IBJNews

Congress takes up major change in patent law

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The patent system hasn't changed much since 1952 when Sony was coming out with its first pocket-size transistor radio, and bar codes and Mr. Potato Head were among the inventions patented. Now, after years of trying, Congress may be about to do something about that.

The Senate is taking up the Patent Reform Act, which would significantly overhaul a 1952 law and, supporters say, bring the patent system in line with 21st century technology of biogenetics and artificial intelligence. Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, hails it as "an important step toward maintaining our global competitive edge."

Congress has been trying for well over a decade to rewrite patent law, only to be thwarted by the many interested parties — multinational corporations and small-scale inventors, pharmaceuticals and Silicon Valley companies — pulling in different directions. Prospects for passing a bill now, however, are promising.

As IBJ reported last June, numerous Indiana-based companies would welcome the change.

The Senate bill is sponsored by Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., Hatch and another top Republican on the panel, Sen. Chuck Grassley of Iowa. The committee voted 15-0 in early February to send the legislation to the full Senate.

The overhaul is long overdue. It now takes the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office about three years to process a patent application. There are about 1.2 million applications pending — 700,000 waiting consideration and another 500,000 somewhere in the process. The patent office says it received about 483,000 applications in 2009 and granted about 192,000 patents.

"Hundreds of thousands of patent applications are stalled" at the patent office, Leahy said. "Among those is the application for the next great invention."

The most sweeping, and controversial, change is the transition from a first-to-invent application system to a first-to-file system that is used by every other industrialized nation, but has been opposed by independent inventors. It comes with an enhanced grace period to protect inventors who publicly disclose their inventions before seeking patents.

Companies or individuals seeking patents in multiple countries are confronted by a different set of rules in this country, said Bill Mashek of Coalition for 21st Century Patent Reform, a group that represents big companies like General Electric, Pfizer and 3M. "It puts us at a disadvantage globally."

The bill would create a nine-month "first window" post-grant procedure to allow challenges to patents that should not have been issued and to cut down on litigation and harassment of patent owners by improving the review system for challenges. It provides more certainty to damage calculations.

It also gives the patent office authority to set its own fees at a level that will give it enough funds to reduce its backlog of applications. It requires that smaller businesses continue to get a 50-percent reduction in fees and creates a new "micro-entity" class — with a 75 percent reduction — for independent inventors who have not been named on five or more previously filed applications and have gross incomes not exceeding 2.5 times the average. The standard fee for filing a patent is now $1,090, with additional maintenance fees over the life of the patent.

In a change from current law, tax strategies could not be patented.

Leahy's office lists a diverse group of supporters, including major drug companies, IBM, the AFL-CIO, the Association of American Universities, Caterpillar and USPIRG.

One reason supporters are optimistic about the bill's prospects this year is that courts have dealt with some of the more contentious issues involving lawsuits and damage awards.

"When we started these efforts many years ago, we faced a grim landscape where patent lawsuits threatened to stifle the pace of innovation and shut down our factories," David Simon, associate general counsel for Intel Corp., told the House Judiciary Committee. "Today, the scenario has changed drastically."

Testifying in February on behalf of the Coalition for Patent Fairness, a group of high-tech companies, Simon credited the change to Supreme Court and other federal court rulings dealing with such practices as venue shopping where litigants sued in courts known for handing out large damage awards.

Simon's coalition, however, has not endorsed the Senate bill. In a statement, it said the bill still needs to do more "to lessen the growing burden of abusive and unjustified patent infringement claims."

A group of nine organizations representing small businesses, start-ups and independent inventors was more forthright in its opposition, saying in a letter to senators that the first-to-file system would have "unique adverse effects" on its constituents.

"The bill favors multinational and foreign firms over start-up firms seeking an initial foothold in U.S. domestic markets, and favors market incumbents over new entrants with disruptive new technologies," said the letter signed by groups such as American Innovators for Patent Reform and the U.S. Business and Industry Council.

Louis J. Foreman, publisher of Inventors Digest and chief executive of Enventys, a Charlotte, N.C., product design and engineering firm that has helped develop and file some 400 patents, said the Senate bill will help give independent inventors the two things they need most in applying for a patent: speed and certainty.

Foreman discounted the argument that first-to-file puts the small-scale investor at a disadvantage to the big corporation. "An independent inventor is so much more spontaneous," he said, "I'll outrun a big company any day of the week."

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in IBJ editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ on Facebook:
Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ's Tweets on these topics:
 
Subscribe to IBJ
  1. By Mr. Lee's own admission, he basically ran pro-bono ads on the billboard. Paying advertisers didn't want ads on a controversial, ugly billboard that turned off customers. At least one of Mr. Lee's free advertisers dropped out early because they found that Mr. Lee's advertising was having negative impact. So Mr. Lee is disingenous to say the city now owes him for lost revenue. Mr. Lee quickly realized his monstrosity had a dim future and is trying to get the city to bail him out. And that's why the billboard came down so quickly.

  2. Merchants Square is back. The small strip center to the south of 116th is 100% leased, McAlister’s is doing well in the outlot building. The former O’Charleys is leased but is going through permitting with the State and the town of Carmel. Mac Grill is closing all of their Indy locations (not just Merchants) and this will allow for a new restaurant concept to backfill both of their locations. As for the north side of 116th a new dinner movie theater and brewery is under construction to fill most of the vacancy left by Hobby Lobby and Old Navy.

  3. Yes it does have an ethics commission which enforce the law which prohibits 12 specific items. google it

  4. Thanks for reading and replying. If you want to see the differentiation for research, speaking and consulting, check out the spreadsheet I linked to at the bottom of the post; it is broken out exactly that way. I can only include so much detail in a blog post before it becomes something other than a blog post.

  5. 1. There is no allegation of corruption, Marty, to imply otherwise if false. 2. Is the "State Rule" a law? I suspect not. 3. Is Mr. Woodruff obligated via an employment agreement (contractual obligation) to not work with the engineering firm? 4. In many states a right to earn a living will trump non-competes and other contractual obligations, does Mr. Woodruff's personal right to earn a living trump any contractual obligations that might or might not be out there. 5. Lawyers in state government routinely go work for law firms they were formally working with in their regulatory actions. You can see a steady stream to firms like B&D from state government. It would be interesting for IBJ to do a review of current lawyers and find out how their past decisions affected the law firms clients. Since there is a buffer between regulated company and the regulator working for a law firm technically is not in violation of ethics but you have to wonder if decisions were made in favor of certain firms and quid pro quo jobs resulted. Start with the DOI in this review. Very interesting.

ADVERTISEMENT