Posts Tagged: "Senate"

The inclusion of an enhanced Accelerated Approval pathway, crafted by Senator Kay Hagan (D-NC), will help expedite the development of modern, targeted, and personalized therapies for patients suffering from serious and life-threatening diseases while preserving the FDA’s robust standards for safety and effectiveness. Senator Hagan is to be congratulated for her hard work and leadership on this very important provision.

There has to be some patent attorneys living in the portions of Montgomery and Prince George Counties represented by Congressman Van Hollen. There has to be some patent law firms in Dallas with ties to Congressman Hensarling and/or the 5th District of Texas. I know for sure there are patent attorneys in Ohio, Arizona, Massachusetts and Washington. These are the folks who are tasked with the burden of finding $1.2 trillion to submit to Congress for a vote, and stakeholders in the patent system should reach out to them and express their views on funding for the Patent Office. Businesses, firms and individuals within the relevant Districts and States will likely have the most influence, but anyone and everyone should stand up and be heard. Who knows when, or if, there will ever be an opportunity as good as this to end fee diversion.

As the Super Committee struggles to find nearly $1.2 trillion in revenue or savings, they should take a serious look at the proposal to give the US Patent and Trademark Office greater control over its budget and fees by creating a revolving fund. At the request of many in the patent community, Senator Jon Kyl – a member of the Super Committee – is proposing that the Super Committee include the revolving fund The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) has informally indicated that it will score the Kyl provision as saving $700 million over 10 years. By taking the USPTO out of the regular appropriations process, the creation of a revolving fund will take approximately $700 million off budget and help the Super Committee reach their goal. And –besides being a budget saver – the revolving fund is good policy.

On Friday, September 16, 2011, President Obama signed into law “The America Invents Act” (“AIA”) which passed the Senate on September 8, 2011, by a vote of 89-9. The AIA passed the House of Representatives on June 23rd by a vote of 304-117. The measure, which is the product of a seven-years-long legislative battle among patent policy stakeholders, changes how patents are obtained and enforced in the United States. Important reforms to patent law are incorporated into the AIA and, just as significantly, several controversial proposed changes were deleted from the AIA before final passage. This article is a play-by-play of the process and how it unfolded.

The United States Senate voted 93 to 5 earlier this evening to end debate on patent reform, which should set up a vote on H.R. 1249 in the coming days. Debate on patent reform is now over in the Senate. In the coming days the Senate will vote on and almost certainly pass H.R. 1249, sending it to the White House for the signature of President Obama. The Obama Administration has lobbied hard for this patent reform and although they are not getting everything they wanted, most notably an end to the practice of fee diversion, President Obama’s signature is guaranteed.

Why would we expect a new post-issuance review to work any better than the current prosecution process? Why are we to expect the Patent Office, which is certainly not equipped to handle litigation-like proceedings, could adequately and appropriately resolve issues of patentability in a post grant review proceeding when they are so horribly under-funded? Why would anyone think this is a good idea? Simply stated, the America Invents Act layers on more and more responsibility for the USPTO but without any additional funding. For years the federal government has been notoriously adept at layering unfunded mandates onto the States, but with this legislation they will layer unfunded mandates onto the USPTO; an agency that accepts absolutely no taxpayer funding.

That being the case it seems likely to me that patent reform won’t be picked up in the Senate until after Labor Day in September. What does this mean for patent reform? Who knows! I personally cannot see the Senate capitulating to the demands of the House of Representatives, and Senator Tom Coburn (R-OK) has already fired a shot across the bow prior to the House voting on H.R. 1249 suggesting he plans to make a big deal about USPTO funding, which was stripped from H.R. 1249. If the Senate does not accept H.R. 1249 and instead modifies the bill that would mean it would have to go back to the House. We might get into a game of ping-pong because I am told there will be no Conference on this legislation.

United States House of Representatives passed H.R. 1249, which is known as the America Invents Act by a vote of 304-117. This bill differs from the Senate version of patent reform, S. 23, so there will be no bill going to the desk of President Obama just yet. There are important differences between the two bills, chief among them is funding for the United States Patent and Trademark Office.

Obviously, Congressman Rogers is not being completely straight forward. The funds that exceed the appropriation to the USPTO would be available for use by the USPTO if and only if that is consistent with grants by appropriators. That is a far cry from saying the USPTO would get to keep 100% of the user fees it receives. Of course, this would not be the first time that Congressman Rogers was less than completely accurate regarding PTO funding.

General Electric was not the only large U.S. corporation not to pay taxes. According to Citizens for Tax Justice, General Electric had some company. In fact, American Electric Power, Dupont, Verizon, Boeing, Wells Fargo, FedEx and Honeywell all had tax rates between -0.7 percent and -9.2 percent for the stretch between 2008 to 2010. On the other hand, the United States Patent and Trademark Office continues to have user funds siphoned off, making the USPTO a much larger taxpayer than the largest U.S. corporations.

Despite the fact that Congressmen Ryan and Rogers would like this to be about the Obama Administration, the fact is that Senator Tom Coburn (R-OK) is the one who championed the amendment in the Senate that would give the Patent Office the ability to keep the fees it collects. Senator Coburn is known as “Senator No” for his staunch fiscally conservative stance on virtually all issues. So if you are willing to let facts influence your viewpoint there is absolutely no way that Patent Office funding within proposed patent reform can be an issue upon which Republicans can beat up Democrats. It was a leading fiscally conservative Republican in the Senate who brought the USPTO funding issue out of obscurity and to the top of the agenda.

The ink is hardly dry on the Supreme Court decision in Stanford v. Roche and already those who oppose patent reform are concocting one of the most ridiculous arguments I have ever seen to oppose first to file provisions. There are some, including at least one Member of Congress, that have started saying that the Supreme Court’s decision in Stanford v. Roche makes it clear that the first to file provisions of patent reform are unconstitutional. Just sit right back and allow me to explain to you exactly why that is perhaps the most specious argument I have ever heard.

Both the House and Senate bills create the opportunity for continual and constant challenges, one right after another. For example, challengers could tie up issued patents in post-grant review, followed by inter partes review and subsequently, or simultaneously, by challenges in one of the Federal District Courts. Thus, the settling of patent rights seems a distant dream if a well funded challenger wants to tie up a patent. The only hope for the patent owner is that with every subsequent challenge it becomes more difficult to challenge. That is what S. 23 sets up by having a “substantial new question of patentability” standard to initiate a post-grant review and then a much heightened “likelihood of success” standard to institute inter partes review.

A prior user rights defense prevents those who have previously used the patented invention from being infringers. In many parts of the world there are strong prior user rights, which allow those who keep innovation as a trade secret hidden away from the public to later use those trade secrets as a defense to a patent infringement lawsuit. You can’t sue me for patent infringement because I have been hiding, using that innovation you patented as a trade secret. So the party that disseminates the information for the benefit of the public loses in favor of the party that kept the innovation a closely guarded secret. This has never struck me as fair, a good idea or even in keeping with the Constitutional purpose for patents.

I think those that are against first to file are really most worked up about the loss of the across the board grace period for the statutory bar. If the problem is with the grace period let’s talk about the grace period. Misdirection and demagoguing the first to file issue has lead to the weakness of the arguments being exposed and the likelihood that no meaningful debate on the real issue — the grace period — will be possible. I’m here to tell you that those who are making a big deal out of the loss of the ability to swear behind with 131 affidavits are making a mountain out of an ant hill; not even a mole hill.