Posts Tagged: "Senator Chris Coons"

On the afternoon of Wednesday, March 13, the Senate Judiciary Committee’s Subcommittee on Intellectual Property held an oversight hearing of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office featuring testimony from and questioning of USPTO Director Andrei Iancu. While this hearing was relatively short by Congressional standards, the Senate IP Subcommittee explored recent changes instituted during Iancu’s tenure as USPTO Director and also got into the debate on pharmaceutical patents—a topic that has been front and center for both houses of Congress in recent weeks.

Today, March 13, the Senate Subcommittee on Intellectual Property met to discuss “Oversight of the United States Patent and Trademark Office,” with USPTO Director Andrei Iancu as the sole witness. IPWatchdog will report the details of that hearing in full, but in the meantime it is worth reviewing what the Subcommittee covered in its first hearing, held February 26, which included the report of the Intellectual Property Enforcement Coordinator (IPEC) on the findings of the IPEC’s Annual Intellectual Property Report. While the hearing was nominally about the IPEC report, comments made and questions raised by Subcommittee members throughout the course of the hearing made it clear that the Subcommittee intends to play an important role in the debate around IP and patent law during the 116th Congress.

Last week, Senator Chris Coons (D-DE) and Senator Thom Tillis (R-NC)—respectively, Ranking Member and Chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee’s Subcommittee on Intellectual Property, which was resurrected on February 7 for the first time since 2007—met with Congressman Doug Collins (R-GA) and others for their second bipartisan meeting in three months in search of a possible legislative solution to the patent eligibility crisis facing biotechnology, medical diagnostics and software related innovations. The same players met in December to begin discussing the issue, and stakeholders are now being told that they should join the conversation sooner rather than later if they want their voices to be heard. With the Senate IP Subcommittee back up and running and the seeming momentum on fixing patent eligibility law, it’s worth taking a look at the Subcommittee’s leadership and what their collective experience could mean for substantive change.

Here we go again! Another patent whose claims have been invalidated at the Federal Circuit—predictably, another medical diagnostic patent. Athena Diagnostics v. Mayo Collaborative (Fed. Cir. Feb. 6, 2019). This is getting old, tired and fundamentally ridiculous. The statute, which is all of one-sentence long, specifically lists discoveries as patent eligible. So why are discoveries being declared patent ineligible? To the extent these decisions are mandated by the Supreme Court, they directly contradict the easy to understand and very direct language of the statute. The Federal Circuit is wrong, period. Perhaps they are so close to these cases and trying so hard to do what they think is right that they have lost perspective, but these rulings are fundamentally saying that discoveries are not patent eligible. We are told repeatedly that they are mandated by Supreme Court precedent. Obviously, that cannot be correct. The statute says: “Whoever invents or discovers… may obtain a patent…” Clearly, Congress wants discoveries to be patented, and in our system of governance, Congress has supremacy over the Supreme Court with respect to setting the law unless the law is unconstitutional. 35 U.S.C. 101 has never been declared unconstitutional, so discoveries must be patent eligible, period. It is time to face the facts—the Supreme Court has considered only bad cases, with bad facts, where there was really no innovation presented in the claims, or even in the patent application as a whole. These decisions have absolutely no meaning or proper application with respect to any inventions, let alone inventions of monumental complexity such as true artificial intelligence, autonomous vehicles, or new medical diagnostics that allow risk-free testing of common ailments, where previously existing tests required potentially catastrophic risk.

In Berkheimer and Aatrix, the Federal Circuit indicated that although patent eligibility under Section 101 is ultimately a question of law, the determination may have factual underpinnings that, at least in some cases, render it inappropriate for motions to dismiss or for summary judgment… However, following Berkheimer and Aatrix, the Federal Circuit has itself affirmed numerous Section 101 rulings that were made at the dismissal or pleadings stage. This article provides a summary of recent district court decisions granting Rule 12(b)(6) motions to dismiss under Section 101.

It’s not just counterfeits of gadgets or luxury fashion items available for sale on Amazon, lining the already deep pockets of Bezos. As we’ve noted in other reports, there are plenty of counterfeit items that mimic badges and official documents from law enforcement agencies like the Federal Bureau of Investigations and the Secret Service. But a recent letter sent by the Federal Communications Commission in late May of this year indicates that Amazon is also allowing the sale of set-top boxes which falsely use FCC logos in the branding, indicating that the device is permitted by FCC regulation when in fact it is not.

In recent weeks we’ve learned that U.S. patent models are beginning to find a new audience in China’s growing inventor class. The Chinese expect the exhibits to raise awareness on innovation and patent protection among Chinese residents and to help build an innovative economy.

On May 9th I attended the International IP Commercialization Council (IIPCC) USA Chapter second annual program at the United States Capitol.  The topic of the event was Meeting the Threat to America’s Economic Future: US IP & Innovation Policy where representatives from IBM, Qualcomm, Personalized Media Communications, the Cleveland Clinic and the University of Michigan, as well as a Who’s Who of IP Leaders and policymakers, shared their real-world perspectives on the state of the US Patent System, and the effects it has and will have on the economy. 

On Thursday, April 24th, I attended a Sports Industry briefing and cocktail reception in honor of World IP day.   The program was sponsored by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce Global Innovation Policy Center (GIPC) and International Trademark Association (INTA). The program featured a panel of policymakers, including US Intellectual Property Enforcement Coordinator, Vishal Amin, and Congressional Trademark Caucus Co-Chairs, Senator Chris Coons and Senator Chuck Grassley as well as Attorneys who represent the MLB, NBA, NFL, NHL, and IMG College Licensing.

Sen. Harris followed up by asking whether algorithms were mathematical representations of laws of nature. “You’re getting right to the heart of the issue,” Iancu said. What Iancu said after that should be a major breath of fresh air to inventors and patent owners frustrated by Section 101 validity issues in the wake of Alice and Mayo: “This is one place where I believe courts have gone off the initial intent. There are human-made algorithms, human-made algorithms that are the result of human ingenuity that are not set from time immemorial and that are not absolutes, they depend on human choices. Those are very different from E=mc2 and they are very different from the Pythagorean theorem, for example.”

On the afternoon of Wednesday, November 29th, the U.S. Senate Committee on the Judiciary held a hearing to consider the nomination of four political appointees from the Trump Administration. Included among the days’ nominees was Andrei Iancu, President Trump’s selection to serve as Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and Director of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. Though the nomination hearing was brief and Iancu’s remarks were very measured, there would be reason for patent owners to think that a more balanced playing field at the USPTO could start to form should Iancu be confirmed as Director of the agency.

The second (lunch) keynote was from a patent fan: Senator Chris Coons (D-DE). By now, I have heard him speak on several occasions and it is always welcome to be reminded that the patent system has an advocate on the Hill. If only more could be recruited to his point of view. He spoke of the constitutional pedigree of our patent system, how well it has worked to achieve it goals over the years, and how the system has been steadily undermined in recent years. He gave a cogent summary of the Supreme Court harpooning of the patent system: eBay: no injunctive relief; Bilski: software tossed aside; Mayo: diagnostics sidelined; Myriad: discoveries eliminated; Alice: finishing off what Bilski started. Combine this with the AIA, and you have a rout. The only solution going forward is for Congress to address these issues. Waiting for the Courts is too too slow, and potentially fatal to the system as users sign-off, and the initiative in technology lost to others who have maintained and improved protection for the same subject matter.

Overrule eBay v. MercExchange and grant permanent injunctions to victorious patent owners as a matter of right. This singular change to U.S. patent laws – which is also found within the STRONGER Patent Act at Section 106 – would rectify much of the mischief caused by Congress and the Courts over the last 12 years. No single decision has so singularly tilted the balance between patent owners and technology implementers. Indeed, if you ask knowledgeable innovators and patent owners about the one decision or event they would undue if they could in order to bring the system back to some acceptable level of equilibrium and the answer will either be to overrule eBay v. MercExchange or to do away with post grant challenges at the PTAB.

In late June, the Support Technology and Research for Our Nation’s Growth and Economic Resilience (STRONGER) Patents Act of 2017 was introduced into the U.S. Senate by co-sponsors Sen. Chris Coons (D-DE), Sen. Tom Cotton (R-AZ), Sen. Dick Durbin (D-IL) and Sen. Mazie Hirono (D-HI). The bill’s purpose is “to strengthen the position of the United States as the world’s leading innovator by amending title 35, United States Code, to protect the property rights of the inventors that grow the country’s economy.”

This comprehensive legislation is exactly what is needed to strengthen our patent system, which will promote American innovation, competitiveness and job creation. For roughly a decade now, we have seen a steady weakening of patent rights in the U.S., undermining the ability of inventors to protect their innovations from infringement from large corporations and foreign entities. The STRONGER Patents Act says ‘enough is enough’ and ensures that patent rights are protected as a fundamental underpinning of our innovation economy.