Patent law 

Interest in the creation of the United States Code can be dated back to the efforts of individual publishing companies, who created guides to federal laws to serve the interests and practical purposes of other private individuals but without any official endorsement from the U.S. government. The first true precursor to the United States Code was passed into law by Congress on June 22, 1874 as the "Revised Statutes." 

This codified form referred to the federal statutes in effect as of December 1, 1873. At this point an important point came up, one that has continued to relate to patent law and other subjects for federal codification, that of whether law codes could function as sources for legal enforcement themselves, or simply as prima facie evidence on those laws. The Revised Statutes, which underwent corrections in 1878, were given legal force as "positive" or statutory laws. 

The Revised Statutes ceased to function effectively, however, due to Congress's failure to update them with the new laws that had been passed. In time, legal scholars and professionals once again had to look in different places for federal statutes. After the lapsing of the Revised Statutes, a second program was carried out by Congress to provide for a general legal framework for the United States. In a ten-year period, from 1897 to 1907, Congress studied existing federal statutes for the purpose of gathering them together but never carried the project to completion, in the absence of which new private publications were issued.

A third effort to create the United States Code took place in the 1920s, this time successfully. In 1925, an initial model for the completed code was created by the House Committee on Revisions of Laws comprising sixty different "titles" or sections, unlike the fifty title code that would later be issued. In 1926 the work conducted by the Congressional committee received legislative approval and the Code passed on law by the decision of the 69th session of Congress. The initial House Resolution, made on April 12, 1926, mandated that the law would be in positive effect after June 30, 1927. 

Before the bill could be signed into law, however, it was decided that the likelihood of mistakes being present in the law mitigated against the wisdom of making the Code a source for statutes. With this in mind, the Senate made an amendment to the legislation making the Code a prima facie source for legal evidence. This decision was later borne out by the discovery of 537 textual errors, included eighty-eight greatly affecting the substance of laws. With the legislation thus improved, President Coolidge signed the legislation on June 30, 1926.

 The United Code was first issued as a single, bound text publication. Because the prior work conducted by private parties was at this point in advance of governmental regulations, this first edition contained cross-references to the non-official publications United States Compiled Statutes Annotated and Federal Statutes Annotated. A 1928 law established the principle that a period of several years would intervene between new issues of the Code, originally set at five, and later extended to six years.

With the initial publication of the United States Code, the laws did not hold any power in the American legal system, but merely served as prima facie evidence in legal proceedings. Further work on the development of the United States Code was directed toward the end of putting the Code's provisions into effect as positive laws. In the late 1940s, increasing numbers of Americans involved in the practice of patent law, such as inventors and industrialists, issued complaints about how the field was being treated by the courts under common law. 

With a mind to providing a consistent set of rules for the intellectual property rights due to inventions, the House sub-committee tasked with reordering the 1926 United States Code incorporated patent law as one of their main concerns. The larger movement for making the Code effective on a statutory basis had begun in 1947.

With the passage of the 1952 Patent Act, American patent law was placed in the larger framework of the United States Code. The specific portion of the United States Code dealing with patent law is Title 35. The Code has 50 different "Titles" or sections, each addressed to a different subject for federal law. Despite being present in the Code, a Title cannot be assumed to be in positive or statutory effect. 

At present Congress has not fully implemented the United States, in which only twenty-three Titles are currently effective as sources for law. After 1975, the United States Code has existed under the institutional guidance of the Office of Law Revision Counsel, which operates out of the House.

The United States Code refers specifically to federal legislation and excludes state and local laws, as well as federal court decisions and the regulations of federal agencies. The latter are offered instead in the Code of Federal Regulations (C.F.R.). The Federal Register contains new regulations and those pending approval. The initial Revised Statutes are still relevant to certain sections of the Code, in particular those which have yet to be implemented on a statutory basis. Contact patent lawyers to review your case.

The Intellectual Property and Communications Omnibus Reform Act was passed in 1999 to make several changes for the protection of intellectual property rights in the United States. It was proposed as an amendment to the U.S. Patent Act of 1952, the alteration of which had long been a goal for legislators and legal professionals. To these amendments were added further intellectual property rights-related provisions on the misuse of Internet domain names via the practice of "cybersquatting" and television watching via satellite and in rural areas, with the entire intellectual property rights act being placed in budgetary legislation. In this form, the law was approved by Congress on November 19, 1999.

The law was signed by President Clinton ten days later. In a year from that date all of its intellectual property rights changes had gone completely into effect. The Intellectual Property and Communications Omnibus Reform Act is referred to as Public Law 106 – 113. Observers of the intellectual property rights field identify seven major subjects for reform in the Intellectual Property and Communications Omnibus Reform Act, to which assorted amendments can also be considered.

The first major intellectual property rights issue addressed by the legislation is that of "invention promotion services," as can be found in Section 197 of Article 35 of the United States Code. Such businesses exist for the sake of assisting would-be inventors. This help may be given toward the initial step of creating the invention, or it may come at the later point of the placing of the invention on the market. 

In any event, concerns grew upon around the irregular nature of the average client-business relationship in such dealings, which meant that it was predominantly individuals without professional expertise in the technology field who went to such businesses.

In the interests of providing for the intellectual property rights of the customers of such businesses, however misguided such a relationship might be considered, the Intellectual Property and Communications Omnibus Reform Act made disclosure statements mandatory for invention promotion services. It also gave customers the right to take legal action against service providers who attempted to abuse their intellectual property rights. These new avenues for legal defense took effect on January 28, 2000.

The second major alteration to law on intellectual property rights took effect on December 29, 1999 and addressed the required payments for filing an initial patent registration application and the later renewal application form and the first maintenance for a patent registration. To this end, it changed the language in Section 41 (a) of Article 35 of the United States Code.

The third major change was placed in the United States Code in Article 35, Section 173. After November 29, 1999, it could be used in intellectual property rights infringement cases. It made the so-called "first inventor" or "prior user" argument an acceptable answer to legal challenges as to patent originality. The existence of a first inventor can be determined, according to this provision, when the invention had been first "reduced to practice," in the language of patent law, at least a year before the patent registration application had been made.

The fourth major change was effected in alteration to the language in Sections 132 and 154(b) of Article 35 of the United States Code and is referred to as the "patent term guarantee." This guarantee is enacted by allowing for fixed increases to the "term of protection" for the patent holder in the event that the registration of the patent was delayed without the patent holder having been at fault. If the patent application was at fault in any way during the application process, then this option will be discounted. If it is found, however, that the delays were caused by actions of the United States Patent and Trademark Office 

The sixth major change took effect on the same day as the previous provision. It was enacted in Sections 308 to 311 of Article 35 of the United States Code. It extended to applicants the option of inter partes actions for the sake of requested re-examinations of patent applications which had been previously rejected by the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO). 

In such procedures, the office would accept submissions from interested parties. It would also allow for three months for the purpose of making a good judgment as to the merits of the case for reapplication. When a request for inter partes proceedings to take place is submitted, it must indicate whose "real interest" is at stake in the request.

The seventh major change concerned the organization of the United States Patent and Trademark Office, which had been altered in its structure and procedures by March 29, 2000. Before the passage of the Intellectual Property and Communications Omnibus Reform Act, the USPTO was referred to as an office of the Department of Commerce, whereas afterward it was designated, as it is currently considered, an agency of that branch of government. 

The Office's two roles in terms of patents and trademarks were separated more firmly than before by the creation of two distinct offices of commissioners to deal with the two subjects. The provision also mandated that the USPTO create Public Advisory Committees in order to give oversight of the USPTO's functions. Contact an intellectual property lawyer to review your case.