is President of IP Strategic.com and a perennial selection to The Best Lawyers in America. Having spent years as one of the most influential and highly regarded advocates in the New Hampshire Legislature and state administrative agencies, Chris is now focused primarily on federal policies in Washington, DC. Chris has been involved in nearly every substantial New Hampshire economic regulatory initiative over the last 25 years. He has served as general counsel for the New Hampshire Bankers Association and has represented New Hampshire utilities, hospitals, insurers, aggregate manufacturers and numerous other entities. This experience provides him with a uniquely respected voice on Capitol Hill, enabling him to communicate effectively with members whose federal decision-making must reflect and respect the complexities of their home-state constituents.
A frequent speaker and commentator in local and national media on policy issues, regarding financial services, privacy, business and government, Chris has testified on financial services issues before U.S. House and Senate Committees and has been a panelist in Capitol Hill briefings on intellectual property issues. He can be reached at firstname.lastname@example.org
The experts in attendance reminded us of the insanity of the compulsory licensing system that now pervades the U.S. patent marketplace, which when explained in terms of real estate is obviously absurd. A man came home from work one day to find a strange family living in his dining room. He wanted to have them evicted but was told he would have to spend five years and millions of dollars proving in court that he owned the room where the invaders had pitched their tent. A judge finally found that indeed he owned his dining room. But instead of ordering the family’s eviction she ordered the invaders to pay rent to the homeowner in an amount hypothetically determined by calculating what he and the squatters would have agreed to before his unwelcome visitors moved-in.
The beauty of the patent troll narrative was it took little time to absorb and instantly painted a pejorative picture in the minds-eye of the listener. It became easy to repeat. Its bumper-sticker simplicity lead to widespread usage, which ultimately (and quickly) became accepted as fact without much, if any, critical thought. Most important, the strategy by-passed the arcane complexity of its convoluted subject matter by shifting the burden of Congressional persuasion to its victimized and under-resourced opponents… Expect big tech and its leftist bed-fellows to exert more effort to “de-propertize” patents on Capitol Hill and in the courts… Expect proponents of reform to mischaracterize patent reform as a step towards tort-reform, which is nearly comical given that the tortfeasor in the equation is the party that is trampling on the property rights of patent holders through infringement, which is many times purposeful and willful.
Inter Partes Review (IPR) is viewed by many as late-stage destruction of fully developed early-stage investor ROI in patented property. The Lee study will presumably weigh the costs of the PTAB and IPR against its benefits, but the worst far-reaching costs will not show either in its records or dialogue with its “users.” Examining “five years of PTAB files and user experience” cannot reveal the indirect harm the PTAB has inflicted on our innovation ecosystem through the threats to file IPR petitions during licensing negotiations, the impact on declining patent values, the weaponization of the PTAB by the infringement defense bar and its unexpected heavy utilization. Discovering what the PTAB hasn’t seen and why it never saw it would be more informative and more relevant.
Universities in particular must explain to their congressional delegations why R&D must continue to be funded and why its Bayh-Dole based commercialization bridge must be protected so federal funds already in the pipeline can produce the future jobs, growth and beneficial scientific progress they expected when they voted formerly to support R&D… Unless universities actively justify their commercialization of federally-funded R&D, other influential interests on the Hill who care little about future scientific study, but care a lot about their own survival, will now perceive R&D’s annual funding as a bridge to their own survival. This is no time to wait and watch from the sidelines.