Critics: Patent overhaul could hurt startups

September 14, 2011
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

When the Senate passed legislation last week overhauling the U.S. patent system, large multinational corporations like Eli Lilly and Co. rejoiced. But small-business advocates cried foul, saying the changes would put innovative startups at a disadvantage.

“This legislation will irreversibly damage the ability of small-business owners and entrepreneurs to create, develop and commercialize their innovations,” National Small Business Association chief Todd McCracken said in a prepared statement.

The America Invents Act, which President Obama is expected to sign, is intended to speed up the patent review process, strengthen the quality of patents, and bring the United States in line with other countries by awarding a patent to the first inventor to apply for it.

That first-to-file provision is a change from the U.S.’s existing first-to-invent rule, eliminating the time-consuming process of determining who had an idea first.

But that’s the rub, small biz backers say. They predict the resulting rush to the patent office will favor large companies that have the resources file applications early and often.

Indeed, the change will increase the capital burden for innovative startups out of the gate, said Joe Trebley, head of startup support and promotion at the Indiana University Research & Technology Corp.

“It doesn’t allow startups to delay their patent costs,” he said. “They will need to raise that capital a little earlier.”

On the other hand, the shift could save companies money later, said Marie Kerbeshian, IURTC’s vice president for technology commercialization. Under the current system, a dispute over who was the first to invent a product or process can be costly as well as lengthy. And the legislation will lower patent fees for the smallest companies.

Still, Kerbeshian admits that the patent system overhaul—which IU supported—will require some adjustments for smaller organizations and entities that are focused on the U.S. market.

“Whenever you’re looking at worldwide markets, you’re already trying to file early,” she said. “If you weren’t first to file, you’re losing those markets anyway.”

IURTC patent counsel Brian Cholewa expects to see innovative firms of all sizes filing for patents earlier—increasing the use of provisional applications that are updated as development continues.

“Time will be more critical,” he said.

No doubt. But will small businesses suffer as a result? What do you think?

  • I think it will be GOOD if folks use the Provisional Patent Application process...
    I LOVE this! I LOVE it ONLY because of the Provisional Patent Application Process...

    I LOVE the first to file! It allows me to spend $110 and file a Provisional Patent Application and level the playing field between me and guys like Xerox!

    It is BRILLIANT. Gone are the days of the big companies fabricating inventors notebooks and saying THEY invented what the little guy invented.

    Also, filing a PPA can be done in a day or two with the Provisional Patent Video Course website for less than fifty bucks!

    I know lawyers HATE the PPA because there is no path for future income from Office Actions.. However the smart patent attorneys will wise up and figure out if they help folks filing a PPA that later they will come back for the NPA!

Post a comment to this story

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
  1. With Pence running the ship good luck with a new government building on the site. He does everything on the cheap except unnecessary roads line a new beltway( like we need that). Things like state of the art office buildings and light rail will never be seen as an asset to these types. They don't get that these are the things that help a city prosper.

  2. Does the $100,000,000,000 include salaries for members of Congress?

  3. "But that doesn't change how the piece plays to most of the people who will see it." If it stands out so little during the day as you seem to suggest maybe most of the people who actually see it will be those present when it is dark enough to experience its full effects.

  4. That's the mentality of most retail marketers. In this case Leo was asked to build the brand. HHG then had a bad sales quarter and rather than stay the course, now want to go back to the schlock that Zimmerman provides (at a considerable cut in price.) And while HHG salesmen are, by far, the pushiest salesmen I have ever experienced, I believe they are NOT paid on commission. But that doesn't mean they aren't trained to be aggressive.

  5. The reason HHG's sales team hits you from the moment you walk through the door is the same reason car salesmen do the same thing: Commission. HHG's folks are paid by commission they and need to hit sales targets or get cut, while BB does not. The sales figures are aggressive, so turnover rate is high. Electronics are the largest commission earners along with non-needed warranties, service plans etc, known in the industry as 'cheese'. The wholesale base price is listed on the cryptic price tag in the string of numbers near the bar code. Know how to decipher it and you get things at cost, with little to no commission to the sales persons. Whether or not this is fair, is more of a moral question than a financial one.