If you don’t yet believe that the fight to make fundamental change to our patent system is moving beyond Congress and onto new battlefields, consider the following observation that a reader, who wishes only to be identified as a Palo Alto patent attorney, submitted to me this week:

The Patent and Trademark Office has published some of the comments that have been submitted in connection with the proposed rule changes.  As of today, April 21, 2006, the listing of comments relating to the proposed limits on continuation and request for continued examination practice includes comments from several individuals.  No comments from corporations have been published.

The list includes published comments from four law firms.

…four law firms supporting the proposed rules, one common letter…In stark contrast to the comments received from individuals, the comments from each of the law firms are submitted in favor of the proposed rule that would place limits on continuation and RCE practice.  All of the law firm comments share several paragraphs of identical language.  The similarities are so striking that it becomes immediately clear that they very likely arose from a common template.

Is there a common denominator amongst the law firms?

Maybe.  Here’s one possibility.  Two of the firms have a significant number of issued patents under their name that are assigned to Intel (14/14 for one; 23/24 for the other).  The third firm has a small group of its patents assigned to Intel (7/253).  Nota Bene – the fourth firm only has two issued patents, neither of which are assigned to Intel.

The source isn’t as important as the underlying issue…four letters of support for the new rules are, in essence, one.

It’s interesting to note that three of the four published comments include the following statement:

“Unlike individuals expressing their personal views and bar associations stating a consensus position, we also represent our clients’ interests who both own patents and have to deal with assertions.” (emphasis mine)

The battle for fundamental change is on.  It’s on in Congress, it’s on in the Supreme Court, and, apparently, it’s on in the Patent and Trademark Office as well.