Does the Patent System Need an Overhaul?
114936
Two professors argue that seemingly innocuous reforms have caused a shift away from encouraging innovation in favor of exploiting patents largely for lawsuits.
579929
(InfoWorld) - Opponents of legislation that wouldÂ overhaul the U.S. patent system have enlisted new allies who may cause majority Democrats in Congress to rethink their support of the proposals. Since late July, three labor unions -- the AFL-CIO, the International Federation of Professional and Technical Engineers (IFPTE), and the United Steelworkers -- have sent letters to lawmakers saying they oppose two current patent reform bills. Patent reform opponents say they hope their alliance with organized labor, which has a long history of supporting Democrats, will stall the legislation. But representatives ofÂ large tech vendors that are pushing for patent reform say they're confident there will be support for the legislation when Congress returns from summer recess in early September. The committees in both the Senate and the House of Representatives approved versions of a sweeping patent reform bill in July, and House leaders have targeted the patent reform bill for passage by the end of the year. "I think the momentum exists for this thing to move forward," said Joshua Ackil, vice president of government relations for tech trade group the Information Technology Industry Council (ITI). "As folks [in Congress] dive in a little deeper on this issue, they will come around and understand how important patent reform is to the tech sector." In recent sessions of Congress, then-majority Republicans were tugged in two directions when they focused on patent reform bills similar to ones introduced in the current session of Congress. Several high-profile Republicans pushed for patent reform, and won praise from many large tech vendors, but the Republican friendly pharmaceutical industry was staunchly opposed to the bills. By enlisting labor unions, patent reform opponents are trying to put Democrats "in the same situation the Republicans were in," said Ronald Riley, president of the Professional Inventors Alliance, which represents small inventors. Riley's group, along with the American Ingenuity Alliance and other groups, have focused getting unions to back their cause in recent months. Riley portrays patent reform as enabling large tech vendors to steal the ideas of small inventors. "We're tired of these transnationals ripping off our people's work," he said. "We're just warming up." Tech vendors including Microsoft Corp., IBM Corp., and Cisco Systems Inc. have argued that the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) too often approves questionable patents, and that it's too easy for patent holders to sue, collect huge damages and shut down product lines that have a small infringing piece. In many cases, patent lawsuits are brought by companies that make all their money by owning patents, critics have said. Cisco spends US$45 million a year defending itself against patent lawsuits, Matt Tanielian, director of government relations for the company, said during a forum in June. "There's a lot of bad patents out there," he said. "When you get sued, you ought to get a fair shake." The letters to Congress from the AFL-CIO and the United Steelworkers focused on two controversial sections of the patent reform legislation in both the House and the Senate. The two groups objected to the way the legislation would change how courts apportion damages when a company is found to infringe a patent. Currently, courts generally consider the value of the entire product when a small piece of the product infringes a patent, but supporters of the bills want Congress to base damages only on the value of the infringing piece. The groups also questioned how the legislation would allow a new way of challenging patents after they're issued, called post-grant review. The bills would allow companies sued for patent infringement a new way to file challenges with USPTO. Representatives of the of the AFL-CIO and United Steelworkers didn't return messages or declined to comment on their recent interest in patent reform. But the AFL-CIO letter alluded to recent efforts of the U.S. government and the U.S. tech industry to prod China to strengthen its intellectual property protections. These two changes "may have a negative impact on innovation and research," the AFL-CIO letter said. "At a time when the Chinese government is constantly being challenged to live up to its intellectual property obligations, we do not want to take actions that may weaken ours." The United Steelworkers letter said nearly 70 percent of patents filed in the U.S. come from manufacturing firms. "These bills would allow an endless loop of legal challenges after patents are awarded that will make it more difficult for U.S. patent holders to prevail against frivolous challenges," the letter said. ITI's Ackil and representatives of two other tech groups said they doubted the unions' opposition would kill patent reform, although Ackil acknowledged that "anyone should be concerned" with opposition from large labor groups. Ackil and a representative of another tech trade group, who spoke on background, questioned the depth of the opposition from the labor unions. "The AFL-CIO has been nowhere on this issue for three years," Ackil said. Democrats knew of the labor concerns before the House Judiciary Committee approved the patent reform bill, added a spokesman for Representative Howard Berman, a California Democrat and primary sponsor of the House patent bill. "Weâre working now to try to understand and deal with any concerns labor may have," said spokesman Gene Smith. "We think that labor will not be opposing the bill when it comes to the floor soon after the House returns from recess." But the labor opposition could lead to changes in the bills, said Bill Mashek, a spokesman for the Coalition for 21st Century Patent Reform, a group that has opposed parts of the current patent bills. "Laborâs voice in the debate is significant and influential," Mashek said. "It shows, in our view, that the bill needs further work to ensure that U.S. manufacturing and innovators have the incentives to invest and develop new products. The concerns of ... organized labor resonate with members across the country and of all political stripes."
660442
Millions of inventions pass quietly through the U.S. patent office each year. Patent No. 7,033,406 did, too, until energy insiders spotted six words in the filing that sounded like a death knell for the internal combustion engine.
199190
Nanotechnology is confronting the U.S. with a familiar problem - assessing claims of innovation that do not match up neatly with the way patent examiners are trained to categorize them.
371542
High rate of patents, open-source age increase importance of intellectual property issues.
152920
Industry organizations see opposition to patent reform legislation and step up the debate.
38897
Cut and polish The UK Patent Office has proposed a new set of rules (PDF) which it says will modernise its processes. The rules are open for consultation until June.â¦
561916
Opinion: In its initial rejection of Microsoft&#39;s claims regarding the FAT file system, the US Patent and Trademark Office seems to be rediscovering a law barring &quot;obvious&quot; patents.
566970
Opponents of legislation that wouldÂ overhaul the U.S. patent system have enlisted new allies who may cause majority Democrats in Congress to rethink their support of the proposals.
464333
(InfoWorld) - In the wake of a recent landmark Supreme Court ruling, patent reform is bubbling toward a boil on Capitol Hill, where advocates in both parties and both chambers are urging timely action on pending legislation and contending with well-financed interest groups on both sides of the issue. "This is a big fight about winners and losers," said Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., adding that he is not entirely satisfied with the pending Patent Reform Act of 2007, which was introduced in the Senate in April. "The question is how do we strike the balance." The Patent Reform Act legislation would make the requirements for obtaining a new patent more stringent, make it easier for rivals to challenge patents, and reduce the penalties for patent violations. Committee chairman Patrick Leahy of Vermont said that he, Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, and a number of other colleagues have been working on the nonpartisan bill for several years and that the existing patent system was designed for a bygone era. A decision by the Supreme Court in April in the case of KSR International vs. Teleflex marked a major clarification of the court's thinking about the granting of patents for new inventions and set a higher bar for what qualifies as an original invention. The ruling has already prompted legal wrangling between VoIP vendor Vonage in its ongoing dispute with Verizon over Internet telephony patents, and legal experts say that the ruling was a direct rebuke to lower courts that have tended to favor patent owners over those challenging the legality of patents that have been issued. Despite strong support from Democratic and Republican leaders in both chambers for change in the patent system, however, passage of the bill into law is not assured.Â  IT behemoths, including Cisco, Apple, Dell, HP, Microsoft, and Oracle, have aligned as the Coalition for Patent Fairness to press for the sweeping changes envisioned in the bill. They maintain that reforms are necessary to reduce costly, sometimes frivolous litigation. However, other technology companies, including InterDigital Communications and Qualcomm, have banded together as the Innovation Alliance and joined the biotechnology and manufacturing sectors to limit changes to the system. They argue that the bill would give patent infringers an advantage. The high stakes involved in the patent issue were illustrated June 6 at a hearing of the Senate Committee on the Judiciary, which was briefly delayed as committee aides tried to locate an extra room for the overflowing crowd. "What we're trying to do here is move the process forward," Sen. Orrin Hatch said in an appeal to lobbyists for compromise once the hearing got started. "There are a number of organizations who could stop this bill." The bill's two main sticking points are a provision that would give the public a new opportunity to review patents after they've been granted, and a provision granting the right for an immediate appeal to the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit after a district court has made a pre-trial ruling on the framework that will be used to determine infringement (known as a "claim construction"). Large IT companies and the financial industry support the "post-grant review" of patents, which would allow for a reevaluation of suspect patent claims before companies are forced to go through lengthy, costly litigation, John Squires, chief intellectual property counsel at Goldman, Sachs & Co., told the committee. Opponents countered that the proposed post-grant review process would create an essentially limitless opportunity for rivals to challenge patents. "If a patent can be easily challenged at any time under a low standard of proof, (then) patents will have much less value, and investment predicated upon them will inevitably be diminished," Kathryn Biberstein, senior vice president of Alkermes, a biotechnology company, told the committee in her testimony. "This, in turn, will likely result in fewer cures for diseases and other breakthrough biotechnology products." The biotech industry and the Innovation Alliance also oppose the right for an immediate appeal after a claim construction ruling, arguing that it would encourage appeals, further prolonging cases. But advocates, including Palm senior vice president Mary Doyle, said it would reduce the chance of conducting unnecessary trials and cut down litigation costs. The witnesses were eager to raise two other controversial provisions in the legislation, regarding how damages in patent cases are determined and the expansion of the Patent and Trademark Office's authority to make rules. Doyle and Squires, supporting the bill's "mandatory apportionment" of damages provision, told the committee that damages today can be unreasonably high because the calculation is based on the value of an entire product, not just the patented feature at issue. Countering that argument, Biberstein and Bruce Bernstein, chief intellectual property and licensing officer at InterDigital, said that the provision would replace today's market-oriented valuation of inventions with subjective jury findings. Debate on expanding the PTO's rulemaking authority mirrored the rest of the patent debate with representatives from the financial sector and the Coalition for Patent Reform joining forces in support, while witnesses from the biotechnology sector and the Innovation Alliance cautioned against the change. An identical House version of the Patent Reform Act is pending, having recently won approval by the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Intellectual Property. Leahy said he is eager to prepare the legislation for a vote by the Senate Judiciary Committee, but he did not indicate when that vote might occur.ADVERTISEMENTIBM Information On Demand 2006Industrial Industry Leaders, please join us at IBM's premier information management global event, IBM Information On Demand 2006, October 15-20, Anaheim, CA. More IBM business and technical solutions content in one place than ever before! Select from  over 800 sessions. Register today!
512231
Intel's general counsel calls for patent reform to move forward in Congress.
150486
Opt-in won't work for Peer to Patent project A pioneering project aimed at improving the quality of patents in the US must be made compulsory if it is to work, according to the project's manager. Currently the pilot project is only voluntary.â¦
415630
The House yesterday passed the most comprehensive patent reform in half a century, delivering a victory for computer technology and financial services companies and leaving drug companies, small inventors, and the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office bracing for a bigger fight before the bill hits the...
537643
(InfoWorld) - Patent reform legislation before the U.S. Congress would kill the value of patents and allow companies from other countries to steal U.S. intellectual property, a group of inventors said Thursday. About 20 inventors and U.S. company executives, visiting Washington, D.C., encouraged Congress to defeatÂ the Patent Reform Act, a version of which passed the House of Representatives earlier this month. The Senate has not yet voted on its version of the bill. The legislation "will weaken the patent system," said Dean Kamen, inventor of the Segway and the AutoSyringe. "It will devalue patents. It will be a disincentive for people to invest in the future." Several large tech vendors, including Microsoft, IBM, and Cisco, support the legislation, which would allow courts to change they way they assess damages in patent infringement cases. Currently, courts generally consider the value of the entire product when a small piece of the product infringes a patent, and the legislation would allow courts to base damages only on the value of the infringing piece. The legislation would also allow a new way to challenge patents after they've been granted. Supporters say the bill is needed because patent infringement lawsuits have gotten out of hand. It's too easy for patent holders to sue and collect huge damage awards when a small piece of a tech product is found to infringe, supporters argue. Microsoft this month praised the House passage of the legislation, saying lawmakers voted to "support American innovation and to preserve incentives for progress." But Peter Volanakis, president and COO of Corning, said the legislation would be an invitation for its competitors in Asia to repeatedly challenge his company's patents. "This encourages infringement, plain and simple," he said. "It is much easier to infringe patents with this legislation." The patent reform legislation would also "undermine" Corning's ability to invest in new products, Volanakis added. Steve Perlman, inventor of WebTV and lead developer of Apple's QuickTime, said he was surprised to learn of the legislation when he read of the House passage of the bill. As he's begun to contact lawmakers about his opposition to the legislation, their staffers are "stunned" to hear of tech startups that are opposed to the bill, Perlman said. Small inventors and startups were mostly ignored during hearings on the bill, Perlman added. One of the goals of the bill is to harmonize U.S. patent laws with the rest of the world. But the U.S. now has the best environment for startups and entrepreneurs, Perlman said. "I don't want to have the startup economy they have," he said. "I want the one we have." Perlman, founder and CEO of Rearden, and Kamen, founder of DEKA Research & Development, both said changes to the U.S. patent system are needed. But the legislation largely doesn't address the real needs -- more patent examiners and more money for the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, they said. Perlman has a patent he applied for five years ago still awaiting examination, he said. "Let's first make the system we've got today work the way it's supposed to work," Perlman said. Congress should also wait to see the effects of a May 2006 Supreme Court ruling, in which justices overturned the long-held practice of issuing injunctions against infringing products in nearly all patent cases, Perlman said. That ruling should have a large effect on so-called patent trolls, he said. "There already has been a huge change" in U.S. patent law because of the Supreme Court ruling, he said.
639369
The Patents (Third) Amendment Bill, which might be tabled in Parliament during the coming winter session, is a Bill which will pave the way for a new patent law.
258744
Prevista revisione patente a punti e codice strada
724627
(InfoWorld) - Technology industry executives are pushing the U.S. Congress to reform the way patents are issued in order to process them more quickly while also making sure they are legitimate. Patent reform was one of the major issues discussed at the Tech Policy Summit Monday in San Jose, California. Patent reform legislation considered, but not passed, in Congress last year is expected to be reintroduced. Among the key provisions sought is the hiring of more patent review specialists by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, which one critic at the conference said has a backlog of as many as 1 million applications. Another provision would make it more difficult for so-called patent "trolls" to acquire a patent, claim another company infringed on it and then force the company to pay a settlement in order to keep its business going. Lastly, reform advocates seek an improvement in the quality of patents, pointing to cases where patents are issued for innovations that are not unique. They also propose a post-patent review process. In a speech Monday night at the summit, Deborah Platt Majoras, chairman of the U.S. Federal Trade Commission, endorsed the idea of post-patent review. "Patents are not a driver of innovation, they are an impediment to innovation," said Mark Lemley, a professor of law at Stanford University Law School, speaking at the summit. "Everyone has an example of silly patents, such as the cat exerciser laser pen," Lemley said, but the problems with the patent law are more serious than that. Often, one company asserts a patent right against another company and forces that company to stop production until the patent issue is resolved. "The patent holdup forces the company to settle for more money than the patent is worth," Lemley said. There are also delays in the process of approving patents. SAP AG, the enterprise software maker, once had to wait 44 months until a patent application was approved, said Tim Crean, chief intellectual property officer and a member of the Coalition for Patent Fairness, an industry group advocating reform. An official of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office said the agency is planning to hire 1,200 patent specialists in fiscal year 2008. The patent office receives half of its patent applications electronically and wants to increase that number. Last year it approved 350,000 patents. But some at the summit want Congress toÂ move cautiously on patent reform. A group called the Innovation Alliance was recently formed to protect companies that patent technology but don't manufacture it. Taraneh Maghame, vice president and emerging technologies counsel for Tessera Technologies, said attempts to limit the rights of companies to defend patent rights could harm legitimate patent protection efforts of some companies. Tessera develops chip packaging technology and licenses it to chip manufacturers, such as Intel. "Not all of the tech industry is behind patent reform," Maghame said. Close to 300 people, including tech executives, advocacy groups and government officials, were expected to attend the Tech Policy Summit, which continues Tuesday.