Posts Tagged: "Congressman Goodlatte"

Sen. McCaskill introduced S. 2049 in February 2014 which would require the FTC to promulgate rules to prohibit unfair and deceptive acts and practice in the sending of patent demand letters, including requiring each such letter to identify the patent number, the claims, a description of the manufacturer and model number of each accused product or service, notice that the recipient may have the right to have the manufacturer defend against the infringement, the identity of the person with the right to enforce (including each owner, co-owner, assignee, exclusive licensee, and entity with the authority to enforce the patent, and the ultimate parent entity), any FRAND licensing commitments, any basis for a specific license amount, and each PTO proceeding or litigation involving the patent. Bad faith assertion would be enforceable by the FTC or attorney general of a State in federal court.

“Notably, the concerns of key inventor stakeholders like us – principally small companies that create the fundamental inventions that drive our innovation economy – have not yet been evaluated in depth. Historically, the vast majority of legitimate patent holders have honorably sought the fruits of their labor through patent rights promoted by the Constitution and secured by Congress, by licensing when possible and litigating when necessary. Our nation and, indeed, our planet have benefitted enormously as a result of the identification and disclosure of these discoveries through the U.S. patent system. Legitimate inventors and patent holders should not be confused with, or punished as a result of, a small minority of bad actors who create shell entities that send mass demand letters for the purpose of seeking money under the threat of unjustifiable litigation.”

Congressman Bob Goodlatte (R-VA), is continuing to fast track the Innovation Act (HR 3309) despite growing concerns from both Republican and Democrat members of the House Judiciary Committee… One major question is whether we really want to go to a loser pay system with respect to patent infringement litigation? That sounds nice, but it will no doubt have a chilling effect, perhaps most chilling on the entities that are not abusers of the litigation system. It will undoubtedly make it harder for small businesses and start-ups to obtain the critical funding they need because investors will rightfully worry about whether the company may ultimately become embroiled in patent litigation, lose and then have to foot the bill for the entirety of the litigation. Even more problematic is the loser pay provisions coupled with the joinder provisions, which the University community believes could lead to entities being pulled into patent litigation against their will. If that happens and they lose they would be on the hook for paying the fees of the other side despite not willingly participating in the litigation. How is that fair? That would have a significant chilling effect without a doubt.

Calling the Innovation Act fast-tracked doesn’t do justice to what is really happening. The Innovation Act was only officially introduced on October 23, 2013, and the Committee has not heard from any independent inventors or small businesses. Even the innovator community that stands to lose big is just warming up, this past week with a substantial coalition of University groups and the Biotechnology Industry Organization (BIO) weighing in for the first time, with BIO concluding that the “proposals are not supportable without significant amendment.” The University groups weighing in against the Innovation Act are the Association of American Universities, American Council on Education, Association for American Medical Colleges, Association of Public and Land-grant Universities, Association of University Technology Managers and Council on Government Relations, collectively referred to in their position statement as “the Higher Education Community.”

EDITOR’S NOTE: What follows is a summary of the Goodlatte patent bill created by American Continental Group, which is a government affairs and strategic consulting firm in Washington, DC. Manus Cooney, a former Chief Counsel of the Senate Judiciary Committee is one of the partners at ACG, and is also frequent guest contributor on IPWatchdog.com. Cooney and his partners and associates worked to prepare this summary, which was described as a team effort. It is republished here with permission.

Clouding IP Faces Inter Partes Review at the USPTO. ***** Goodlatte’s Second “Discussion Draft” of Patent Reform Legislation. ***** IPO White Paper Calls for Update to Patent Examination System. ***** The After Final Consideration Pilot 2.0 (AFCP 2.0), which had been scheduled to expire on September 30, 2013, has been extended through December 14, 2013. ***** Patent Litigator Becomes Managing Partner at Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton. ***** The requirement for consonance applies to both the patent challenged for double patenting (i.e., the challenged patent) and the patent being used as a reference against the challenged patent (i.e., the reference patent).

A troubling fundamental aspect of the proposed mandatory stay is that it would chip away at the quid pro quo of the patent bargain. To ensure the Constitutionally-protected exclusive right, patent rights have long been recognized as covering multiple and independent separate causes of action: “whoever without authority makes, uses, offers to sell, or sells any patented invention, within the United States or imports into the United States any patented invention during the term of the patent therefor, infringes the patent.” 35 U.S.C. § 271(a) (emphasis added). Strict liability attaches to each one of these forms of infringement independently of the others. These are separate violations, any one of which being subject to injunctive relief “to prevent the violation of any right secured by patent.” 35 U.S.C. § 283.

The House Judiciary Subcommittee on Courts, Intellectual Property, and the Internet on March 14, 2013, heard from six witnesses that the business of “patent assertion entities” (PAEs) is inflicting severe harm on a broad range of technology users. The witnesses at the hearing agreed that, when confronted PAE demand letters on frivolous claims, settlements by and large are economically unavoidable.

Earlier this week House Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte (R-VA) announced the House Judiciary Committee’s Republican subcommittee assignments for the 113th Congress. The subcommittee from the House of Representatives that has jurisdiction over matters relating to intellectual property is the Subcommittee on Intellectual Property, Competition, and the Internet. This subcommittee has jurisdiction over copyright, patent, trademark law, information technology, antitrust matters, as well as other appropriate matters as referred by the Chairman. It is this House Subcommittee on IP that will be one of the primary focal points for any new legislation that deals with intellectual property over the next two years.

On Friday, September 16, 2011, President Obama signed into law “The America Invents Act” (“AIA”) which passed the Senate on September 8, 2011, by a vote of 89-9. The AIA passed the House of Representatives on June 23rd by a vote of 304-117. The measure, which is the product of a seven-years-long legislative battle among patent policy stakeholders, changes how patents are obtained and enforced in the United States. Important reforms to patent law are incorporated into the AIA and, just as significantly, several controversial proposed changes were deleted from the AIA before final passage. This article is a play-by-play of the process and how it unfolded.

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 bill during Committee consideration, we have no choice but to oppose floor consideration of the bill until this issue is repaired.

Today the House Subcommittee on Intellectual Property, Competition and the Internet, which is a subcommittee of the House Committee on the Judiciary, held a hearing on the America Invents Act, the House version of patent reform. While the House and Senate bills are largely identical, there is one striking difference between the two, and that difference relates to prior user…