Patent Reform”
National Law Journal, October 17, 2011
Bernard Codd was pictured and quoted extensively regarding the new America Invents Act. Mr. Codd said the law’s first-to-file patent prosecution provision “raises liability concerns” and “could lead to malpractice suits” because “if you get something on file just one day after your competitor, your client’s not going to be very happy.” He also noted that patent interference proceedings to challenge filings “will largely disappear,” and that preparing the post-grant oppositions that will replace re-examination proceedings “could be quite a booming business for lawyers.”
Bernard P. Codd, Intellectual Property, Patent Prosecution
“Obama Signs Patent Bill, Sees Boost for Innovators”
Reuters, September 16, 2011
Bernard Codd called predictions that the new patent reform law will spur the addition of large numbers of jobs “a little bit overblown,” adding that such an employment increase is “going to depend more on the national economy picking up. This [law] may be a piece of the puzzle.”
Bernard P. Codd, Intellectual Property
“US Capitol Capsule: Patent Reform Done, But Will It Create Jobs?”
Scrip, September 12, 2011
Bernard Codd said the new patent reform law replaces patent interference proceedings with a derivation proceeding in which “the later filers will have to show that the earlier filer derived their invention from the later filer’s invention,” meaning the first to file may not absolutely win a patent. Mr. Codd also questioned the law’s ban on patent claims encompassing human organism cloning, saying that if individual body organs could be cloned, “that should be something that should be patented, because it obviously would be an expensive undertaking to do research in those areas.” Finally, Mr. Codd said “it would be nice” if the bill helped create new jobs, “but I’m not convinced about that.”
Bernard P. Codd, Intellectual Property
“Podcast: Patent Reform”
Thomson Reuters Legal Current, September 2011
Bernard Codd said in this online interview that the new patent reform law’s replacement of first-to-invent with first-to-file for patent applications is “a concern to all patent practitioners,” because any delay in making a filing means the slower patent lawyer could be “exposed to some pretty big liabilities.” Another concern is the elimination of the interference proceedings in which some lawyers specialize. He noted, though, that the post-grant review process to replace interferences “has the potential to become a very flourishing area of patent practice.”
Bernard P. Codd, Intellectual Property
“Patent Reform Is Coming: Who Should Care”
GigaOm.com, August 17, 2011
Bernard Codd said that the “fundamental change” represented by the first to file provision of the patent reform bill doesn’t necessarily favor large companies as some charge – it may in fact help small businesses because it means “you can’t afford to sit on ideas anymore” no matter how big your company is. He also said that the bill does not restrict so-called patent trolls because “one person’s troll is another person’s hard-working small inventor.” Mr. Codd also expects the final bill to have an unlimited deadline for seeking post-grant review of business method patents.
Bernard P. Codd, Intellectual Property
“Ex-Examiners Target USPTO’s 3-Track Patent Plan”
Law360, February 25, 2011
Bernard Codd said that an Administration plan for higher fast-track patent approval fees to add more patent examiners may not shrink the review backlog. “[N]ew examiners are generally not that efficient, and it takes about two to three years of examining to get the job down and understand patent law, how the system works and the technology sector they are working in,” he said. Mr. Codd also saw other problems, including that more fast-track applications could mean “examining may have to be put off for regular applications,” and that in a rush review, “if the examiner didn’t have access to relevant prior art when making a decision, a re-exam request could be filed and that patent could later be invalidated.”
Bernard P. Codd, Intellectual Property, Patent Prosecution
2008
Bernard P. Codd was quoted on October 17 by Law360 in an article regarding changes to several U.S. Patent and Trademark Office rules which will limit appellants' arguments and make the appeals process more expensive and time-consuming. Mr. Codd noted that the USPTO likely made the changes to discourage people from filing appeals and to allow the office to reject more appeals based on procedural grounds. "I think they are concentrating on form over substance. The reason to do that is to decrease the number of appeals because applicants think twice about appealing. It's also more expensive for our clients," he said.
