Posts Tagged: "House Judiciary Committee"

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.

Reasonable minds may disagree about how significant the gap is. Indeed, it could fairly be said that the investigation figure I report is 50% higher than the ITC’s (28% v. 19%), and that the sample size is too small to draw any statistical conclusions. Still, reporting the results together, the ITC and I agree that: (1) 43-47% of respondents at the ITC in the last 15-18 months are respondents named in NPE/PAE investigations; and (2) 19-28% of investigations at the ITC in the last 15-18 months are NPE/PAE-initiated investigations.

Licensing U.S. intellectual property strengthens the economy and improves our trade balance. Section 337, the statute that regulates unfair practices in import trade, is a key element of the nation’s trade laws and ensures that American innovators, including licensing companies, will not be harmed by the importation of goods that infringe valid and enforceable U.S. patents. Importers of foreign made products – both U.S. based and foreign companies – have appealed to Congress for several changes to Section 337 that would, in effect, limit access to the ITC and/or weaken the powers of the ITC to deal with cases of unfair trade practices. Weakening the ITC’s jurisdiction would benefit foreign economies, foreign competitors, and other foreign manufacturers to the detriment of the U.S. economy.

Perhaps the infringer lobby needs a refresher course on the rights granted to a patent owner. 35 U.S.C. § 271(a) says: “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.” (emphasis added). So, as it turns out, importation of products covered by a patent during the term of the patent are an infringement of the patent rights granted. Let’s not forget that at the end of the day what these Silicon Valley elite are arguing is that it should be more difficult for a patent owner to stop infringement. The wrong-doers are NOT the patent owners who have the audacity to exercise rights granted by the federal government. The wrong-doers are those who infringe those rights and there is absolutely no reason to make it easier for them to engage in infringement.

The troubling news starts with the fact that a technical amendments bill to the America Invents Act (AIA) that is working its way around Capitol Hill, and in true government by ambush fashion it could work its way into a bill at any time! What is the big deal about technical amendments? The problem is that not all of the amendments will be “technical.” For example, there is a plot afoot to change the estoppel provisions in the AIA relative to post-grant review and inter partes review. In my opinion there would have been absolutely no chance that the America Invents Act would have passed if the estoppel provisions for post-grant review only applied to issues actually raised.

Shortly after 2pm Eastern Time the United States House of Representatives voted on the Managers Amendment to the America Invents Act, H.R. 1249. The Managers Amendment passed by a vote of 283 – 140. The House then proceeded to address several amendments to H.R. 1249. The handwriting seems to be on the wall. The House is poised to pass H.R. 1249, together with prior user rights and without giving the United States Patent and Trademark Office access to the fees it collects without the blessing and approval of appropriators.

Despite the fact that Congressmen Ryan and Rogers would like this to be about the Obama Administration, the fact is that Senator Tom Coburn (R-OK) is the one who championed the amendment in the Senate that would give the Patent Office the ability to keep the fees it collects. Senator Coburn is known as “Senator No” for his staunch fiscally conservative stance on virtually all issues. So if you are willing to let facts influence your viewpoint there is absolutely no way that Patent Office funding within proposed patent reform can be an issue upon which Republicans can beat up Democrats. It was a leading fiscally conservative Republican in the Senate who brought the USPTO funding issue out of obscurity and to the top of the agenda.

So why would large companies be such supporters of first to file? What if first to file was the Trojan Horse that carried prior user rights? Prior user rights will not benefit the individual or the small business. Prior user rights unambiguously will benefit the large corporations who innovate and then shelf technology for one reason or another, or those who exploit the technology in secret. Perhaps they choose not to pursue a patent because it isn’t perceived to be a meaningful innovation, or worth the cost and time of pursuing a patent. Perhaps the innovation gets weeded out along the way, never getting green-lighted past a certain point. These trade secrets today are not prior art thanks to 102(g). Remove 102(g) and insert a prior user rights regime and all those secrets that large companies hide, fail to pursue or willfully keep from the public will allow them to ignore the patent rights of those who innovate and actually disseminate that information to the public.

At an all-day session on April 14, members of the Committee gave serious consideration to a variety of amendments to the bill and concluded with an overwhelming, bi-partisan vote of 32-3 in support of the long-overdue improvements to the patent law. The Committee proceeding demonstrated the careful balancing of interests and the compromises necessary to address the concerns of the diverse stakeholders. While more work is yet to be done, the Committee’s effort represents encouraging progress.

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.

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 patent reform.

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…

The Innovation Alliance is disappointed that the America Invents Act as introduced today in the House of Representatives does not include some important safeguards against the potential for abuse of the post-grant review procedures at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO). In particular, the bill includes a weak threshold for ‘second window’ inter partes review proceedings, one that will allow virtually all challenges to proceed to a trial-like hearing before an administrative patent judge. We believe a higher threshold is needed to enable the USPTO to manage the increased workload of the new administrative review system fairly and efficiently by screening out meritless or unsubstantiated petitions.

Late in the afternoon on Thursday, March 24, 2011, the purported patent reform bill from the House of Representatives began circulating. The House patent reform bill is largely identical to the Senate version – S. 23. There are some differences, one rather major difference, but the Senate first to file provisions remain intact. The House bill would still grant the Patent Office the right to use all of the funds collected, as did S. 23. The House bill also would grant the United States Patent and Trademark Office fee setting authority, as did S. 23, but then curiously goes on to set the fees that the USPTO charges. It seems unclear why on one hand you would set the fees and in another section of the bill say that the USPTO can vary any fees defined.

Earlier today Chief Judge Paul Michel (ret.) of the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit testified before the Subcommittee on Intellectual Property, Competition and the Internet, a subcommittee of the House Committee on the Judiciary. In a nutshell, Chief Judge Michel explained that “[t]he PTO desperately and immediately needs: several thousand additional examiners, dozens of additional board of appeals members, and major modernization of its IT systems, which are antiquated, inadequate and unreliable.”