Russell Slifer

In the America Invents Act (AIA) of 2011, Congress required the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) to establish at least three regional offices nationwide. These offices were not symbolic; they were intended to expand access to patent services, recruit new examiners, and strengthen innovation ecosystems outside Washington, D.C. In 2014, I was honored to serve as the first Director of the Rocky Mountain Regional Office, which provided inventors and small businesses across the Mountain West direct access to USPTO resources. By reducing barriers for entrepreneurs in states like Colorado, Idaho, Utah, and Wyoming, the office became a vital link between the innovation community and the federal government. The Trump administration’s decision to close the Denver office undermines this congressional mandate.

Our patent system has been relentlessly attacked for the better part of the last 20 years. Patents have been blamed for everything from the creation of patent litigation abuse to high prescription drug costs. There is scant evidence of an actual causal relationship, yet the attacks continue. Knowing that it would be impossible to outright ban patents, the popular argument is that poor quality patents that should not have issued are responsible for a majority of litigation issues and drug prices. In response, Congress created the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) at the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) in 2011 to make it easier to invalidate “low quality” patents without the need for federal district court litigation. Yet, after more than 10 years of invalidating issued patents through the PTAB, the criticism of our patent system has not abated.

In response to intense lobbying for patent litigation reform, Congress was convinced that a substantial amount of district court patent litigation involved “poor quality” patents that were clearly invalid. Images of extortionist patent trolls were widely portrayed as a primary threat to U.S. innovation. The high cost of patent litigation, years to reach a judicial resolution and reliance on lay juries to determine highly technical issues were cited as evidence of a broken system. In response, Congress passed the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (AIA) in 2011…. The current IPR system as implemented has caused severe damage to an important segment of our innovation community. Congress instructed the USPTO Director, in 35 USC§ 316(b), to “consider the effect of any such regulation on the economy, the integrity of the patent system, the efficient administration of the Office, and the ability of the Office to timely complete proceedings instituted under this chapter.” It is time for the Director to reevaluate the effect of IPRs.

Intellectual property (IP) made modern vaccines possible. It took billions of dollars in private and public investments in research and development to be able to create, in record time, multiple viable vaccines to fight the COVID-19 pandemic. The entire world should be celebrating the innovators that continue to push forward with new solutions to problems we will face in the future. This pandemic will end, but there will be another. We should be eternally grateful to have companies like Pfizer, Moderna and Johnson & Johnson that have the capability to create and manufacture vaccines at large scale…. It has been over four months since President Biden’s inauguration. As of yet there has not been a nomination for the Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and Director of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO). In addition to running the USPTO, the Director is responsible for advising the President on intellectual property issues. I believe that President Biden would have benefitted from an experienced voice knowledgeable about the dangers of supporting the erosion of property rights during the discussions on whether to support India and South Africa’s proposal to the World Trade Organization to waive IP protections under the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS).

The Senate Judiciary Committee’s Subcommittee on Intellectual Property is holding a hearing on October 30 to discuss the quality of patents issued by the USPTO. This hearing should be a great opportunity to discuss the current and future challenges facing the USPTO, including modernizing the software tools used by examiners. Unfortunately, the hearing title (“Promoting the Useful Arts: How can Congress prevent the issuance of poor quality patents?”) begins with the premise that there are poor quality patents and perpetuates the unsubstantiated position that past litigation abuse was due to patent quality. Perhaps a better start would have been to call the hearing “Promoting the Useful Arts: How can Congress help the USPTO improve patent examination?”