Please note that some of the links provided below will direct you to the homepages of the cited news organizations. You may need a subscription to view the full text version of some of the following stories.
EE Times "Senator: Committee struck deal on patent reform," Rick Merritt, February 25, 2010.
SAN JOSE, Calif. — A U.S. Senate committee has struck a rough compromise on a controversial patent reform bill that has been stalled for several months while Congress has debated health care. A Senator leading the charge for reform suggested the compromise keeps the draft bill alive by balancing calls for lowering damages in patent infringement suits with calls for improving the quality of patents.
Congress introduced a host of legislation during 2009 with the potential to impact the practice of the law on many fronts - from overhauling the nation's patent laws and lowering the bar for discovery in civil litigation to expanding the federal bench and banning mandatory arbitration clauses.
BusinessWeek, “U.S. Patents Take a Fall” Michael Arndt, December 17, 2009.
Has the U.S. lost its Yankee ingenuity? For the first time in 2009, non-Americans were granted more U.S. patents than resident inventors, accounting for 50.7% of new grants, according to recent data from the Patent & Trademark Office. Moreover, for only the second time in the last 25 years, patent applications fell overall in the year ended Sept. 30.
Until now, the major bones of contention over the Senate's patent "reform" bill (S. 515) have centered around two provisions: putting in place statutory language governing how damages are to be assessed, and instituting a post-grant review system modeled on the European opposition, and that will be more extensive than current re-examinations.
CNNMoney.com, “Recession's latest victim: U.S. innovation” David Goldman, December 11, 2009.
U.S. innovation slowed this year for the first time in 13 years as the recession cut into budgets, and costs to protect inventions rose. The number of patent filings in the United States fell 2.3% in 2009 to 485,500 from 496,886 last year, according to a preliminary estimate by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. That makes 2009 the first year since 1996 in which businesses and inventors filed fewer patents year over year.
PopularMechanics, “Inventors Slam Patent Reform Effort” Erik Sofge, December 9, 2009.
A major change to patent law, the Senate's Patent Reform Act of 2009, could have a significant impact on innovation in the United States for generations to come. PM talked to leading innovators in a range of fields to get their take on what the Reform Act could mean for the future.
The Wall Street Journal, “Recession Spurs Growth In US Patent Marketplace” December 7, 2009.
For the first time in more than a decade, U.S. companies and inventors grappling with the recession filed fewer patent applications this year. But companies struggling with tight budgets also increasingly discovered that patents can be lucratively licensed or sold.
Mirk Buzdum and Dick "Cappy" Capstran, a pair of garage entrepreneurs in Milwaukee, know full well that their designs for drill bits and cutting tools are good. "It's obvious that these technologies are valid, because people are stealing them and they're in production," Buzdum said.
Robert C. Pozen stresses the importance of reforming our nation’s patent system. He writes that “Congress shouldn’t make the best the enemy of the good.” We could not agree more. Innovation and intellectual property-dependent industries drive our economy. This makes all the more troubling the recent Newsweek survey finding that only 41 percent of Americans believe that the United States is staying ahead of China on innovation, and only 32 percent of Americans believe that we are staying ahead of Japan.
Paul Michel, chief judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit since 2004, announced last week that he will retire this spring. Since his appointment to the circuit court in 1988, Michel has written more than 800 opinions in areas including patent law, government contracts and international trade. He has been outspoken on a variety of topics including Congress’s push to overhaul patent laws, saying that patent issues should be resolved in court and not on Capitol Hill.
The IAM Blog posted on a recent study by Gray/Wegner of Foley & Lardner, which study observed, among other things: #1. Within the coming decade it may be estimated that just 150 companies will account for 50 % of all American patents granted, while just the top ten companies will soon account for 20 % of all patents granted
Congress is currently drafting final language for a patent reform bill claiming to unclog the U.S. Patent Office. Federal "patent reform" is a misnomer. With the nation and media's attention diverted toward government reform in health care, a group of large companies, mainly from the technology sector, have been urging lawmakers to reduce penalties for companies caught infringing patented technology, while making it harder for patent holders to defend their property.
Kappos Blog, “Advancing USPTO’s Work Sharing Efforts” November 18, 2009.
Today the USPTO is hosting a roundtable on international work sharing. This forum will bring together distinguished panelists from interested stakeholder groups to have an open discussion on the issues and implications around work sharing. Work sharing is an important tool for speeding the processing of applications filed in multiple jurisdictions by enabling patent offices to avail themselves of work done by another patent office.
Patent damages have become wildly excessive. Or not. The issue has roiled the courts and produced bruising battles in Congress. It has pitted the pharmaceutical and biotech industries against the IT and software industries.
New York Times, “Inventing a Better Patent System” Robert C. Pozen, November 16, 2009.
GARY LOCKE, the secretary of commerce, has urged Congress to overhaul the nation’s patent law by the end of the year. Although a bill has been circulating since 2005, a fierce fight involving the high-tech and drug industries on a technical issue — how to measure damages when a company violates a patent applying to one component of a larger product — has kept it from reaching a vote.
The Supreme Court last week became Exhibit A for the case that technological change is fast outpacing the ability of government to deal with it. The last time the justices tried to address broadly what kinds of innovations are entitled to patent protection was a generation ago. It showed.
The Coalition for Patent Fairness (CPF) has put out a memo trying to debunk what it sees as the myth that patent reform no longer requires congressional action. From CPF: “The Court’s ability to effect needed changes is limited because it is restricted by the language Congress enacted more than 50 years ago.
National Journal, “PTO Director Launches Blog” Juliana Gruenwald, November 10, 2009.
U.S. Patent and Trademark Office Director David Kappos launched a new blog Tuesday to "provide an open channel for sustained dialogue and the exchange of ideas.”
The Hill, “Kappos: Change is coming to patent office” Kim Hart, November 06, 2009.
U.S. Patent and Trademark Office Director David Kappos told inventors yesterday there will be "significant changes ahead" for the patent system, especially if the current patent reform bill is passed by Congress.
FierceCIO, “High-tech seeks patent policy changes” Judi Hasson, November 04, 2009.
Congress is considering an overhaul of U.S. patent policy that would bring the first major changes in more than half a century. The giant technology sector stands firmly behind the issue, but small firms and startups oppose it. The bill is trying to bring the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office in line with international standards and streamline the patent process in the U.S., where the patent office faces a huge backlog of applications.
Congress is considering an overhaul of U.S. patent policy that would bring the first major changes in more than half a century. But a disagreement between big and small companies over one aspect of the bill could derail its passage.
The licensing of inventions by academic institutions to corporations contributed as much as $187 billion to the US gross national product and $457 billion to US gross industrial output, and created nearly 300,000 new jobs from 1996 to 2007, according to a report released Wednesday by the Biotechnology Industry Organization.
IT Business Edge, “Correcting the Tech Patent Problem” Lora Bentley, October 27, 2009.
Not long ago, InformationWeek VP and editor-in-chief Rob Preston wrote a column about the brokenness of the U.S. patent system. Preston bemoaned patent trolls and noted that patent litigation often affects those far beyond the software and technology industries.
EE Times, “Universities Weigh in on Patent Reform” Rick Merritt, October 26, 2009.
A group of university organizations sent a letter to White House officials expressing concerns in the ongoing debate over patent reform. The letter said the group believes S.515, the current Senate patent reform bill, is tied up in "negotiations underway within the Senate Judiciary Committee."
For the third time in five years, the U.S. Congress is considering an overhaul of the country's patent policy that would bring the first major changes in more than half a century. But there is a snag that could still derail this latest bill's passage.
Twelve Republican U.S. senators on Thursday sent a letter to Senate leaders criticizing pending patent legislation, saying the bill "threatens to diminish the value and enforceability of U.S. patent rights."
EE Times, "Report Attacks Post-Grant Patent Review," Rick Merritt, July 20, 2009.
A new post-grant review process proposed in a patent reform bill before Congress would add to the delays and costs getting patents, according to an analysis by a professor at Case Western Reserve. The Patent Reform Act of 2009 could come up in a vote before the Senate as early as this fall. The new post-grant review process defined in the bill is one of the current flash points of debate over the legislation.
The Hill, “Don’t Pit One Part of Economy Against Another,” Rep. Don Manzullo (Op-ed), June 23, 2009.
Members of Congress should not be forced to choose between constituents in various economic sectors on an issue as complex and important as patent reform, especially during a recession. Rather than repeating failed tactics from the 110th Congress, the House and Senate Judiciary committees should strive for real consensus.
The Hill, “Tech Giants are Aiming to Infringe,” Rep. Marcy Kaptur (Op-ed), June 23, 2009.
Legislation to weaken patent protections for inventors is again before the Congress. The question is why, in the middle of the greatest recession since World War II? At precisely the moment when America needs to create more and better jobs from new industries, why would Congress want to weaken the incentives for inventors and the venture capitalists who invest in innovation?
In the patent community, there has been discussion concerning recently proposed legislation called the federal Patent Reform Act of 2009 (Senate Bill 515) to restrict rights for patents owned by companies that do not make or sell an invention covered by the patent. The current United States patent system allows an owner or purchaser of a patent, even though they do not make, use or sell the product covered by the patent themselves, to license or sue others over the patent to derive revenue.
Law360, "Patent Damages Best Left To Courts: Chief Judge," June 2, 2009.
Claims by academic legal experts that U.S. courts refuse to apportion damages in patent cases and that damages awards tend to overcompensate patent owners have been “greatly exaggerated,” according to the top judge at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.
Joining the charged debate on patent reform legislation, Federal Circuit Chief Judge Paul R. Michel challenged some of the congressional testimony in support of a provision to limit damages awarded in patent infringement litigation when he spoke at the American Intellectual Property Law Association's Spring Meeting last month.
San Jose Mercury News, "Opinion: Patent Office Is a Disaster That Holds Back Economic Growth," Hank Nothhaft (Op-ed), May 14, 2009.
Washington is pumping billions of dollars into private industry to stimulate the economy. But Congress and the Obama administration could look right in their backyard for a surefire way to prime the economic pump: Fix the U.S. Patent and Trade Office.
The patent office is broken. It is underfunded, overburdened and faces huge hurdles in hiring and retention.
EE Times, " 'Patent Assassins' Ad Stirs Reform Debate," Rick Merritt, April 21, 2009.
An in-your-face advertising campaign has stirred debate over the legal process for challenging patents, an issue now being debated in the U.S. Senate. The "Patent Assassins" Web site promotes legal services that use a review process at the U.S. Patent Office to kill patents or tie them up in lengthy proceedings.
The Web site and ads were deliberately calculated to drum up business for its creator, the SoCal IP Law Group LLP (Westlake Village, Calif.). They talk about tactics such as creating "a simulated swell of opposition to the patent" or generating a legal traffic jam "that can keep a problem patent in re-exam for a long, long time.
C-SPAN Video: “Debate on Congressional Bills for Patent Laws,” featuring Taraneh Maghame of Tessera Inc., March 21, 2009.
The following article was reproduced with permission from Daily Report for Executives, No. 22 (Feb. 5,2009)p.A-5. Copyright 2009 by The Bureau of National Affairs, Inc. (800-372-1033), http://www.bna.com.
BNA, Nathan Pollard, "IP Groups Praise Obama's Appointment Of Sen. Judd Gregg for Commerce Secretary," February 5, 2009.
President Obama's nomination of Republican Sen. Judd Gregg (N.H.) for secretary of commerce Feb. 3 garnered immediate applause from various intellectual property coalitions and associations. The groups said the choice represents a positive step toward patent reform, the promotion of innovation, and turning the economy around.
Gregg's familiarity with intellectual property issues from his work in the Senate and his appreciation of ownership rights will help to provide quality advice for Obama in his intellectual property decisionmaking, the groups said.
Congressional Experience
Obama's first choice for the post, New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson (D), withdrew when an investigation involving a political donor came to light.
Gregg is a three-term senator from New Hampshire who, before joining the Senate, served the state as its governor and as a member of the House of Representatives.
Gregg won praise for his strong advocacy of intellectual property rights and protections during his time in Congress. In addition to his role in overseeing Patent and Trademark Office funding as a member of the Commerce-Justice-Science Appropriations Subcommittee, he co-sponsored several IP related bills over the years, including legislation to extend the terms of patents on bioterrorism countermeasures.
Most recently, Gregg was a co-sponsor of the PRO-IP Act (S. 3325). That measure, signed into law last October, was aimed at bolstering anti-piracy enforcement tools at the executive-branch level.
Herbert Wamsley of the Intellectual Property Owners Association, in an e-mail message to BNA, welcomed Gregg's nomination, pointing to his “outstanding record in the Senate, and also years ago in the House of Representatives, on issues of interest to IPO members and the business community generally.”
“He is well known as a hard worker with the ability to understand and solve complex governmental problems … he is well acquainted with the programs of the Commerce Department, including the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office,” Wamsley said.
Familiarity With PTO
Because the PTO is an agency of the Commerce Department, Gregg's qualifications and interests are of great importance to intellectual property groups. A Feb. 3 press statement by the Coalition for 21st Century Patent Reform—a federation of nearly 50 manufacturing and researching companies that advocate for patent reforms—called Gregg “very familiar with the operations of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office and the improvements that are needed to strengthen our nation's patent system.”
Mark Esper, executive vice president of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce Global Intellectual Property Center, also hailed Gregg's nomination. Esper wrote on the chamber blog Feb. 3 that “as a past proponent of improved coordination for government IP enforcement efforts as well as reforming the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office,” Gregg's perspective will be a “welcome sign about the quality of advice President Obama will be receiving about protecting inventors' rights through a strong intellectual property system.”
Priorities Ahead
Gregg will have his work cut out for him if confirmed, but intellectual property groups are hopeful what he brings to the table will create positive reforms.
Gregg's support “of policies that have helped drive America's innovation agenda and our global technology leadership … is exactly the focus we need if we are to turn our economy around and put Americans back to work,” the Innovation Alliance—a coalition of companies seeking to enhance innovation through improving the quality of patents—said in a Feb. 3 press statement.
Among the issues the new secretary of commerce will face, the alliance noted, “will be how to improve and protect the U.S. patent system—which is the key to encouraging future innovation.”
The Coalition for 21st Century Patent Reform agreed, saying that “the first step should be to look at the current patent system realities to determine the scope of any legislation and what is really needed to promote innovation.” The coalition urged Gregg to “ensure our patent system is balanced, fair and promotes innovation and employment around the country.”
EETimes.com, "Patent Pending: Backlog is an Issue in Reform Push," Rick Merritt, January 26, 2009.
The winds of change blowing through Washington D.C. are fanning the fires of patent reform. The U.S. Senate is expected to re-introduce patent reform legislation soon while the Federal Trade Commission is already holding hearings on the topic. And President Barack Obama is expected to name a new head of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (PTO), the flash point for many calling for reform.
Entrepreneur.com, “How Patent Law Changes Could Hurt Small Inventors," Tamara Monosoff, August 13, 2008.
Under current patent law, when two patent applications are filed for the same invention by different inventors, the inventor who can prove he or she was the first person to invent it is legally entitled to the resulting patent. Presently, these conflicts are resolved within the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) through interference proceedings. Under the proposed Patent Reform Act, however, our current "first to invent" system would be replaced with a "first to file" system, which would award patents to the party that was "first off the blocks" to file the patent.
The Wall Street Journal, “Running the Show: Caught in the Crossfire," Stuart Weinberg, August 11, 2008.
The patent-reform bill stalled in the Senate in April after negotiations over the apportionment provision broke down. While Sen. Patrick Leahy, a Vermont Democrat and one of the bill's sponsors, remains committed to the bill, there are no plans to bring it to the floor, an aide to Sen. Leahy says. Both candidates in the coming presidential election have expressed support for patent reform.
Gulf Breeze News [Op-ed], “Don't Mess with American Ingenuity, Douglas Schoen, July 16, 2008.
What if I told you that labor unions, small-business associations, drug companies, physicians' groups, prominent academics and the Bush administration were all lined up against a major piece of federal legislation currently winding its way through congress? Would the convergence of these normally disparate interests make you suspicious of the legislation, sight unseen? It should. All these groups have publicly opposed the Patent Reform Act, a bill that's supposedly aimed at modernizing America's patent system.
Wisconsin State Journal [Editorial], “Don't Put Tech Innovation at Risk," April 17, 2008.
When the U.S. Senate takes another try at reforming patent law, it should do a better job of assuring that changes won 't discourage American innovation.
Chicago Tribune [Op-ed], "The Big Idea: Finders Weepers," John W. Estey, March 28, 2008.
The innocently named Patent Reform Act will weaken our country's patent protections and do serious harm to thousands of innovative companies across the country. That means our international competitiveness will be threatened, and our efforts to get other nations to strengthen their intellectual property laws will be undermined.
Des Moines Register [Op-ed], "Nurture Agriculture Success: Protect Patent Rights," Dean Oestrieich, March 28, 2008.
Iowans are justifiably proud of our national reputation as a leader in agriculture production. Our state consistently ranks at or near the top in nearly all categories of grain and livestock production. But that standing could be threatened by the Patent Reform Act of 2007, being considered by the U.S. Congress.
Boston Globe [Op-ed], "Good for IPods, but Bad for Patients.", John M. Maraganore, March 24, 2008.
A "PERFECT storm" in Washington is currently building against biomedical patent protection. Pending decisions by the Supreme Court, the patent office, and Congress could fundamentally change the ground rules for patent protection within the life sciences industry to such a degree that in a decade we may not have an industry remaining.
Wilmington News Journal [Op-ed], "Patent Rights Favor Creation of Jobs," Uma Chowdhry, March 22, 2008.
Our country's patent system encourages innovation, which drives economic growth and helps the world address challenges such as hunger, global warming and energy security. The future of innovation, however, is threatened by the Patent Reform Act of 2007, currently being considered by Congress.This proposed legislation would favor patent infringers over the very inventors who invest in creating new technologies.
News and Observer [Op-ed], "No Need for New Rules.", Raymond Mercado, March 12, 2008.
The main cause for concern, at least from the perspective of the patent reform bill's proponents, seems to stem from the size of recent jury awards leveled against them for infringing others' technology. It is no mistake that the strongest supporters the bill are those that have incurred some of the highest patent infringement verdicts on record.
The Columbus Dispatch [Op-ed], "Patent-Reform Legislation Would Usher out U.S. jobs.”, William Burga, March 8, 2008.
The House of Representatives approved House Resolution 1908 last summer, and currently Senate Bill 1145 is under consideration in the Senate. This so-called patent reform will set up a one-way magic carpet for U.S. jobs and technology to fly to Bangladesh and Beijing.
Minneapolis Star Tribune [Op-ed], “A Threat to Invention.", Sally C. Pipes, March 6, 2008.
U.S. patents have fostered American innovation ever since George Washington signed the first one in 1790. By protecting the rights of inventors, the U.S. patent system has spurred the development of everything from the light bulb to life-saving medicine. You wouldn't think that Congress would want to mess with such a winning formula. But that's exactly what lawmakers plan to do this month, when the Patent Reform Act hits the Senate floor.
Statesman Journal [Op-ed], “Patent Reform Could Hurt Key U.S. Allies – and Oregonians., Morten Messerschmidt, February 29, 2008.
It is important to remember that such a systematic attack on U.S. patents will not only hurt innovative companies in the United States. There will be a global fall-out given the large amount of foreign innovators that rely on the U.S. patent system to protect their intellectual property. Indeed, the patent system is a key pillar of American "soft power," earning goodwill for the United States among the best and the brightest minds around the world while frustrating imitators and their lawyers.
Here's the greatest irony of American capitalism. On one hand, the White House and Congress rush in to stave off a recession with a stimulus package. On the other, the U.S. Senate is about to pass patent legislation that will hurt the very same economy by suffocating its lifeline called "innovation" - a lifeline already seriously impaired by a series of anti-patent judicial decisions made over the past two years.
Brooklyn Daily Eagle [Op-ed], "Where Europe Should Emulate America," Benedetto Della Vedova, February 13, 2008.
Perhaps most damaging, the Patent Reform Act provides a post-grant review process that allows any patent to be challenged ad infinitum. This would increase costs for inventors and jeopardize the value of patents. Significantly, the standard for revoking a patent in this process would be lowered from the current “clear convincing evidence” standard to a “preponderance of the evidence.”
The New York Times, "Two Views of Innovation, Colliding in Washington.", John Markoff, January 13, 2008.
As the Senate prepares to tinker with the nation’s patent laws this spring, it’s worth recalling the law of unintended consequences. From the vantage point of a half-century, for example, it’s clear that the formation of Silicon Valley involved serendipity more than intentional design.
The Albuquerque Journal, "Patent Protection Crucial for State.", Elizabeth J. Kuuttila, December 3, 2007.
America's founders foresaw the value of innovation and entrepreneurialism when they explicitly spoke to the creation of a patent system in the U.S. Constitution. Innovation requires two things— ideas and courage. Patents allow ideas to be shared without the threat of theft. Patents also reward the courage needed to pursue those ideas by granting innovators and the investors who back them with a limited period of market exclusivity.
New Scientist, "Inventors Cry Foul Over Patent Law Reform.", Paul Marks, November 26, 2007.
Nonetheless, 430 organisations, including biotech, nanotech, pharmaceuticals, transport, mobile telephony and chemicals firms, and universities, have joined Riley's independent inventors in an umbrella group called the Innovation Alliance. Their aim is to persuade Congress to scrap the bill. What is needed instead, the alliance says, is massive investment in the USPTO so that it can properly assess previous inventions to ensure the patents it grants are genuinely novel, and prevent overly broad patents from being granted.
E-Commerce Times [Op-Ed], "Patents Shrugged.", Raymond Van Dyke, October 30, 2007.
At this moment, there are bills before Congress and new administrative rules at the United States Patent & Trademark Office that dramatically affect many long-established patent rights. Patents are limited exclusionary rights granted to inventors to help prevent others from using their invention without permission. Indeed, patents are actually brief windows during which innovators can take advantage of their technological creations, that is, twenty years from filing for the right. Afterwards, the innovation enters the public domain for all to use.
The Wall Street Journal [Op-Ed], "Congress's Patent Mistakes.", Claude Barfield and John E. Calfee, October 29, 2007.
Congress is preparing to enact far-reaching reforms of the patent system, and the stakes are high: Intellectual property in the U.S., the security of which relies upon the patent system, is worth more than $5 trillion today -- roughly 40% of our annual GDP. Sweeping legislative change would, however, be a dangerous mistake. Critics have complained vigorously about the patent system's perceived inequities and inefficiencies. A proliferation of low-quality patents, skyrocketing litigation costs and potentially ruinous damages for patent infringement have, they argue, combined to undermine the foundations of inventiveness. Congress is sympathetic, but reforms are hotly contested by contending corporate coalitions.
PC World, "Patent Reform Debate Heats Up.", Grant Gross, September 26, 2007.
But another group, the Innovation Alliance, sent a letter to Senate leaders Tuesday urging them to reject the legislation."No compelling case has been made for a bill written in this fashion," read the Innovation Alliance letter, signed by 430 companies and organizations. "It is based on claims of a crisis in the current patent system that does not exist, supported by selective assertions which do not hold up under scrutiny."Among the companies and organizations signing the Innovation Alliance letter were the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers-USA, the NanoBusiness Alliance, Cargill, Coca-Cola, and Qualcomm.
BNA, "Inventors' Group, IP Trade Associations Sound Alarms on Patent Reform Legislation." September 24, 2007.
Representatives of the patent holders' group the Innovation Alliance warned at a Sept. 20 roundtable discussion that the patent reform bill passed in the House of Representatives and moving toward the floor in the Senate has potentially disastrous implications for U.S. inventors, researchers, and workers.
(to view the article in its entirety please contact Susan Mora at smora@fratelli.com)
Bloomberg, "Microsoft Patent Win in Court May Cut Its Chances in Congress." Susan Decker, September 5, 2007.
``The effort to reform the patent system has been going on for years, and many people just stopped paying attention,'' said Alexander Poltorak, owner of a patent licensing company and author of two books on patents. ``Now they're waking up to the possibility that it might just pass and that it would be a disaster.''
Patent Reform Act: It Has Everything an Infringer Could Want (Two Retorts to Bruce Sewell's WSJ Editorial)
Mr. Sewell describes our patent system as being "outpaced by the swift evolution of technology and commerce." It is interesting to note that the biotechnology, pharmaceutical and medical-devices industries, centers of tremendous breakthrough invention, all oppose this so-called "reform" measure. Major universities, including the presidents of every Big Ten university and the University of California system, also oppose this bill. The National Venture Capital Association, no stranger to innovative technologies, has said the current legislation "could put in jeopardy the existing supports necessary for entrepreneurial risk."
The Politico, “Tech vs. Tech: The Patent War.”, Chris Frates, July 25, 2007
During the House markup, officials with the Innovation Alliance and the 21st Century coalition were hopeful that an amendment to add the Georgia Pacific factors to the bill would pass. But the change, to be sponsored by Reps. Hank Johnson Jr. (D-Ga.) and Tom Feeney (R-Fla.), was never offered in the Judiciary Committee.
The Record, "RIM has major stake in U.S. patent legislation.", Matt Walcoff, July 25, 2007
Congressional committees have discussed patent reform for several years, and both Democrats and Republicans have expressed support for changes to patent laws. But until this summer, Congress had yet to take any action on the issue. The RIM-NTP case played a role in bringing the matter to the foreground and continues to influence some politicians' perception of patent law issues, said Bryan Lord, co-founder of the Innovation Alliance, a group of companies that opposes the bills.
IP LAW 360, “Proposed Patent Reforms Will Hurt Innovation.", Dennis S. Fernandez and Christopher Fasel, July 24, 2007
In its most negative embodiment, patent troll refers to an organization that purchases patents from inventors for the sole purpose of gaining profit with the use of legal expertise or financial means to instigate licensing negotiations against any/all infringers.
The Philadelphia Inquirer, “Industry Groups Patently at Odds: Battle Over Patent Law Pits Software Firms Against Traditional Manufacturers, Chris Mondics, July 24, 2007
Both the House and the Senate are working on legislation that would substantially reduce penalties for businesses accused of hijacking the ideas and inventions of competitors. Critics of the legislation say the bills substantially undermine protections traditionally afforded inventors -- and could pose a powerful disincentive for investors to risk their capital on untried ideas.
The Economic Times, "Local Cos Can Eye Patents in US.", Gireesh Chandra Prasad, July 23, 2007
A Crucial bill making its way through the US Congress is set to give a new inexpensive option for Indian drug makers to attack the patents that give monopoly rights to top-selling MNC brands in the largest pharmaceutical market.
The Boston Globe (Editorial), "Patently Flawed." July 23, 2007
Innovations protected by patents are a wellspring of the US economy -- and especially of the Massachusetts economy. So any congressional reform of the patent law should follow a basic rule of medicine: "First, do no harm." If the current law were as deeply flawed as some critics say, Kendall Square in Cambridge would not be the envy of other nations seeking to create their own incubators of new technology. The most serious problem with the patent system is not its ground rules but simply understaffing of the patent office.
The Boston Globe (Op - Ed), "A Fresh Look at Patent Laws.", Bill Hewitt and Tod Loofbourow, July 23, 2007
A long time ago, our economy was based largely within US borders, and patent innovation involved ways to improve the workings of a typewriter. Times have changed.
The Kansas CIty Business Journal, "Patent Reform Could Favor Big Business." Steve Vockrodt, July 23, 2007
If the Patent Reform Act of 2007 gets passed by Congress, it would make for the most significant changes in American patent law since the 1950s. "This has more legs than anything I've seen before," said Tracey Truitt, a patent lawyer with Erickson & Kleypas LLC.
ComputerWorld, "Is the House Getting it RIght on Patent Reform?" Richard Ormond, July 20, 2007
The House of Representatives has approved the form of a bill that would significantly reform United States patent law, particularly with regard to litigation. If the new law were to be enacted, it would award a patent to the first person to file for a patent, which is the more common method internationally.
Technology Daily, “Intellectual Property; Senate Patent Bill Faces Challenging Road to Floor.” Andrew Noyes, July 20, 2007
The Innovation Alliance, which represents small tech and patent licensing firms, said the Senate measure is "still very problematic." "The bill will still erode, not strengthen, patent protections, thereby dampening innovation and stifling entrepreneurship."
The New York Times, “Patent Law Changes Power Ahead in Congress.”, Anne Broache, July 20, 2007
"The bill will still erode, not strengthen, patent protections thereby dampening innovation and stifling entrepreneurship," a group called the Innovation Alliance said of the Senate bill's approval. The group, whose members include Qualcomm, Tessera and AmberWave Systems, voiced similar reservations about the House version.
Forbes.com, “Patent Fight Pending.”, Brian Wingfield, July 20, 2007
So expect a fight. Congress is subject to special interests, and there is a fierce lobbying effort under way to affect the outcome of patent reform legislation. Tech firms in favor of broad reforms are generally allied in the Coalition for Patent Fairness. An opposing group, the Innovation Alliance, generally represents smaller patent holders, but also includes firms, such as Qualcomm (nasdaq: QCOM - news - people ), which rely on licensing patents that are used on other products such as cellphones.
Technology Daily, “High – Tech Groups Pleased With Panel’s Patent Bill.”, Andrew Noyes, July 19, 2007
A spokeswoman for the Innovation Alliance did not view the adjustment as an improvement because it "introduces enormous uncertainty for patent holders" whom she said would face "countless validity challenges."
The Washington Times, “Patent Bill Seen Hurting Little Guy.”, Tom Ramstack, July 19, 2007
A group of inventors calling themselves the Innovation Alliance wrote a letter to key members of Congress recently, saying the bill would "hinder innovation across the diverse sectors of the American economy we represent."
Congress Daily, “Berman Agrees to Change Apportionment, Patent Bill OK’d.”, Bill Swindell, July 18, 2007
The Innovation Alliance represents high-tech companies such as Qualcomm Inc. and Tessera Inc. that license products to other users. The group said it was "disappointed with the lack of real progress" on the bill.
The Baltimore Sun (Op – Ed), “Stop Reckless Rush to Overhaul Patent System.”, Kevin L. Kearns,July 18, 2007
The Senate bill's assault on intellectual property rights has inspired a wide-ranging alliance of opposition from high-tech firms, independent inventors, university research centers, venture capitalists and manufacturers. Opponents include the high-tech Innovation Alliance, the Big Ten university presidents, the National Venture Capital Association and the Coalition for 21st Century Patent Reform.
CongressNow, “Judiciary Delays Patent Reform Markup as Members Try to Resolve Sticking Points.”, Charlene Carter, July 12, 2007
Attempts by Senate Judiciary Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) to wrap up his committee’s consideration of landmark patent reform legislation was postponed for yet another week, as lawmakers attempted to revise the bill’s language on a number of issues.
CQ Today – Legal Affairs, “Universities Weigh In on Pitfalls of Patent Bill.”, Seth Stern, July 11, 2007
Research universities are shaping up as an unexpected and a potentially problematic obstacle to passage of legislation overhauling patent law.
Democrat Dianne Feinstein of California, a member of the Senate committee scheduled to mark up the bill (S 1145) on Thursday, earlier this year cited concerns about the potential impact it could have on research universities.
Electronic Business, “Electronics Industry Hones in on Specific Patent-Reform Provisions.”,Tam Harbert, July 10, 2007
Patent reform, a high priority for the technology industry for several years, was an uphill battle while the Republicans controlled the Congress. Bills were introduced in 2005 and 2006, but they went nowhere, primarily because of the close ties between big pharmaceutical companies—which have opposed changes in the patent laws—and the Republicans, according to sources.
BusinessWeek, “Look Who's Fighting Patent Reform: VCs, Trade Groups, and Universities Have Taken up the Fight Against Big Tech,” Lorraine Woellert, July 9, 2007
The past few weeks have brought an unexpected surge of opposition from what one lobbyist calls the "innovation ecosystem"—a sprawling network of entrepreneurs, venture capitalists, trade groups, drug and medical equipment manufacturers, engineering societies, and research universities including Northwestern and Wisconsin. All of them agree that the legislation would weaken the value of patents, deal a blow to innovation, and send shock waves through the knowledge economy.
New Hampshire Business Review, “N.H. Organizations Continue Push for Changes to Patent Bill.” Cindy Colby, July 6, 2007
AmberWave Systems, a maker of advanced technologies for semiconductor manufacturing, along with the New Hampshire Department of Resources and Economic Development, Dartmouth Regional Technology Center in Lebanon, the New Hampshire Biotechnology Council in Portsmouth, the University of New Hampshire in Durham, and SmoothShapes Inc. in Merrimack, were among 200 businesses and organizations across the country that signed a letter protesting a number of provisions in the bill.
The Wall Street Journal (Blurb), June 29, 2007
PATENT THIS: Opponents blast bipartisan legislation creating new avenues to challenge patents and decreasing penalties for violation. Conservative activists Weyrich and Schlafly join research universities and venture capitalists in denouncing bill as threat to economic competitiveness.
IP Law 360, “Patent Reform: If It Ain’t Broke, Don’t Fix It.” June 29, 2007
The Patent Reform Act of 2007 purports to "fix" various aspects of the U.S. Patent system that supposedly are "broken." Those efforts include a change in fundamental entitlement to a patent to a "first to file" system; codified limitations on potential recoverable damages for infringement and the procedure in which such damages must be assessed; codification of the requirements for establishing willful infringement; and new restrictions on the venue in which patent infringement actions may be filed.
Chicago Tribune, “U.S. Patent Overhaul Shouldn’t be Rushed,” William J. Jones, June 28, 2007
Reform of the nation's patent system, the 218-year-old wellspring of American innovation and material progress, has become a rush project in Congress. Leading the way is the Senate Judiciary Committee with a bill that could cripple American innovation. Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) is trying to hustle his bill (S.1145) through committee, apparently to please several powerful information technology firms -- even though testimony at the bill's one hearing revealed serious flaws in the legislation. For years, foreign firms have been trying to slow America's innovation engine under the guise of "harmonization" with foreign law. They would be happy to see the bill sail through Congress.
San Jose Mercury News, “Misnamed Patent Reform Act Would Stifle Innovation,” Daniel E. Leckrone, June 27, 2007
While U.S. patent law has been effective in protecting the intellectual property of inventors, which has fueled productivity growth and the U.S. economy for more than two centuries, the so-called "Patent Reform Act" introduced in Congress this year proposes major changes to the law governing how patents are obtained and enforced. … Our patent system is fair and continues to work well. It may need some fine tuning to improve patent quality, for example, but it does not need the major changes that the Goliaths are seeking to impose. The Goliaths should not be allowed to manipulate the patent system to entrench their dominance over entrepreneurial companies and individual inventors.
Tech Daily, “Tech Reps Debate Innovation Impact of Patents,” Andrew Noyes, June 27, 2007
But the firms that Burke and Gallagher represent have serious qualms with the current legislation. "We're not trying to kill the bill," the AmberWave lawyer insisted, noting that several aspects of the legislation are laudable. Parts of the measures, however, could harm innovation, they said.
PC World, “Tech Vendors Disagree on Patent Reform,” Grant Gross, June 27, 2007
Though the legislation is supported by many large IT vendors, two bills now being considered by the U.S. Congress, both called the Patent Reform Act, go too far in watering down the patent system, said representatives of Texas Instruments Inc. (TI) and AmberWave Systems Corp., a New Hampshire semiconductor manufacturer.
Roll Call, “Patent Bill Nears Critical Stage on Hill.” June 25, 2007
Last week, Kearns’ group and 200 others — universities and companies that include the Biotechnology Industry Council, the Innovation Alliance, several pharmaceutical companies and small manufacturers — sent a letter to Senate Judiciary Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.), ranking member Arlen Specter (R-Pa.), House Judiciary Chairman John Conyers (D-Mich.) and Rep. Howard Berman (D-Calif.), who is chairman of the subcommittee on courts, the Internet and intellectual property.
Salt Lake Tribune, “Patent Reform Act Threatens to Put Inventors Out of Business,” David P. Vandagriff, June 25, 2007
Our current patent law isn't perfect, but the U.S. patent system is widely recognized as the best in the world. Inventions protected by American patents generate far more revenue and profits and jobs than those of any other country. If we're going to change the patent system, we need to do it carefully and get it right. We hear about global competitiveness every day. Innovation is our key advantage when we compete with others around the world. No one has discovered a way to outsource an inventive mind. If we want more and better inventions to improve our lives, we have to make sure inventors are rewarded for their work.
The Chronicle of Higher Education, “Universities Seek Changes in Legislation to Reshape Patent System,” Goldie Blumenstyk, June 25, 2007
The institutions, companies, and organizations -- including the Association of University Technology Managers, the group for academics who work in patenting and licensing -- made their case in a letter to key members of Congress. An eclectic group of 13 universities -- including Cornell University, North Dakota State University, the University of California system, and the University of Wisconsin at Madison -- were among the signers.
Concord Monitor, “Stop the Attempt to Weaken Patent System,” June 25, 2007
More than 40 percent of all patents are filed by small firms. Among them is AmberWave, a Salem company founded around technology that made faster microchip processors possible, and Smoothshapes, a Merrimack medical technology company. They are joined in opposition to the 2007 Patent Reform Act by the University of New Hampshire and the Dartmouth Regional Technology Center in Lebanon. Here's why.
Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, “UW Group Opposing Patent Bill,” Kathleen Gallagher, June 23, 2007
The Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation has provided testimony for politicians in Washington five times in the last four years on a topic many Americans hardly view as controversial - patents. … WARF and others argue they would cripple innovation in a big swatch of the U.S. economy by loosening rules and making it easier to challenge a patent's validity any time during its life, and weakening penalties for infringement.
New Hampshire Business Review, “N.H. Organizations Push for Changes to Patent Reform Bill,” June 22, 2007
AmberWave Systems, a maker of advanced technologies for semiconductor manufacturing, along with the New Hampshire Department of Resources and Economic Development, Dartmouth Regional Technology Center in Lebanon, the New Hampshire Biotechnology Council in Portsmouth, the University of New Hampshire in Durham, and SmoothShapes Inc. in Merrimack, were among 200 businesses and organizations across the country that signed a letter protesting a number of provisions in the bill.
BNA Patent, Trademark & Copyright Daily, “Universities, Biotech Industry Join Letter-Writing Campaign on Patent Reform,” June 22, 2007
The Innovation Alliance, along with several top universities and members of the biotechnology industry, delivered a letter June 18 to the House and Senate Judiciary Committees urging that key provisions be stricken from the proposed Patent Reform Act of 2007.
The letter mentions three main areas addressed by the bill which supporters of the letter believe will be detrimental to the IP economy:
- Apportionment of damages;
- An open-ended post-grant review process; and
- Broadened rulemaking authority for the Patent and Trademark Office.
Washington Times, “Patent Nonsense,” Kevin L. Kearns, June 21, 2007
“The quality and breadth of the opposition to S. 1145 indicates the need for a full debate, but Mr. Leahy has already tossed his lot in with Microsoft, Intel and their allies. His desire to rush the bill through the Senate does a grave disservice to a patent system that has served the nation so well. The future of American innovation hangs in the balance.”
Technology Daily, “Intellectual Property; Patent Bills Face Another Round of Criticism,” June 14, 2007
Patent experts from academia, the biotechnology sector, medical-device manufacturers, and technology firms continue to criticize a pair of bills before Congress. A panel of lawyers lunched with reporters Thursday before meeting with staffers for the House and Senate Judiciary committees. The event was organized by the Innovation Alliance, which favors more limited changes than in the measures, H.R. 1908 and S. 1145.
PC World, “U.S. Senators Fine-Tuning Patent Bill,” June 7, 2007
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.
Wall Street Journal, “Industries Brace for Tough Battle Over Patent Law,” June 6, 2007
The debate is multilayered, and many of the industries involved aren't unified. Some technology companies, for example, oppose the legislation. Bruce G. Bernstein, the chief intellectual-property officer at InterDigital Communications Corp. in King of Prussia, Pa., complains the changes are being pushed by larger, more established technology companies, which are already working the issue aggressively on Capitol Hill. "They've got a big head start," adds Mr. Bernstein, who is scheduled to testify at Wednesday's hearing.
InternetNews, “A Tech Difference on Patent Reform?,” June 6, 2007
Bruce Bernstein of InterDigital (Quote), a Pennsylvania wireless platform designer and developer, told the Senate Judiciary Committee that the powerhouses of the IT industry are not representing the full range of technology's view of patent reform. In fact, Bernstein said, tech reform leaders are less interested in patent reform than they are in lowering the cost of patent infringement.
New Hampshire Business Review, “N.H. Firm States Case Against Patent Reform Bill,” May 25, 2007
But another coalition of mostly small and medium-sized tech companies, known as the Innovation Alliance, takes a much different view of the legislation. In a letter sent to congressional leaders May 15, the companies said the “consequences” of the measure would be “devastating”, including “greater bureaucracy, inability to rely on valid patents, weakened protections against infringement and a decreased access to capital.” “The harm to investment in tomorrow’s technologies would be felt immediately, and would hurt U.S. competitiveness for years to come,” they wrote.
EDN, “Patent Reform’s Great Debate Continues,” May 22, 2007
The Alliance says that patent reform measures should not disadvantage emerging, pro-innovation, patent-dependent businesses and their surrounding ecosystem. The group further states on its web site that the patent system is not fundamentally broken or in need of sweeping reform, but can and should be improved through a legislative focus on improving patent quality.
CongressDaily AM, “PTO Unhappy With Parts of House Patent Overhaul Measure,” Andrew Noyes, May 18, 2007
“The Innovation Alliance, which favors more limited changes than in the bill, released a statement supporting the letter. The group, which represents small- and mid-sized technology firms, said PTO's concerns are consistent with the alliance's.”
InfoWorld, “Small Tech Firms Oppose Patent Reform Bill,” Grant Gross, May 16, 2007
“Members of the Innovation Alliance and other organizations signing the letter said ‘measured’ changes to the U.S. patent system may be appropriate. ‘Unfortunately, we also believe that some of the proposed reform provisions hold serious negative consequences for continued innovation and American technological leadership in the increasingly competitive 21st century global economy,’ the letter said. ‘The harm to investment in tomorrow's technologies would be felt immediately.’”
CNET News, “House Takes Small Step Toward Revising Patent Law,” Anne Broache, May 16, 2007
“A group called the Innovation Alliance, composed of venture capital firms and academic institutions, and a number of corporate heavyweights aligned under a group called the Coalition for 21st Century Patent Reform, including 3M, Caterpillar, General Electric, Johnson & Johnson, Eli Lilly and Procter & Gamble, have taken issue with several components that they argue will water down protections for patent holders.”
CNET News, “Why I love Patents and Copyrights,” Michael Kanellos, May 10, 2007
“Although it's not a really popular sentiment these days, I think patents, trademarks and copyrights are simply fantastic and a primary, necessary driver of the world economy. Without them, the rapid pace of technological innovation around the world would slow to a crawl.”
Congress Daily, “Coalitions Size Up, Stake Positions on Patent Reform Bill,” Bill Swindell, April 19, 2007
“But the issue does not break down to a straight battle between the high-tech industry and the drug makers. For example, a coalition called the Innovation Alliance represents high-tech companies such as Qualcomm Inc. and Tessera Inc. that also license products to other users. It is arguing against sweeping reforms of the system and advocates a greater focus on winnowing out poor quality applications...Under the bill, the PTO director is granted expanded rulemaking authority to carry out the measure as well as any other applicable law. One lobbyist for the Innovation Alliance said he was worried that such language was too broad and could result in arbitrary rules for companies to modify their applications. ”
EDN.com, “Industry Heavyweights Support U.S. Patent Reform Proposals,” Collen Taylor, April 19, 2007
“Industry group the Innovation Alliance, which has a member roster that includes LSI Logic, Qualcomm and Tessera, has expressed conditional support for the proposed bill. In a statement made yesterday, a spokesman for the group said while the alliance welcomes patent law reform and that it also hopes to work with Congress to modify the proposed bill to avoid ‘unintended anti-competitive and innovation-stifling impacts that certain reforms may have.’”
Technology Daily, “Players Start to Choose Sides in Patent Debate,” April 19, 2007
“For example, a coalition called the Innovation Alliance represents high-tech companies such as Qualcomm and Tessera that also license products to other users. It opposes sweeping reforms.”
Associated Press, “Patent Reform Bill May Have a Chance,” Chris Rugaber, April 18, 2007
“Venture capital firms will be less likely to invest in new, patented technologies if patents can be continually challenged, said Manus Cooney, a representative of Tessera Technologies Inc., in an interview before the bill was introduced. Tessera develops miniaturization technologies for the semiconductor and electronics industries.”
Technology Daily, “Long-Awaited Patent Bill Eyes ‘First-to-File’ Regime,” Andrew Noyes, April 18, 2007
“The Innovation Alliance, whose membership also includes cellular telephone chip maker Qualcomm, said it believes some of the proposed shake-ups are unnecessary.”
Bloomberg, “House, Senate Propose Changes in U.S. Patent Law,” Susan Decker, April 18, 2007
“‘Improving patent quality will take us a long way toward addressing the root problem” without “pulling the rug out from under smaller, innovative companies that have built a business on patent licensing,’ said Eric Thomas, spokesman for Innovation Alliance, a group that includes Immersion Corp. and Qualcomm Inc.”
The Hill, “AARP Fights PhRMA Over Part D Drugs,” Jeffrey Young and Jim Snyder, April 17, 2007
“A third group joins the fray this year, the Innovation Alliance. Led by Qualcomm, the group advocates for less-dramatic reforms than pushed for by the Coalition for Patent Fairness. Instead, the alliance argues that much of the problem relating to litigation fights over patents could be resolved by fully funding the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. That way, government officials would be better able to review patents at the start of the process, lessening the likelihood of court challenges down the road. ‘The American patent system is by no means perfect, but is seen as the gold standard globally,’ a lobbyist at Qualcomm, Sean Murphy, said. In particular, the group opposes the creation of a panel to review patents after they have been issued. The aim is to give an option other than the court system to weigh disputes. Alliance members believe the approach could further delay resolution and add the costs to the patent system.”
PC World, ”Patent Reform Tops List of Tech Concerns,”Robert Mullins, February 27, 2007
“… Patent reform was one of the major issues discussed at the Tech Policy Summit Monday in San Jose, California. . . . Some at the summit want Congress to 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 Inc., 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 Corp. ‘Not all of the tech industry is behind patent reform,’ Maghame said.”
The Wall Street Journal, “The Virtue of Patents,” Laura Peter, February 20, 2007
Roll Call, “Tech Sector Rides High in 110th,” Kate Ackley, February 1, 2007
“… In a sign of the growing dispute within the tech sector, tech companies that make money from licensing their patented technologies formed the Innovation Alliance in recent weeks to counter Elmendorf’s Coalition for Patent Fairness. The alliance already has Manus Cooney, a former Senate GOP Judiciary aide, working on its side, and it includes small tech companies such as Qualcomm, Tessera and InterDigital. "They are concerned that when it comes to reforms, if you have too blunt an instrument, it will also apply to legitimate companies and make it harder for them to enforce their property,” said Cooney, a lobbyist with Potomac Counsel. “We believe that our companies ought to have the right to benefit from the strong patent system that Intel and Google and Cisco and HP had. …”
Copyright 2007 © Roll Call Inc. All rights reserved.