Posts Tagged: "114th Congress"

Part of the problem with the debate over “software patents” has been the near complete failure to accurately describe what these patents protect. Opponents of software patents frequently describe these patents as protecting nothing more than “mathematics” or logic. This is plainly false. Software is a valuable, real-world, technological innovation that is used in everything from vacuums to cars to computers to phones.

The NASA Transition Authorization Act would require NASA to develop propulsion technologies intended to reduce travel time to Mars, as well as develop a strategic framework for human space flight to Mars, and would also require NASA to develop a transition plan that would enable greater participation in the International Space Station (ISS).

Earlier today, by a vote of 94 to 5, the United States Senate overwhelmingly passed the 21st Century Cures Act. Having passed in the House, the Cures Act now goes off to the White House for the President’s signature, where it will receive a warm reception. “I’ll sign it as soon as it reaches my desk, because like a lot of you I’ve lost people I’ve loved deeply to cancer,” President Obama said in his weekly address on December 3, 2016, as he called upon Congress to act swiftly to pass the legislation and send it to the White House.

The 21st Century Cures Act has broad bipartisan support having been passed in the U.S. House by an overwhelming 344-77 roll call vote. It also has the backing of the White House; a statement release from the White House’s Office of the Press Secretary on November 30th calls the 21st Century Cures Act “critically important legislation” which increases funding to combat the American heroin epidemic, supports the “Cancer Moonshot” led by Vice President Joe Biden and takes meaningful steps towards improving mental health and Alzheimer’s disease outcomes.

The Review the Rule Act of 2016 was introduced into the U.S. Senate by Sen. Chris Coons (D-DE), which would delay amendments to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 41 set to go into effect on December 1st… The proposed changes to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 41, which governs the process for legal searches and seizures of criminal evidence, contraband and criminal suspects, were proposed to both houses of Congress this April by the U.S. Supreme Court in a letter to both houses of Congress from Chief Justice John Roberts. The changes to Rule 41 would give a magistrate judge in a district where activities related to a crime may have occurred the authority to issue a warrant to remotely access electronic storage media to copy electronic records even if the electronic storage media may be outside of the judge’s district.

But now, after quickly dispatching with the patent troll meme as much ado about nothing, we can, should and must now unleash a more simplified counter attack by referencing a commonly deployed patent abuse known as “efficient infringement.” This deliberate disdain for patent property is the business model driving mega-tech IT incumbents to continually pressure Congress to enact measure such as HR 9 and S.1137. Efficient infringement is a cold-hearted business calculation whereby businesses decide it will be cheaper to steal patented technology than to license it and pay a fair royalty to the innovator. This cold-hearted business approach to stealing intellectual property resonates when it is conveyed properly. Here is a simple script for research universities to use when they communicate with candidates’ pre-election and Staffers and those who prevail after the election. These arguments are easily adaptable to all pro-patent advocates.

Prepared statements released in advance of the hearing talked tough, but that was pretty much it. Insofar as getting to the root of the problems identified in the IG report the hearing turned out to be a big, fat nothing burger. I guess when the fraud is only 2% of the hours worked that is seen as a moral victory and a sign of good government. Perhaps 2% fraud in government is the best we can expect, but if you dig even one fraction of a level deeper within the IG report you will notice that almost 45% of those hours characterized as fraudulent were claimed by fewer than 5% of patent examiners. How is it possible that less than 5% of patent examiners accounted for nearly half of the fraudulent hours identified by the Inspector General? If there are valid reasons that the many hard working, conscientious examiners might be working and not logged in then why are so many of these questionable hours disproportionately being claimed by only a small number of patent examiners?

“My team and I do not tolerate time and attendance abuse,” Lee told the subcommittee. While she did note that the USPTO had taken disciplinary actions against examiners that have abused time and attendance reports, such actions ranging from counseling to expulsion and repayment for hours not worked, she added that there was evidence that instances of time and attendance abuse were not widespread. She cited a report on the USPTO’s telework program issued by the National Academy of Public Administration (NAPA) in July 2015. The report found that “It would appear to be unlikely that [time and attendance] abuse is widespread or unique to teleworkers, and it does not appear to reflect the actions of the workforce as a whole.” Additionally, the report indicated that the agency’s telework program saved the agency $7 million each year on average by allowing examiners to continue working in spite of government shutdowns caused by weather or other reasons.

If Congress, nevertheless, is unmoved by the constitutional arguments for reforming the IPR process, it should weigh the strong economic policy arguments supporting IPR reform, which are outlined in various amicus curiae briefs supporting certiorari. As pointed out in a brief filed on behalf of the Houston Inventors Association, the IPR system “has a great attraction to ‘patent pirates’, companies who [sic] infringe patents and then deny liability, because the IPR has a high rate of success for ‘patent pirates’ to invalidate patents.” In other words, the IPR system facilitates infringers who want to free ride on the fruits of patentees’ labors, thereby ineluctably diminishing marginal incentives for investment in patentable innovations. As a brief filed on behalf of the University of New Mexico explains, the threat of IPR (in particular its anti-patent “death star” reputation), and inconsistencies between PTAB and federal district court patent validity standards, devalue and harm university patents.

Three of the judicial emergencies, just less than 10 percent of all judicial emergencies in the U.S. federal court system, are in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas (E.D. Tex.). With the judicial vacancies in E.D. Tex., the concern is that a growing docket of patent infringement cases could create a bottleneck for the court, greatly increasing the amount of time that it takes the court to issue a decision. Business litigation is typically given a backseat to criminal litigation in district courts as American law upholds a suspected criminal’s right to a speedy trial. The vacancies also naturally result in an increased percentage of U.S. patent infringement cases assigned to Judge Rodney Gilstrap. This January, we reported that Judge Gilstrap could be deciding as much as 20 percent of all patent infringement cases filed in U.S. district courts. The fact that one judge could be deciding as much as one-fifth of the patent infringement docket at the district court level seems a little less than democratic.

How will our patent system treat this wonderful new discovery? How long will it take before its curative benefits can be deployed ? We can only hope that DC’s meddlers in our innovation ecosystem read the Ms. Sun’s article. Because however fervently the medical and scientific communities respond to this growing superbug crisis, IP’s DC government legal eagles are either unaware or unconcerned. The USPTO is regularly rejecting microbial patent applications in blind servitude to Alice-Mayo’s confusing eligibility formula. We can hope, but cannot be assured, the Federal Circuit will make sense some day of Alice-Mayo’s two-step test. But when? Worse, it appears that SCOTUS is infected by the anti-patent poison infesting our Capitol. How refreshing it would be to have our Congress and the nation’s highest Court be as concerned with superbugs as they seem to be with PR-created patent trolls.

The VA announced this April that its EHR system had reached certification for interoperability, months after the DoD had reached the same milestone, but investigators at the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) reached a different conclusion. A recent GAO report indicated that, although the goal of true interoperability between the agencies can be met within two years according to agency planning, the two systems weren’t truly interoperable… It’s in this environment, heavily tinged by the recent GAO report, that a subcommittee of the U.S. Senate Committee on Appropriations came together to take a closer look at what was being done by the VA and the DoD to reach true interoperability.

While the Supreme Court spoke clearly and unanimously on the issue in Cuozzo, this hardly means the standard to be applied to claim construction in IPRs has been settled. Rather, it means only that the solution to the problem lies outside the courts. Because the Patent Office has adopted, by regulation, an unsatisfactory standard, Congress should step in. In the context of IPR proceedings, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) should be instructed to give claim terms their plain and ordinary meaning to one of skill in the art, just as the courts are instructed to do.

On the morning of Tuesday, July 12th, members of the U.S. Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, & Transportation convened for a hearing on a notice of proposed rulemaking recently issued by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). The hearing, titled How Will the FCC’s Proposed Privacy Regulations Affect Consumers and Competition, did much to talk about the potential effects of the FCC’s increased oversight of broadband Internet service providers even as partisan viewpoints among committee members were exposed.