Patent Reform: U.S. Inventor Act goes to Congress

Capitol BuildingThis week US Inventor, an inventor organization working in Washington DC and around the US to advocate for strong patent protection for inventors and startups, rolled out the U.S. Inventor Act in the House of Representatives. US Inventors have been visiting congressional offices since 2013. Back then, the false patent troll narrative fueled by millions of dollars from the largest multinational corporations on the planet filled the air with smoke. The smoke was intended to cloud what these huge companies really wanted – to destroy the patent system for small inventors and startups so they can perpetuate their monopolistic companies.

But the battle of ideas during the rush to pass the Innovation Act opened the debate up. The good news is that many in Congress took the time to understand and the Innovation Act was stopped on the floor. Congressman Issa (R-CA) and Congressman Goodlatte (R-VA) have attempted to revive it this year, but their cries now fall on educated ears.

Other facts have come to light since last year. Early stage funding for U.S. startups has dropped 62%. We are at a 40 year low in new business formation. What used to be approximately 85% of all venture capital invested in U.S. startups is now about half invested in China’s startups. Not surprisingly, in communist China, the startup market is booming, growing by 23%. As a result, China has taken the lead in swaths of new technologies, including technologies critical to our national security like artificial intelligence (AI). AI runs not only our power grids, but our tanks and ships. We will soon be mired in the swamp of a national security disaster as China moves even further ahead and we are forced to purchase these products from them.

But if you got game, don’t change nothing. It seems every month, China’s government announces a new program or directive intended to further strengthen their patent system. Patent litigation in China is a winner, no doubt. Cases are resolved by the court in about 10 months, and to get through the courts to a final decision, it costs around $500K, both much more favorable than here. Patent holders win in the vast majority of cases. When they win, injunctive relief is almost always awarded.

But there are two important statistics about China that are particularly revealing. The first is that 100% of foreign plaintiffs were awarded injunctive relief last year. This is intentional and is done to attract foreign investment in China’s patent system. The second is disturbing. 35% of the plaintiffs are individuals. China is laying the groundwork to turn 1.3 billion people into an army of individual inventors. Many of those inventors will use their inventions to form startups. We in the U.S. have gone the exact opposite direction – to our own peril.

So, as you can imagine, the news of China has cleared the smoke screen and much has changed on the Hill. We have met with 60 House offices over the last six weeks to talk about the US Inventor Act. Many are aware of the national security threat posed by China rocketing to the lead of so many new technologies. Virtually all of the House offices want to learn more about how our own self-imposed destruction of the U.S. patent system and the corresponding strengthening of China’s patent system has fueled China’s rise.

It’s pretty simple. A U.S. patent is not worth the paper it is printed on. In fact, a patent is a liability. Not only are there maintenance fees and other costs in maintaining a patent, but at any time the patent can be plunged into the corrupt PTAB political courts dumping hundreds of thousands of dollars of costs on whoever owns the patent. The more valuable the invention is, the more likely that it will be challenged at the PTAB, and the more likely it will be invalidated. It’s just a better decision to invest in the company that would steal the technology than to invest in the company that invented it.

The US Inventor Act will turn all this damage around. So the results we are getting on the Hill are not all that surprising. Almost 90% of the offices we met with want to see the US Inventor Act. About half of those said they would take it to their boss. We hope that many of these Members will ultimately sponsor it.

So, without further ado, here are the basic provisions of the US Inventor Act:

  1. Restore injunctive relief as the default remedy upon a finding of infringement.
  2. Eliminate Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) authority over all issued patents.
  3. Eliminate all judicially created exceptions to patentable subject matter eligibility under 35 USC 101 including the abstract idea exception.
  4. Allow venue to be established in the state where the patent holder resides.
  5. Reinstate First-to-Invent.
  6. Upon a finding of infringement, establish a default finding of willful infringement rebuttable only in cases where the infringer is not an expert in that particular field of technology.
  7. Upon a finding of infringement, establish a default damages model of disgorgement of profits or 25% of gross revenue where profits are negligible or not representative of the market effect of the technology.
  8. Establish small entity local rules intended to significantly lower the cost of litigation and bring resolution to the case within 18 months. District courts must adopt these rules if either the plaintiff or the defendant qualifies as a small entity and requests that the small entity local rules be adopted.
  9. Restrict the Federal Circuit from using Rule 36 when there is a genuine controversy between districts
  10. Stabilize the determination of what is or isn’t obvious by codifying the Federal Circuit’s objective “teaching, suggestion or motivation” test, which was eliminated by the Supreme Court in KSR v. Teleflex.
  11. Stop fee diversion

For a detailed summary of these provisions please see the US Inventor Act Summary.


Warning & Disclaimer: The pages, articles and comments on do not constitute legal advice, nor do they create any attorney-client relationship. The articles published express the personal opinion and views of the author as of the time of publication and should not be attributed to the author’s employer, clients or the sponsors of Read more.

Join the Discussion

38 comments so far.

  • [Avatar for angry dude]
    angry dude
    December 15, 2017 07:34 pm

    Anon @37
    “…opening up the patent system to LESS well-monied”

    Yeah, right

    I paid about 18K to my patent attorney and only about 2.5K to USPTO through patent issue (not including maintenance fees)

    Let’s be reasonable: ether applicants fees cover examiner’s time equivalent to attorney’s time or patent system has to be subsidized by taxpayers

    I would rather not irate general lemming taxpayer population and pay increased fees to PTO myself (but not to PTAB of course – it is ridiculous)

  • [Avatar for Anon]
    December 15, 2017 06:04 pm

    More expensive filing and examination fees to keep out low-margin inventions

    Absolutely NOT – ANY type of tie to costs as such favors a “Sport of Kings” and a competition based on NON-innovation factors.

    The original patent bargain was premised on opening up the patent system to LESS well-monied.

    This aspect MUST be zealously guarded.

  • [Avatar for Paul Morinville]
    Paul Morinville
    December 15, 2017 01:50 pm

    JTS, The whole argument for “bad” patents or “junk” patents is a fabrication.

    Whenever a significant invention is disclosed by the original inventor, competitors patent everything they can think up around it. Most of the follow on invention are small improvements on the larger initial invention.

    Patenting around an invention is a defensive move by competitors who intend to infringe. If the original inventor has a product company and the small incremental improvements patented by competitors are adopted by original inventor, if the original inventor sues for infringement, the follow on patents can be asserted against the original inventor in a counter suit. With suits and counter suits, the parties settle rather than enjoin each other.

    In the competitive and lucrative world of tech, companies look for ways to increase profits for themselves and costs for competitors. Their patent portfolios are critical to both. If there is a large market for the original invention and the company has a portfolio of follow on patents, they often sell the patent to a third party to license.

    If you are sued for these follow on patents, you tell the world they are “bad” or “junk” because they are often small incremental improvements. But this war over technology drives these small incremental improvements and these fuel the need for solutions to solve the technical problems they create. That brings the next original inventor of a significant invention…

    And the process continues and we all benefit from it. So there are no “bad” or “junk” patents.

  • [Avatar for angry dude]
    angry dude
    December 15, 2017 01:29 pm

    [email protected]

    “At the root of the weakening of the US patent system is the proliferation of low quality patents”

    yeah, right, dude

    And where do those low quality patents mainly come from ???

    From garage inventors ?


    They mostly come from big multinational tech corporations flooding USPTO with their incremental junk patent apps of no value (ask Benny – he knows)
    Same corps that whine the most about “low quality patents” and “patent trolls”
    The fact that most of their patents are shrink wrapped in tech jargon does not make them high-quality – they are of the same quality as proverbial “bad patent” on the “method of swinging”

    The real reason for AIA and PTAB is uncontrolled corruption in Wash DC
    The just sold us out to big multinationals and China wholesale
    The swamp must be drained before any positive change can happen. Period.

  • [Avatar for JTS]
    December 15, 2017 12:14 pm

    As a citizen aware of the importance of technological advance on the welfare of a nation, I applaud your effort. Is there a site or link for donating?

    At the root of the weakening of the US patent system is the proliferation of low quality patents. The AIA and recent court decisions – all flawed law – were driven by legitimate real world problems. The strong patent system that you advocate requires strong (high quality) patents. Increasing resources for patent examination would seem to go to the root. More examiners. Better search tools. More time for examination. More expensive filing and examination fees to keep out low-margin inventions and to pay for better examination. Just a few ideas. The proposed changes in the patent statutes effectively say “let’s go back to the way it used to be”. Doesn’t this conflict with the legitimate reasons for the AIA and patent-weakening legal precedents?

  • [Avatar for Richard Brunner]
    Richard Brunner
    December 13, 2017 10:10 am

    It’s stunning to see how politicians have sold us out! PTABs, Knockoffs, and Green Lighted Infringement! The original intent of the USPTO was to Protect the Little Guy to spur innovation and to prevent the formation of monopolies. The Chinese are following the American Playbook and grabbing opportunities. So, if Small Businesses create over 70% of our jobs with our patents, with 100 Million people Out-of-Work and 49 Million on Welfare, they are also destroying our Consumer Market Financial Base. That’s half the country!
    2014 – Sm. Businesses dying faster than Startups Created. Est. attrition of 600,000 per year
    2016 Startups Down by 50%
    That’s setting the Conditions for Prosperity!

  • [Avatar for Paul Morinville]
    Paul Morinville
    December 12, 2017 09:53 am

    Valuationguy, This is our country, not the country of corrupt politicians. They cannot destroy the American story and the American Dream for political money. If they stand in the way, it will be to their political peril.

    We have been working in both of their districts (and others) for the last couple of years building a base of people who are now educated about the patent system and how weak it is. We have thousands of people listening to us in their districts. This will help us apply political pressure back home.

    A significant number of sponsors in Congress will also apply political pressure, especially Republican sponsors. But we need a lot of sponsors on both sides. That requires a lot of people calling the lawmakers to sponsor and support the US Inventor Act.

    The story is on our side – and it is against the huge multinational corporations who destroyed the patent system and the American story, and have put our national security at risk. That is more powerful than money. I think we can convince Goodlatte and Issa to let it pass if we all get a active and push it. If we don’t get active, we have only ourselves to blame.

    So the message here is… call your lawmakers, ask them to sponsor the US Inventor Act. Write to your local newspaper. Talk about it at the cafe downtown. Go to your local lawmakers offices. Get you friends and family to talk about it.

    We either take it back or we lose it. It all depends on what you do.

  • [Avatar for Valuationguy]
    December 12, 2017 08:41 am

    I applaud your advocacy with regard to patent owners rights and needs…but the question is how do you maneuver currently AROUND Goodlatte and Issa in the CURRENT Congress? With them controlling the Committee agenda….there is no chance the US Invent Act ever gets a vote necessary to exit Issa’s Subcommittee or Goodlatte’s committeee.

    Hopefully you are correct that Goodlatte retiring and Issa won’t get a blocking position next Congress (assuming he gets reelected…).

  • [Avatar for Paul Morinville]
    Paul Morinville
    December 11, 2017 09:24 pm

    angry… (Fitting name by the way) Yes it is possible and Congress wants to do something. National security, job creation and economic growth are at stake not to mention the American story. At a certain point, money no longer matters. We are at that point.

    You cannot buy everyone in Congress. They buy the key players. The rest are influenced by them. Goodlatte, Issa, Grassley, Leahy, et al have all been discredited by patent reform. That may be in part why Goodlatte and Lamar Smith are retiring. Issa, if he squeaks by this election, (doubtful) will not be the Judiciary Chair. His reputation is shot in Congress. We are going to campaign against him again next year, so come and join us. Your anger is welcome there.

    I think there is genuine desire to fix it. We will see in the Supreme Court. I know the staffers between Congress and the Supreme Court talk. That is where the difference is made. I think that is happening.

  • [Avatar for angry dude]
    angry dude
    December 11, 2017 09:15 pm

    Paul [email protected]

    Wishful thinking, dude

    It’s all about money nowadays and infringer’s lobby spent hundreds of millions to turn patent system into what it is today

    Me thinks its gonna be a lot harder if possible at all to undo the damage

    There are at least half a dozen of extremely detrimental SCOTUS decisions to reverse – do you think it’s possible at all ?

  • [Avatar for John Ogilvie]
    John Ogilvie
    December 11, 2017 07:21 pm

    Please update us when you have a bill number, or the name of congressional sponsors, or both, so I can pass that info to my Representative and Senators. Thanks!

  • [Avatar for Paul Morinville]
    Paul Morinville
    December 11, 2017 03:18 pm

    Curious, It only turns things back to 2005. Not too much to ask for.

  • [Avatar for Curious]
    December 11, 2017 03:16 pm

    That’s a big wish list — hey, shoot for the stars and if you only make it to the moon, we are still better off for it.

  • [Avatar for Paul Morinville]
    Paul Morinville
    December 11, 2017 01:26 pm

    Ron, We do not have a bill number yet. You can send the link for this page. You can have them contact me ([email protected]). The name US Inventor Act is all that exists at the current time.

  • [Avatar for Ron Hilton]
    Ron Hilton
    December 11, 2017 12:58 pm

    BTW, the biggest problem for small inventors is not filing a provisional, it is finding a business partner with good entrepreneurial skills.

  • [Avatar for Ron Hilton]
    Ron Hilton
    December 11, 2017 12:55 pm

    What is the bill number? I called my congressman to support the bill, but they haven’t heard of it yet. I think this bill is great, although I agree that first to invent is not as important, as long as they strengthen the 1-year grace period. Also, I think an informal provisional is the way to go for all inventors, not just first-time inventors. In addition to being a successful inventor and entrepreneur, I am also a part-time patent agent specializing in provisional applications. I can typically do it for under $1K.

  • [Avatar for Invention Rights]
    Invention Rights
    December 11, 2017 12:51 pm

    Paul/Benny, the fundamental problem is the same in both first to file and the PTAB. In both cases, the quid pro quo of the patent system is destroyed. Under AIA it does not matter whether or not an inventor discovered something new and useful. It only matters if he filled out the right paperwork and can outwit the infringer in the word games played at the PTAB. No one cares about the invention. It is not relevant under the AIA.

    I take it that is how it has always worked in the rest of the world. It is a radical antitheses of the American patent system.

  • [Avatar for Paul Morinville]
    Paul Morinville
    December 11, 2017 12:39 pm

    Benny, Yes that is true in examination, but you do not follow the trail. If your patent becomes subjected to the PTAB, all art from anywhere in any language is used to invalidate the patent. So, you see my student, the inventor has to know everything lest they lose the patent. The infringer just needs to feign a blind eye.

    These companies that are the experts in a particular technology, obviously know what is out there and what is publicly listed at the USPTO. When they infringe, they do so willfully and/or recklessly.

  • [Avatar for Benny]
    December 11, 2017 10:21 am

    I live outside the US. The law where I live does NOT require the inventor to be in possession of all prior art documents when filing a patent application. It is expected that the examiner will perform a search, and point out to the inventor any prior art discovered which may disqualify the inventor from claiming a monopoly on the invention. That’s what search fees are for. Should any third party also discover disqualifying prior art, they may point this out during prosecution, and in some cases, after grant. If the law in the US is different, I am your humble student.

  • [Avatar for Paul Morinville]
    Paul Morinville
    December 11, 2017 10:12 am

    Benny, if an inventor is required to know everything at the PTO and every other place including paper documents written in any language and stored in any public place in the world, why doesn’t an infringer have to know what is publicly available on the PTO website written in english?

    Especially given the incomparable difference in resources.

  • [Avatar for Benny]
    December 11, 2017 09:52 am

    FTO is 100% the responsibility of the IP department. Engineers don’t read patent documents because they are generally badly written. No engineer is going to waste their time reading paragraph after paragraph of “a shaft, the shaft having a distal end and a proximal end, the proximal end…” etc. To an engineer, that is babytalk. And if it is in the spec, that doesn’t mean it is in the claims. Engineering documents, which is where the information is, are not written like that. Only an attorney is going to tell you if you are infringing a claim or not.

  • [Avatar for angry dude]
    angry dude
    December 11, 2017 09:36 am

    [email protected]

    And as usual, you are full of it

    It is not the job of your “IP department” to monitor R&D in your field
    It’s your scientists and engineers trying to solve some difficult problem and then discovering that some dude somewhere already solved and patented it
    Then you size that dude’s wallet and if wallet is not big enough your implement dude’s solution straight from his published patent or application and dude can collect garbage to feed his children
    Nothing personal just business as usual for benny & co

  • [Avatar for Benny]
    December 11, 2017 08:03 am

    You suggest that “If patent applications are published, they know or should know that they are infringing”.
    How many hours are there in your working day? Do you think R&D engineers spend their time reading poorly drafted patent applications? Do you the think an understaffed IP department can spend all day reading patents and correlating them with the R&D activity? There may be a few behemoths that can, but for the most part, it is unrealistic, and as for FTO, you only get what you can afford. Not everyone is running a an 8 or 9 digit IP budget, you know.

  • [Avatar for Nancy Kramer]
    Nancy Kramer
    December 11, 2017 07:55 am

    Paul and Randy,

    Thanks for doing what you have done and maybe if this law is passed the US patent system will be great again.

  • [Avatar for Paul Morinville]
    Paul Morinville
    December 11, 2017 07:52 am

    Benny, ““establish a default finding of willful infringement …” Guilty until proven innocent? That should go down well.” Is that what the PTAB does?

    In case you missed it:

    Don’t corporations have some responsibility? Are they above that? If patent applications are published, they know or should know that they are infringing.

    After all, they got the The American Inventor’s Protection Act of 1999 passed so they would have access to everyone else’s technology. You don’t think they look up inventions relevant to their business?

  • [Avatar for Bob Weber]
    Bob Weber
    December 11, 2017 07:49 am

    FWIW, NetNet: I think first to file has the effect of creating a race to the patent office which is costly to individuals and startups, but has the advantage of documenting what was known when and largely avoiding interferences (derivations under the new regime) which can be extremely costly given discovery, depositions, etc. First to file keeps us aligned with everyone else.

  • [Avatar for Benny]
    December 11, 2017 06:59 am

    SIPO is first-to-file, right? So is everyone else’s patent system. I’m not convinced that Uncle Sam knows best.
    “establish a default finding of willful infringement …” Guilty until proven innocent? That should go down well.
    “This is intentional and is done to attract foreign investment in China’s patent system”
    No, it is to attract investment in China’s industry. If you are investing your money in a patent system, well, you are mistaken, friend. Patent systems don’t pay dividends.

  • [Avatar for angry dude]
    angry dude
    December 10, 2017 11:08 pm

    Jeff Lindsay @9

    “To establish date of invention before AIA, inventors would keep a written record in a quality bound notebook (this can also be done digitally with the right software) without leaving white spaces or gaps to allow later entry of information, and each page would be signed by the inventor and by a witness or two to verify the information and its date”

    “quality bound notebook” :):):)

    R U kidding me ???

    Software is a different matter but then its has to rely on some signing agency to prove dates and times before the court – which (US based) agency do you propose for that (other than PTO itself) ?
    And then what is the big difference from electronically uploading provisional application (same notebook saved as e.g pdf file) to USPTO server at a minimal cost ?

  • [Avatar for Jeff Lindsay]
    Jeff Lindsay
    December 10, 2017 10:17 pm

    To establish date of invention before AIA, inventors would keep a written record in a quality bound noteboook (this can also be done digitally with the right software) without leaving white spaces or gaps to allow later entry of information, and each page would be signed by the inventor and by a witness or two to verify the information and its date. Such records could be very valuable for future patents that might rely on the date of invention. Only a tiny minority of patents ever relied on these records in subsequent litigation, but sometimes that could be the difference between a worthless patent and patents worth many millions.

  • [Avatar for Jeff Lindsay]
    Jeff Lindsay
    December 10, 2017 10:13 pm

    Paul is right. Very few inventors know how to properly write the text required for an enabled description of their invention. If the inventor does not understand the very significant legal differences between “comprising” and “consisting of” or the way ranges of values should be described or the importance of describing alternate embodiments, he or she can be left with very little to support future claims.

    Pages of data, drawings, speculations, etc. can easily leave out key details that end up being the pivotal factor that differentiates the invention over the prior art. The whole effort is meaningless if it does not support claims, and provisionals without carefully drafted claims are unlikely to adequately support valuable claims later on.

    Even professors who thoroughly understand their invention usually do not provide enabled disclosure in the papers they submit to journals. They leave out many details they feel aren’t needed, or don’t describe precisely what they mean by “fiber length” or “average molecular weight” or some other term incidental to their publication but perhaps critical to valuable claims. They may also make statements that are damning or contradictory to what needs to be said in a proper patent. And professors especially will want to discuss prior art in ways that can often be harmful for a patent. The practice of filing an academic paper as a provisional is considered a very poor practice today and I would be surprised if any successful tech transfer offices would agree to that.

  • [Avatar for angry dude]
    angry dude
    December 10, 2017 09:27 pm

    Paul Morinville @6

    What do you mean by “keep a notebook” ?

    Notebook without exact provable in court dates is worthless – you will have to prove that certain records were made on certain exact dates and how ???
    Carbon dating your paper notebook ? 🙂
    Just treat provisional as your monthly notebook and there is no need for carbon dating
    Although there are electronic (and free) means nowadays to prove exact dates and times you record something (e.g.
    but I just fail to see why those are any better than filing a provisional once a month or so
    we are talking just a few hundred bucks, dude
    if someone is serious about patenting his invention he should be able to spend at least a few grand upfront
    otherwise what’s the point ?
    patent system is not for children to play – its for adults

  • [Avatar for Paul Morinville]
    Paul Morinville
    December 10, 2017 09:14 pm

    It’s the up front cost that is the problem. If all inventors have to do is keep a notebook and other documentation, there is no financial barrier. If they have to hire attorneys and file provisionals even before they know if they can actually make whatever they are attempting to make and long before they know if anyone will buy it, it discourages inventors.

    However, if they know there is a market and the product can be made at a profit, there is a reason to spend the money on a lawyer.

  • [Avatar for angry dude]
    angry dude
    December 10, 2017 08:21 pm

    Paul [email protected]

    So why do you think their lab/work records of their progress cab be any better than the informal provisional patent application they can write themselves ???
    Me thinks they are gonna be the same quality
    Many university researchers submit their academic publications as part or as a whole of their provisional patent application – I can give you many examples
    Attorneys are expensive for a reason but provisional application does not need claims and just has to disclose all details without forgetting about anything – just put your whole progress workbook as attachment to your provisional application

    Heck, I put 10 full pages of working Matlab code as attachment to my provisional patent application back in 2001
    Just copy and paste and run and rewrite in different language… and implement in
    your consumer product…
    Infringer’s dream

  • [Avatar for Paul Morinville]
    Paul Morinville
    December 10, 2017 08:05 pm

    I may have misstated exactly what I mean. You need to visit an inventor club a few times. Most are first time inventors looking for help. Most inventors have only a high school education. Most have not marketed anything or engineered anything. Most invent some sort of consumer goods – something they would buy (or they think someone else would), something they are familiar with.

    Unless you are an experienced inventor, you do not know how to write a provisional or a patent application. Even most experienced inventors don’t know patent law well enough to write one. There are a few who are capable, but not very many. Writing a provisional application without an attorney in most cases will do more damage than good for the inventor.

  • [Avatar for angry dude]
    angry dude
    December 10, 2017 07:09 pm

    Paul Morinville @2

    Well, if inventor can’t describe his/her invention in sufficient details then is he really an inventor?
    Do you really think paid attorney can do a better job actually describing how
    your invention works (patent claims are entirely different matter – those are for pros) ?
    In my experience (and after reading many hi-tech patents some written by startup founders/inventors and some by large corporate attorneys) I can say for sure – the only person who can most clearly describe how invention works is an inventor himself
    There are exceptions of course but I think this is the rule in most cases
    Inventors are not stupid, they can learn fast, and in many cases they are smarter than their patent attorneys (albeit less paid)

    First-To-File is just fine if provisionals are cheap – just keep filing provisionals to add more detail

    First-To-Invent can and will be abused by same large corporate entities that ruined US patent system

  • [Avatar for Paul Morinville]
    Paul Morinville
    December 10, 2017 06:49 pm

    Actually, first to file is a big problem for most inventors, especially those in consumer products. Yes a provisional is cheap if you are familiar with patent law and can describe your invention is enough detail. But virtually none are, so they have to hire attorneys. I have not done a provisional application in years, but I suspect it will cost several thousand dollars in attorney time. And most invention require multiple rounds of prototyping to perfect, which meas multiple provisional applications.

    This put a very large financial hurdle up. One high enough that most inventors cannot do it. They have to do even before they know if the invention is marketable and can be produced at a profit.

    The best way to encourage small inventors is first to invent. If all they have to do is keep good records of their process of boiling down the invention to practice while they ensure that someone will buy it and when they do, it will bring profit, then they can spend the big bucks to patent it.

  • [Avatar for angry dude]
    angry dude
    December 10, 2017 06:24 pm

    Actually “First-to-Invent” is not needed
    “First-to-File” is fine with me and I believe with the majority of independent inventors, provided cheap provisionals are available and there is grace period
    This makes things a lot simpler for everybody

    What is really needed is some kind of small claims court for patents
    Currently it does not make any sense to sue for patent infringement if there is less than say 100 million in sold infringing products/services so the damages awarded (if any) can at the very least cover legal fees (2-3 mil minimum)
    The whole patent litigation system in USA is so outrageously expensive and inefficient that it makes you wonder what kind of money was passed to corrupt politicians and judges to make it work this way…

  • [Avatar for Bemused]
    December 10, 2017 03:51 pm

    Paul/Randy: This reads like my patent Christmas wish list. Well done.

    What I found interesting (and somewhat, well…bemusing) is that out of the 11 provisions in the US Inventor bill six of them (# 1,3,4,6, 7, 10) are designed to undo damage that SCOTUS has inflicted on the US patent system.

    So, how about we give the Supremes a really big hand for playing such a prominent role in screwing up the finest invention engine ever created in the history of mankind? Bravo Breyer, Ginsburg, Roberts, et al!!!