Posts Tagged: "Capitol Hill"

At this time of year we often see many prognostications of what the future holds. From the prospective of the small entity patentee we see big changes in store particularly as some in Congress seem hell-bent on amending the patent statutes once more. These changes are being pushed through without any real consideration for the impact of the changes on patents held by universities, research institutes, small and medium sized companies, emerging companies, independent inventors and new entrepreneurs.

On December 12, 2013, Members of the House and Senate introduced bipartisan legislation that would allow the United States or any state or local government to register official insignia for federal trademark protection. This bill would amend the Trademark Act of 1946, also known as the Lanham Act, to allow the Federal government as well as all State and local governments to register with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) marks consisting of their flag, coat of arms and other official seals.

The major beneficiaries are not the patent trolls- but the thousands of single patent owners and small high tech start ups who for the first time ever-are able to monetize the enormous investments in time, money and ingenuity that they have made in their inventions. The fact is- today, small patent owner and small tech start ups have real options to liquidate their intellectual property assets that they didn’t have before Intellectual Ventures and Acacia Research Group entered the market in the mid-2000s. If patent trolls sue big companies- then the owners of these patents were able to liquidate their investments. When the multinationals have to worry about these entities suing them it is good for the owners of the patents.

A brake-down of the major provisions, the Amendments that passed and some key Amendments that failed… On Thursday, December 5, 2013, the United States House of Representatives passed the Innovation Act by a vote of 325-91. Surprisingly, the Innovation Act (HR 3309) had only been introduced on October 23, 2013, and was marked-up on November 20, 2013. “This schedule suggests the fix was in,” said Congressman Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA) on December 3, 2013, “The clear message to little inventors: give thanks for your intellectual property rights, because you may not have them by this time next year.”

Dean Kamen: “I have a lot of concerns [that H.R. 3309] will serve to dramatically increase the barriers – especially for small inventors – to be able to get and protect their intellectual property, which as a consequence will prevent the public from getting access to what should become the next generation of great technology that will deal with all issues – health care, environment and education…If anything this country should be finding ways to strengthen the patent system in the global competitive environment, not make it harder to get and protect intellectual property. We need to add incentives, not add barriers.”

A source with knowledge close to the situation has also told me that “there will be other shoes to drop; the DNA episode is not the last.” To the outside world Gurry is affable, knowledgeable and a perfect ambassador of the benefits of intellectual property. Internally, however, he hides things and fosters conflict so that he can rise to the moment and come to the rescue. Indeed, aside from the various scandals WIPO appears to be an extremely dysfunctional workplace, which can only hinder the mission.

Congressman Bob Goodlatte (R-VA), is continuing to fast track the Innovation Act (HR 3309) despite growing concerns from both Republican and Democrat members of the House Judiciary Committee… One major question is whether we really want to go to a loser pay system with respect to patent infringement litigation? That sounds nice, but it will no doubt have a chilling effect, perhaps most chilling on the entities that are not abusers of the litigation system. It will undoubtedly make it harder for small businesses and start-ups to obtain the critical funding they need because investors will rightfully worry about whether the company may ultimately become embroiled in patent litigation, lose and then have to foot the bill for the entirety of the litigation. Even more problematic is the loser pay provisions coupled with the joinder provisions, which the University community believes could lead to entities being pulled into patent litigation against their will. If that happens and they lose they would be on the hook for paying the fees of the other side despite not willingly participating in the litigation. How is that fair? That would have a significant chilling effect without a doubt.

Calling the Innovation Act fast-tracked doesn’t do justice to what is really happening. The Innovation Act was only officially introduced on October 23, 2013, and the Committee has not heard from any independent inventors or small businesses. Even the innovator community that stands to lose big is just warming up, this past week with a substantial coalition of University groups and the Biotechnology Industry Organization (BIO) weighing in for the first time, with BIO concluding that the “proposals are not supportable without significant amendment.” The University groups weighing in against the Innovation Act are the Association of American Universities, American Council on Education, Association for American Medical Colleges, Association of Public and Land-grant Universities, Association of University Technology Managers and Council on Government Relations, collectively referred to in their position statement as “the Higher Education Community.”

Tech sector giants have been crying and moaning about how the patent system has run amok and needs to be scaled back, and continually beg for patent reform that would gut the patent system and weaken patent rights… Even mighty Microsoft couldn’t maintain their monopoly, and only the foolish would anticipate Google, Facebook and other tech giants to be on top indefinitely. That isn’t how the tech sector works, or is intended to work. But if a vibrant, robust and strong patent system is not there for start-ups today they will never become the giant, innovation shifting, growth companies of the future. That would be terrible for the economy, lead to stagnant innovation and guarantee that slothful, giant companies that have lost the ability to innovate would remain dominant rather than going the way of the dinosaur.

The hearing focused on the effect the Innovation Act would have on the problem of abusive litigation practices and on the patent system as a whole. Three central themes emerged from the hearing: 1) there is an urgent need to fully fund the PTO; 2) significant skepticism remains about expansion of the Covered Business Method (“CBM”) program; and 3) some of the more technical aspects of the Innovation Act would help rid the patent system of expensive and wasteful lawsuits. Divergence of opinion remained among the Members, however, about whether Congress should address fee shifting at this time or wait for the Supreme Court to hear the two fee shifting cases before it, although the witnesses agreed that legislation on fee shifting would be helpful, and Congress should proceed with legislation on this front.

Judge Michel explained legislators are proposing bills because they are being heavily lobbied by a small (but powerful and well-funded) coalition of companies. He highlighted the common problem with the nine active bills currently before Congress. If passed, the bills separately and together would weaken the patent system; not strengthen it. None of these current bills would address the problems with the current patent system: litigation is slow, complicated and unpredictable. The bills, however, would make litigation slower, more complicated and less predictable. In short, congress’ solution would add to the problem.

EDITOR’S NOTE: What follows is a summary of the Goodlatte patent bill created by American Continental Group, which is a government affairs and strategic consulting firm in Washington, DC. Manus Cooney, a former Chief Counsel of the Senate Judiciary Committee is one of the partners at ACG, and is also frequent guest contributor on IPWatchdog.com. Cooney and his partners and associates worked to prepare this summary, which was described as a team effort. It is republished here with permission.

Instead of condemning NPES, the GAO emphasized at the very outset of its report that our nation’s history is filled with examples of inventors who did not develop products based on the patented technologies… [O]verall, the report directly and indirectly supports the view that there is no patent litigation crisis and that, to the extent that there are problems with the patent system, they are linked primarily to patent quality – not the identity of the patent owner (e.g. NPE, PAE, PME, operating company or whatever name one chooses to use).

A troubling fundamental aspect of the proposed mandatory stay is that it would chip away at the quid pro quo of the patent bargain. To ensure the Constitutionally-protected exclusive right, patent rights have long been recognized as covering multiple and independent separate causes of action: “whoever without authority makes, uses, offers to sell, or sells any patented invention, within the United States or imports into the United States any patented invention during the term of the patent therefor, infringes the patent.” 35 U.S.C. § 271(a) (emphasis added). Strict liability attaches to each one of these forms of infringement independently of the others. These are separate violations, any one of which being subject to injunctive relief “to prevent the violation of any right secured by patent.” 35 U.S.C. § 283.

On June 24, 2013, 17 Members of Congress wrote a letter to Congressman Frank Wolf (R-VA) and Congressman Chaka Fattah (D-PA), who are respectively the Chairman and the Ranking Member of the Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, Science of the House Appropriations Committee. The letter to Congressmen Wolf and Fattah was short and to the point, saying: “We write to request your assistance in addressing the Office of Management and Budget’s (OMB) recent decision to sequester user fees which fund the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO). As a result, almost $150 million in inventors’ fees in Fiscal Year 2013 have been locked in USPTO’s general fund. We request that the Approrpiations Committee allow USPTO to access the sequestered user fee funds.”