Posts in Legislation

The PREVAIL Act addresses current rules that enable gamesmanship at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) by huge corporations against small inventors, startups and other patent owners, and that increase invalidation rates. It introduces standing requirements, establishes a clear and convincing evidence standard to invalidate a patent, ensures a code of conduct is put in place for administrative patent judges (APJs), and more. While these changes are well-intended, due to the PTAB’s perverse incentive structure, the PREVAIL Act will only be marginally effective, and may have no real effect at all.

The Alliance of U.S. Startups and Inventors for Jobs (USIJ) published a White Paper this week applauding the introduction of the Promoting and Respecting Economically Vital American Innovation Leadership (PREVAIL) Act, which was introduced in June. As part of the paper, USIJ presented four case studies demonstrating how some high-profile Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) cases might have played out if the bill’s provisions had already been in force.

The Senate Subcommittee on Intellectual Property today held a hearing on Oversight of the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), with USPTO Director Kathi Vidal as the sole witness. Only a handful of senators questioned Vidal, and only one significantly challenged her in questioning. The hearing differed considerably from the House IP Subcommittee’s Oversight Hearing in April, where Vidal was repeatedly taken to task on the Office’s then-recently issued Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM).

The House of Representatives’ Subcommittee on Courts, Intellectual Property and the Internet met today to hear from a number of witnesses about the intersection of intellectual property rights and consumers’ right to repair products they own. The concerns voiced by witnesses and congress members today centered around harm and cost to consumers as a result of technological protection measures (TPMs) and increased use of IP tools such as design patents to thwart competition for after-market parts.

Rattled by the failure of the Biden Administration to bow to pressure to misuse the march-in rights provision of the Bayh-Dole Act so the government can regulate prices on products based on federally funded inventions, Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT) and his allies are doubling down. And the impact of National Institutes of Health (NIH)-supported research is now in jeopardy. Sanders taunted the Administration, pledging to hold up the nomination of Dr. Monica Bertagnolli to head the NIH until President Biden submits to his demands to do more to control drug prices, including requiring that any therapy-based on an invention arising from NIH funding must be sold at a “reasonable price.”

On July 11, the Council for Innovation Promotion (C4IP), released a policy report advocating for a pro-innovation legislative and administrative agenda to counteract a series of shocks to the U.S. patent system over the past two decades. This pro-innovation agenda has the direct support of several C4IP members who formerly held high-ranking government positions and are now calling on the federal government to correct several areas of patent law that have improperly tilted the playing field in favor of corporate infringers and foreign counterfeiters.

On Wednesday, July 5, the United Kingdom Intellectual Property Office (UKIPO) released a summary of the responses it has received to its request for views on whether the country’s system for standard essential patents (SEP) is functioning properly. The goal of the request for comments and the subsequent report is to determine whether the UK government needs to make policy changes in this area. The Office received comments on a variety of topics related to SEPs, including the balance of the system, competition, transparency, patent litigation, and more. While both SEP holders and implementers reported problems in the system, the UKIPO found that there was little consensus among stakeholders as to the efficiency of the system and whether government intervention was needed.

On the evening of July 5, inventor advocacy group US Inventor hosted a webinar to discuss the Patent Eligibility Restoration Act (PERA) recently introduced into the U.S. Senate by Senators Thom Tillis (R-NC) and Chris Coons (D-DE). The featured guest speaker was Retired U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit Chief Judge Paul Michel, who has been involved in the development of PERA’s draft legislative text and has personally supported PERA as an important step in “reviv[ing] the faltering U.S. innovation system” by abrogating the series of U.S. Supreme Court rulings that greatly expanded judicial exceptions to patent eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101.

Less than one week after a bipartisan group of senators introduced the Promoting and Respecting Economically Vital American Innovation Leadership Act (PREVAIL) Act of 2023, the House yesterday introduced a companion bill. The bill is also sponsored on a bipartisan basis by Representatives Ken Buck (R-CO) and Deborah Ross (D-NC). Following the introduction of the PREVAIL Act by Senators Chris Coons (D-DE), Thom Tillis (R-NC), Dick Durbin (D-IL) and Mazie Hirono (D-HI) last week, Jamie Simpson, who is the Council for Innovation Promotion’s (C4IP) Chief Policy Officer and Counsel and Former Chief Counsel for the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Courts, Intellectual Property, and the Internet, told IPWatchdog that it will be important to monitor whether the House introduces companion legislation in the coming weeks. She noted that “it’s really promising that the Chair and Ranking Member of the Senate IP Subcommittee are behind these bills. We’re getting closer to a chance of something happening.”

Public comments on the United States Patent and Trademark Office’s (USPTO) Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM) on Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) practices continued to be posted this week, following the June 20 deadline. The USPTO is currently processing the 14,000+ comments, many of which are duplicative, and periodically publishing them online. The Office announced the ANPRM in April. Broadly, the ANPRM is part of a strategy from the USPTO to restructure patent proceedings in an effort to curb abusive actions. A host of stakeholders, including IP law firms, academics, and advocacy groups, have weighed in on the various proposals in the rulemaking package, offering a mix of praise and criticism. We have covered several in two previous posts; here are some more.

On the same day the Patent Eligibility Restoration Act of 2023 was introduced by Senators Chris Coons (D-DE) and Thom Tillis (R-NC), the two senators, along with their colleagues, Dick Durbin (D-IL) and Mazie Hirono (D-HI), introduced the Promoting and Respecting Economically Vital American Innovation Leadership (PREVAIL) Act today. The bill’s aim is to reform the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) and would build upon Coons’ STRONGER Patents Act, introduced in 2019.

As predicted by retired United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit Chief Judge Paul Michel last month, Senators Chris Coons (D-DE) and Thom Tillis (R-NC) have introduced the first of what Michel said will be multiple bills aimed at fixing the U.S. patent system. Today’s bill, the Patent Eligibility Restoration Act of 2023, would eliminate all judicially-created exceptions to U.S. patent eligibility law.

The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) yesterday republished its Request for Comments (RFC) on the establishment of an additional USPTO Regional Office in the southeast region and four new community outreach offices. The original RFC included a bad link for the comments form, so the Office published a new link and also extended the deadline for comments from July 11, 2023, to July 17. The RFC is in response to provisions of the Unleashing American Innovators Act of 2022 (UAIA), which was introduced in September 2021 and signed into law in December 2022, and requires the Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) to establish another satellite office within three years of the bill’s enactment somewhere in the Southeastern region of the nation, which the bill specifically defines as Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, Florida, Tennessee, Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, and Arkansas.

In 2015, China launched its 2025 Initiative listing all the technologies and industries it wants to control by 2025. So far, they have been successful in leading 37 of 44 technologies critical to economic growth and national security. The nation that dominates these technologies will determine the fate of all nations. In the past, the United States led the world in technology, but today it is China. How did this happen? This damage was caused by a series of big hits by the courts, congress and the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO). The first big hit was eBay vs. MercExchange (eBay) in 2006. In order to obtain an injunction, a patent holder must prove that they not only have a patented product on the market, but also the ability to distribute that product. eBay let loose massive predatory infringement, killing off startups, the biggest competitive threat to Big Tech and many other industries.