Patent "Reform" Act of 2009 & Reexams

I am skeptical that the proposed 2009 Patent Act will pass in its current form -- or at all. I have been hearing about "patent reform" for the past ten years, but nothing ever comes of it (unless it is a fee increase hidden in an Omnibus bill). However, I am a proponent of Post-Grant Review -- it can provide a cost-effective and efficient manner of challenging patents (thank you Europe).

The 2009 Patent Act includes several post-grant "enhancements" including:

• Expanding the scope of all reexams to allow consideration of public use or on-sale information, and written statements by the patent owner during litigation relating to any claim of the patent;
  
• Providing for all inter partes reexamination (IP reexam) decisions to be heard before an ALJ instead of per normal, pre-grant patent procedures;
• Allowing for 60 days (instead of the current 30) for an IP reexam requestor to respond to any office action, or patent owner response;
• Limiting some of the estoppel provisions relating to inter partes reexamination by eliminating the "could have raised" language from the statute;
• Prohibiting / terminating IP reexams after a District Court decision (as opposed to the current "final decision" after all appeals language)
• Implementing a new post-grant opposition procedure, which is available for the first year after the patent is granted
  

Outside of the post-grant opposition procedure, these provisions seem to be, at best, slightly helpful -- it seems that none of these provisions provide a sufficient facelift to current post-grant review to save it from being the "ugly sibling" to patent litigation.

Does it really matter that sales and public use information can be used in reexams? I see this as being applicable in only rare circumstances, such as when litigation has progressed significantly far enough to have reliable evidence of this sort.

Does it matter than IP reexams will now be held before an ALJ if there are no timing requirements? (some view the current IP reexam process as "slower than molasses" due to its outrageously long pendency at 4-5+ years).

Will reexaminations "disappear" with the new post-grant opposition procedures? Do these procedures need additional "meat" in the form of timing requirements to expedite the process so as to truly compete with litigation?

Glad to hear comments from others on the subject... HJB