Coalition Statement on Patent Reform Legislation
 |
Written by Gene Quinn President & Founder of IPWatchdog, Inc. Patent Attorney, Reg. No. 44,294 Zies, Widerman & Malek E-mail | Blog | Twitter | LinkedIn Posted: Mar 8, 2009 @ 8:30 am 
|
|
The Chairman of the Coalition for 21st Century Patent Reform, Gary Griswold, released the following statement after the introduction of The Patent Reform Act of 2009, in the U.S. Senate and U.S. House of Representatives. The bills introduced in the House and Senate today contain several provisions that did not have sufficient support to become law because of the potential negative impact on innovation and job growth.
Our coalition is committed to achieving reforms that will enhance the patent system so that valid patents are issued promptly and cost efficiently thereby encouraging innovation that will create jobs and promote America’s economic recovery. Legislation that makes these kinds of changes will permit Congress to reach useful and effective reforms to the patent system, and should be passed in the 111th Congress.
In that regard, we look forward to working with Chairman Leahy and members of the Senate, as well as Chairman Conyers and members of the House of Representatives to reach a consensus that is fair, balanced and allows us to continue fostering innovation and job creation in the United States.
Unfortunately, several provisions in the bill are problematic because of their potential negative impact on innovation and job growth. For example, the damages methodology in this bill heavily favors infringers over inventors. At a time when we need to stimulate our innovation and aid U.S. manufacturers, this bill sends an international signal that patented American technology can be copied with little or no consequence. We will erode our global leadership in research and invention if we eviscerate this cornerstone of our patent system. Specifically, provisions intentionally designed to reduce damages, such as ‘prior art subtraction,’ should not be part of any patent reform enacted by Congress.
Our coalition believes the Congressional focus should be on making the reforms that all stakeholders agree are necessary to remedy the problems facing the Patent and Trademark Office and the patent system. To do otherwise holds hostage the good reforms on which there is wide consensus.
While the PTO continues to struggle examining patent applications in a timely and efficient manner, the courts have made progress in resolving issues that gave rise to controversial proposals to reform the patent system. In other words, the courts have been systematically resolving complex issues in a comprehensive and thoughtful manner, while the PTO has been unable to process and promptly grant valid patents needed by American innovators.
We need creativity and innovation leadership from all inventors and industry sectors, not just a few. Our coalition looks forward to engaging in a continuing dialogue with the House and Senate as well as other stakeholders to improve the quality of patent system and promote the broader public interests.
The coalition has 50 members from 18 diverse industry sectors and includes many of the nation’s leading manufacturers and researchers. The coalition’s steering committee includes 3M, Caterpillar, General Electric, Johnson & Johnson, Eli Lilly and Procter & Gamble. The coalition has members in a variety of industry sectors including: Aerospace and Defense, Chemical, Computers, Diversified Financials, Diversified Technology, Energy, Food Production, Forest & Paper Products, Health Care, Household & Personal Products, Industrial Equipment, Medical Equipment & Devices, Network & Communications, Payroll Services, Pharmaceutical, Biotechnology, Semiconductors & Electronic Components, and Transportation Equipment.
About the Author
 |
Eugene R. Quinn, Jr.
President & Founder of IPWatchdog, Inc. US Patent Attorney (Reg. No. 44,294) Zies, Widerman & Malek B.S. in Electrical Engineering, Rutgers University J.D., Franklin Pierce Law Center L.L.M. in Intellectual Property, Franklin Pierce Law Center Send me an e-mail  |
Gene Quinn is a US Patent Attorney, law professor and the founder of IPWatchdog.com. He is also a principal lecturer in the top patent bar review course in the nation, which helps aspiring patent attorneys and patent agents prepare themselves to pass the patent bar exam. Known by many as “The IPWatchdog,” Gene started the widely popular intellectual property website IPWatchdog.com in 1999, and since that time the site has had millions of unique visitors. Gene has been quoted in the Wall Street Journal, the New York Times, the LA Times, CNN Money, NPR and various other newspapers and magazines worldwide. He represents individuals, small businesses and start-up corporations. As an electrical engineer with a computer engineering focus his specialty is electronic and computer devices, Internet applications, software and business methods.
Related posts (automatically generated):
- New Patent Bill Destroys American Jobs
U.S. Reps. Don Manzullo (R-IL) and Mike Michaud (D-ME) today said the latest patent reform bill introduced in the House and Senate this afternoon would actually weaken intellectual property protections for American manufacturers and put hundreds of thousands more Americans on the unemployment lines. Manzullo and Michaud led a bipartisan... - BIO Expresses Some Concern with House Patent Reform
BIO also is concerned about the inclusion of broader prior user rights in the House bill, and believes that this issue, coupled with the harmful inter partes review changes, could set back efforts to pass meaningful patent reform this year by undermining the broad coalition of American innovators currently supporting... - House Patent Reform Bill is in Need of Reform, BIO to Oppose
BIO has consistently praised House Judiciary Committee Chairman Lamar Smith (R-TX) for his introduction of a comprehensive patent reform bill similar to the bill adopted by the U.S. Senate earlier this month by a nearly unanimous vote. Unfortunately, given the addition of the Goodlatte supplemental examination amendment, added to the... - Patent Reform Losing Steam in Senate
The IPO is reporting that momentum for patent reform has been lost in the Senate and that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid will not bring S. 1145 to the floor for action until at least after the Senate returns from recess at the end of March. Notwithstanding, my sources tell... - Leahy Procedural Move Makes Patent Reform Passage Near
Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-VT) recently came to agreement with Committee Ranking Republican Jeff Sessions (R-AL) on changes to the Patent Reform Act of 2009 (S. 515), winning Senator Sessions’ support for passage and making it extremely likely that patent reform will happen this year, and likely very... - House Judiciary Committee Balks at Senate Patent Bill
Talk about turn of events. Earlier today I posted an article regarding how patent reform legislation is not certain because it is conceivable that there will not be enough votes for the bill on the floor of the Senate. As I was writing that post the House Judiciary Committee was... - Uncertain Future for Patent Reform Legislation
As of today, legislative patent reform efforts are working their way through Congress. We are further along the road to legislative reform than at any point in time over the last 4 years, but the ultimate outcome is still not certain. The Senate Judiciary Committee has reported out a version...
Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.
Gene,
I have a suggestion for making the “damage” provision palatable: codify the 15 Georgia-Pacific factors and be done with it. Georgia-Pacific recognizes that each damage case is different and unique, and may require application of different sets of these factors. Also, you won’t have as much difficulty hitting equilibrium in the case law as these factors already have quite bit of case law to provide guidance on these factors, and how to use them. By contrast, the proposed damages provision, being completely new, will require much longer to reach that equilibrium. I see no point in “reinventing” the standard where there’s a good one already in place in the case law; codifying that standard will simply confirm that.
If Congress, in it’s usual infinite unwisdom, wants to do something about damages, why don’t you start with the leading case (Georgia-Pacific) which has been accepted by all courts (including the Federal Circuit) as setting forth the best test (or at least best set of factors) for determining damages. The current damage provision proposed isn’t even close. And if Congress wants to ignore the Georgia-Pacific factors, and put in this new nonsensical (and frankly nebulous) provision on damages, then by all means let this oxymoronic “patent law reform” legislation sink with no survivors.
If Congress, in it’s usual infinite unwisdom, wants to do something about damages, why don’t you start with the leading case (Georgia-Pacific) which has been accepted by all courts (including the Federal Circuit) as setting forth the best test (or at least best set of factors) for determining damages.