Posts Tagged: "US Patent System"

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 United States Constitution grants to the Congress the power to grant patents. The relevant portion of the Constitution is Article I, Section 8, clause 8. This clause uses of the word “Right” and is the only place in the Constitution the Founding Fathers actually used the word “Right.” Yet today the Supreme Court is poised to determine whether this most fundamental of all rights, a right deemed so important that it was the only right specifically mentioned in the Constitution itself, is a private right or a public right that can be stripped with proceeding in an Article III federal court.

“Increasing numbers of US operating companies dislike patent protection,” Ding explained to IAM. “[T]he production and manufacture of products are increasingly located in Asia and Asian companies have more and more patents… opportunities are being transferred to the East just like manufacturing was.” * * * Although strong patent licensing activities are surely welcome news to Huawei and the many people employed by that firm, stakeholders in the U.S. patent system likely can’t help but see this as a further harbinger that China’s innovation economy will overtake ours in the coming years.

Native American tribal sovereign immunity thwarts both of these dilatory infringer tactics and repositions the negotiation to where it needs to be – outside of the courthouse. The tribe can inform detailed information to the infringer of their infringement and offer to enter into licensing negotiations without fear of being subjected to a DJ Action. Thus, the tribe can inform the infringer of their infringement and unless the tribe sues the infringer, the infringer will not be able to play the litigious gamesmanship or file the unending and procedurally unfair PTAB procedures. In sum, sovereign immunity equalizes the bargaining power between the inventor and the infringer and sets the negotiation table fairly.

The effects of proposed Rule 11 on the patent system will be like putting an additional bullet to a dying man. As far as patent litigation is concerned, the pending rule is intended to deliver what was missed in the AIA: shifting fees from infringers to patent owners.

Inasmuch as the new Director can change, or do whatever they want once in the job, and will be subject to political winds, I thought I’d just tell them what I want and why. Simple. Here’s my list. First, believe in your product and the team that produces the product. Stop the labeling of “legitimate patents” as compared to other, presumably, “illegitimate patents”. There is only one type of patent, the one produced by the PTO. End of story. Each receives the examination it can in light of the fees paid. Each examination is done according to the laws and rules set forth in the statute and in accord with the CAFC administration of that statute vis-à-vis the PTO. This is true across all technologies. Examiner’s do the best they can with the tools available. This includes training, searching, and examining. The PTO does not favor one group over another. It calls balls and strikes in light of the relevant statute or rule.

“I can tell you that my work in China and Japan and Korea tells me that the companies there are quite delighted to pick up the slack where American companies don’t have quite the protections that they do under their law,” Judge Vader said.  These concerns about American companies not being able to compete with Asian companies echoed the message that Donald Trump frequently expressed during the presidential campaign. During the interview, Judge Rader also mentioned “a really excellent paper from a Hoover scholar and it said they had never found an instance of a strong, growing economy that didn’t correlate with a strong protective patent system.”

The numbers are stark. As recently as 1990, individual inventors were granted 17 percent of all patents. By 2000, they received 12 percent and only 6.8 percent in 2010. In 2015, individual inventors were granted only 5.8 percent of all patents. In sum, if there is any example of a nation squandering its technological seed corn, this systematic weakening of U.S. patent protections for some “guy in the garage” is it. The great irony is that most of the people behind the screen in all this got their start in that same “garage.” They know this all too well, which is why they’re relieved to see the garage all but Closed for Business.

The Wall Street Journal explains ithat the Silicon Valley culture has long regarded copying as a good thing and necessary for rapid growth, first to market, first mover advantage, network effects, world domination, liquidity for early investors and Founders, etc. What complete and total garbage. When you live in a culture that tolerates and even promotes copying that is, in fact, what you get. When everyone copies everyone that means no one is innovating. Many studies and articles in recent years have highlighted how we have a net loss of startups over the past 30 years and that companies are no longer innovating.

Patent reformers argue that too many patents can hurt business, and low-quality patents cause problems. Their lobby activities have successfully persuaded the Congress to pass the AIA, with the primary purpose to raise patent quality…. The patent office uses all patent rules in an even-handed manner to all applicants. So, it treats corporate applicants and U.S. individual applicants in the same way: entering frivolous rejections, using one-way bias high patent quality standard, giving the same opportunity to demand inter-party review (by paying $23,000), and affording the same opportunity to defend a challenge to patents (which would consume hundreds of thousands of dollars of attorney fees). Nobody can question those rules.  However, this money-can-buy fairness practices have distorted technological landscape. Frivolous rejections can force individual inventors to abandon their applications, but do not affect giant foreign corporations; outrageous fees and maintenance fees can discourage individual inventors, but will not affect foreign corporations; and the right of harassment can be used by all corporations but not U.S. independent inventors.

With all of this money, it seems the efficient infringer lobby has managed to find an unlikely ally in Congress — someone who made his money as an innovator who defended his patents as a patent plaintiff, which apparently makes him a patent troll. At the end of the day, it may not be entirely fair to characterize Congressman Darrell Issa as a patent troll. Instead, he seems more of a swamp creature of the type that President Trump campaigned against. An individual who has fed from those who are actively trying to muck up the U.S. patent system in favor of large, entrenched entities and to the disadvantage of small, innovative patent owners who have previously always been the driving force of innovation and job creation in America.

Today, most Americans don’t realize how vital the patent system is to their standard of living. But the founding fathers certainly did. That’s why they very consciously set out to construct the world’s first DEMOCRATIZED patent system that would do what no other patent system in the world had done before; stimulate the inventive genius of the common man… I would call for patience, because I believe history has shown that the system self-corrects and will likely do so again. But in our zeal for the perfect system, remember, the perfect is the enemy of the good. So be careful what you wish for.

The facts are that the quest for the golden patent is misplaced. The real problem has been the shifting and artificial criteria of patentability, inventiveness and “obviousness.” In effect, the changing law on patent validity standards has essentially shifted the goal posts. The idea of a golden patent was originally rebutted because it is cumbersome, expensive and unworkable, with all of the burdens placed on the inventor as a sort of huge regressive tax.

Patent quality is a proxy for attacking patent validity, which has a complex history. Patent critics, particularly market incumbents, obtain a free ride when the bar is set low to attack patent validity. The changes to standards for patent obviousness have been a core source of lowering the standards for patent validity. The recent Inter Partes Review (IPR) program has overzealously applied the weak obviousness standards, causing a broad range of problems for innovators.

The U.S. patent system is the primary contributor for the U.S. economy. Since the foundering of the nation, the patent system has fostered an innovation culture that is directly responsible for making inventions that are more than all inventions accumulated in all major civilized regions in several thousands of years. However, the U.S. has inherent disadvantages in the political system and court systems… After the irreparable damages of public trust in the patent system, overhauling the patent system is no longer a feasible option. To continue existing as a powerful nation in the world, the U.S. must put its population back to the inventing business and create a renewed innovation culture, which could reach the entire population. It cannot count on the “miserable system” known in Thomas Edison’s time. Due to intensified competition and critical roles of technologies in competition, America must do far more than what is necessary to turn the dead patent system back to the same “miserable system”. One more thing that the Congress should do is to revive all invalidated patents under the AIA.