Posts Tagged: "Congress"

This week on Capitol Hill is another light one in terms of hearings focusing on topics related to technology and innovation. Although the House of Representatives is in session all week after the Columbus Day holiday, there are no hearings scheduled for the week as of Sunday,  and the House is about to enter a few weeks’ worth of district work periods. In the Senate, the Commerce Committee convenes a hearing to look at recent consumer data privacy laws passed in Europe and California, and the Banking Committee explores the potential of blockchain and cryptocurrencies in the national financial system.

This week in Capitol Hill hearings focuses solely on meetings happening at the U.S. Senate. The one hearing scheduled at the U.S. House of Representatives, which was to explore whether the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) was addressing small business concerns regarding 21st century telecom systems, has been postponed to a later date. In the Senate, the Commerce Committee will hold hearings on automated system for rail vehicles and challenges in the creation of rural infrastructure for broadband Internet. The Indian Affairs Committee is also exploring broadband challenges and the Superfund Subcommittee will discuss the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) implementation of science transparency rules.

Four years later, the patent landscape demonstrates that Alice has become a train wreck for innovation… Unfortunately, the Federal Circuit failed to rein in this rout of Machiavellian creativity, which it could have done by relying on well-settled procedural process and patent doctrines… This year, the Federal Circuit appears finally to have awakened from its slumber. In two recent opinions, Aatrix v. Green Shades and Berkheimer v. HP, the Federal Circuit embraced long-established procedural rules and patent doctrines… Savvy and creative patent lawyering will prevail. To be successful, patent practitioners must show the PTO, the courts, and Congress the importance of our clients’ innovations and explain why the type of technology should not dictate whether there is enforceability.

Congress must remove any meaningful advantage from sovereign ownership of patents by revising USPTO post-grant procedures so outcomes are more aligned with adjudication in the federal courts. Such patent reform would not only address the constitutional crisis presented by sovereign immunity being denied in actions adjudicated by the PTAB, but it would also trickle through and inure to the benefit of all patent owners, thereby increasing certainty and predictability within the system, eliminate gaming, and streamline adjudication by coordinating rules and laws so there is no substantive or procedural advantage to either challengers or patent owners in one forum over the other. 

contrary to popular notion, U.S. Patent No. 4,344,142 to James Diehr was not the first attempt to patent the idea of performing a real-time simulation of the Arrhenius equation using periodic temperature measurements of a rubber mold in order to cure rubber.  In fact, nearly two years prior to Diehr’s filing, Thomas Smith filed for a device that performed the very same algorithm using dedicated logic, which was granted as U.S. Patent No. 3,819,915. Smith was also granted U.S. Patent No. 4,022,555 for another rubber-curing device based on discrete logic. Similarly, William Claxton filed for patent protection in 1974 for an Arrhenius-based rubber-curing device using analog components, which issued as U.S. Patent No. 4,044,600.  

One panel witness, Rachel King, CEO of the Rockville, MD-based biotech firm GlycoMimetics, said that she was greatly concerned by the effects of the IPR process and how it weakens the company’s ability to enforce its own patents. “There are very few areas of the nation’s economy that are as dependent on patents as the biotechnology industry,” King said. “Our investors rely on the strength of patents in order to make investments in companies like ours and we need to make sure that these rights are robust and enforceable.” King was very supportive of the STRONGER Patents Act as a piece of legislation that properly addresses the current deficiencies with the IPR process.

Congresswoman Lofgren is now opposing a rule change she previously endorsed as an original co-sponsor of a bill that would have changed the claim construction rule in exactly the same way proposed by Director Iancu… But how is adopting a rule that would have already been the law had Lofgren had her way possibly frustrate or disregard Congress? Of course, we aren’t supposed to ask that question. Once the “patent troll” boogeyman card is played everything else is supposed to fade away.

On the morning of Wednesday, July 11th, the House Small Business Committee held a hearing titled Innovation Nation: How Small Businesses in the Digital Technology Industry Use Intellectual Property. Though the witness panel was not quite as one-sided as those seen testifying in front of the House IP Subcommittee in recent years, an informed observer could not help but conclude that yet another opportunity to seriously address the damaged state of the U.S. patent system was missed to the detriment of many of the small businesses which the committee purports to protect.

New patent legislation would rectify some of the damage done by several court rulings and by Congress.  It would reestablish the fundamental constitutional principle that a U.S. patent secures certain rights in private property. Reps. Thomas Massie (R-KY) and Marcy Kaptur (D-OH) have introduced H.R. 6264, the Restoring America’s Leadership in Innovation Act.

Late yesterday, Senator Orrin Hatch (R-UT), co-author of the Hatch-Waxman Act, filed an amendment in the Senate Judiciary Committee to address what many characterize as abusive inter partes review (IPR) filings relating to brand name pharmaceuticals. According to Senator Hatch, his amendment is intended to restore the careful balance the Hatch-Waxman Act struck to incentivize generic drug development. The Hatch-Waxman Act encourages generic drug manufacturers to challenge patents of brand name drugs by filing Abbreviated New Drug Applications with the Food and Drug Administration, which can and typically does result in patent infringement litigation in federal district court.

In 2011, as part of the American Invents Act (“AIA”), Congress significantly restructured the way in which previously issued patents could be challenged.   In some cases, existing post-issuance proceedings, like ex parte reexamination and reissue proceedings, were kept intact as such proceedings existed prior to the AIA.  In other cases, existing post-issuance proceedings, like inter partes reexamination, were replaced with new proceedings, such as the inter partes review proceedings (“IPRs”).    In addition, brand new proceedings were created, such as post-grant review proceedings (“PGRs”), covered business method patent review proceedings (“CBMs”), and supplemental examination proceedings.  In each instance, Congress made policy choices as to who could (or could not) bring and/or participate in such proceedings, and who could (or could not) raise challenges to decisions made by the government in such proceedings. 

In addition to these other areas of policy interest, however, Phyllis Schlafly had a strong and enduring interest in issues relating to invention, patents and other forms of intellectual property (including copyrights).  These intellectual property and innovation issues were very important to her and fundamentally underpinned her views on why America was a great, successful (and unique) country. The importance of the American system of invention and patents was a theme that she returned to again and again over the years.

Earlier today USPTO Director Andrei Iancu testified at an Oversight Hearing before the House Judiciary Committee. In addition to detailing forthcoming changes to post grant proceedings, Director Iancu fielded many questions on patent eligibility. “The issue is very significant. It is significant to the Office, to our applicants, and it is significant to the entire industry,” Iancu responded to Congressman Collins. “In some areas of technology, it is unclear what is patentable and what is not, and that can depress innovation in those particular areas. Our plan at the PTO is to work within Supreme Court jurisprudence to try and provide better guidelines. What we think is in and what we think is out, and provide, hopefully, forward looking guidance that helps examiners and the public understand what at least from the PTO’s point of view we think is right.”

Why did the Supreme Court intentionally destroy the U.S. patent system? That is a question many have been asking themselves in the wake of more than a decade of dubious decisions that continually erode patent rights and limit what is patent eligible… It is because of the Supreme Court that high-tech startups are unable to obtain patent protection necessary to attract investors… Investors simply aren’t interested in many U.S. high-tech startups because they know many patents in the software, biotech and medical arenas are extremely difficult to obtain, and even if obtained will be impossible to keep thanks to the curtailing of what is patent eligible by the Supreme Court… It is time for Congress to take control of America’s patent policy and legislatively reform Section 101.

“Let’s talk a bit about intellectual property rights,” Undersecretary of Commerce and Director of NIST Walter Copan said at the LES Silicon Valley conference on Wednesday, April 25, 2018. “IP rights are American property rights.” This simple, declarative statement by Director Copan was as important as it was direct. These words were spoken on the morning after the United States Supreme Court issued its decision in Oil States v. Greene’s Energy, which rather than saying patents are a property right instead called patents merely a “government franchise.”