Posts Tagged: "patent system"

Innovation, whether in the technical or biological fields, occurs at a pace today that likely exceeds any period in history. This is due in part to the modern tools available that promote innovation. Equipment that was once available only to universities or billion dollar corporations, now sits on the desks of small startup companies and hobbyists. Consider: only a few years ago it cost tens of thousands of dollars and took months of work to produce a medical prosthetic limb. Today, researchers are using consumer grade 3D printers to create replacement jaw-bones in a matter of weeks. In an environment of such rapid innovation, it is no wonder that some question whether patents are still valuable or relevant given the slow, bureaucratic and expensive process require to obtain them.

The NPR-style article tells the story of Tory Norred, a fellow in the cardiology program at the University of Missouri, who in 1998 came up with the idea for a collapsible prosthetic aortic valve that could be fished up through an artery with a catheter and implanted in the hearts of patients who suffered from failing aortic valves. Unlike previous valves, Norred’s stent disperses the force needed to hold it in place against the aorta’s walls, requiring no sutures. In November 2002 he received U.S. Patent No. 6,482,228, “Percutaneous Aortic Valve Replacement.” Norred knew that he was on to something important, but that was not the beginning of success, it was the start of a nightmare that led to repeated frustration.

Patent reform is a subject that most Americans are unfamiliar with. Additionally, significant lobbying efforts and financial resources dedicated by large corporations have confused the subject further. Nevertheless, patent reform is a critical issue for our country. Will the U.S. patent system continue to be the fuel that fires genius, to paraphrase President Abraham Lincoln, or will the U.S. patent system continue to throw cold water on the spark of innovative entrepreneurism in America? I’d like to know, and the American public deserves to know, if the candidates are aware of just how cumbersome, one-sided and unfair the U.S. patent system has become.

Believing that innovation does not come from risk taking inventors, entrepreneurs, start ups, or even from the likes of Silicon Valley, is naïve in the extreme. Unfortunately, this “you didn’t build that” belief system seems to permeate President Obama’s thinking with respect to innovation, and has trickled down within the Administration. This view is also shared by many in Congress too. Sadly, this fatalistic view removes the virtues of work and ignores the sacrifices it takes to succeed. Worst, such a world-view belittles risk taking, which is an absolute prerequisite to business success, particularly with respect to innovation.

A rising tide lifts all boats. While an age-old saying, the concept is relatively simple really. Of course, the path to broad based economic opportunity for all has been elusive for many countries. If underdeveloped and developing countries are going to transform economically, they need to encourage and support innovation. That means many countries like those facing the so called middle income trap like China, South Africa and Brazil, may want to think about IP protection and enforcement and what it could mean for economic development, in terms of encouraging foreign investment, and with respect to raising the quality of life.

The pending report of the UN Secretary General’s High Level Panel on Access to Medicines not only attacks the patent system as predicted, but proposes giving the organization oversight of drug development. If you think United Nation functionaries would be more effective than entrepreneurs, you’ll be delighted. If you live in the real world where bureaucracy is the enemy of innovation, you don’t know whether to laugh or cry.

Corrosive changes in patent law are undermining research university commercialization of patented, federally-funded basic research, endangering our nation’s innovation ecosystem. Mounting uncertainty repels private investment needed to convert new discoveries into innovative public benefits. Prominent investment destabilizers include: post development invalidation, big-tech’s efficient infringement, increased costs of patent enforcement, looming congressional patent reform, and foreign IP theft and price/access manipulation. Collectively these uncertainties can crumble our country’s world-class innovation ecosystem. We must use the limited time left to reverse that catastrophic outcome by seizing every opportunity to do so.

Congress can, and should, take at least four steps in restoring the health and vitality of our patent system: First, Congress should ensure that the patent grant is meaningful and valuable in the first instance. Second, Congress should reaffirm the exclusive nature of the patent grant. Third, Congress should clarify, and perhaps legislatively overrule, the cases addressing patent eligible subject matter, Alice, Mayo, and Myriad. Fourth, and finally, Congress should tread extremely carefully in the realm of so-called patent litigation reform.

CEOs, CFOs, CTOs and General Counsel are typically very good at making decisions when they have the relevant information, but how often do they have the relevant information when making decisions regarding patents and innovation? Even worse, when decisions are being made the Chief Patent Counsel is frequently not even in the room.

This speech by Director Lee is exceptionally important for two reasons. First, the strong and explicit recognition that abuse can and does happen on both sides of a patent dispute, which can and does lead to large companies taking advantage of smaller innovators. Second, the explicit appreciation of the fundamental purpose of the patent system, to create strong property rights that require others to design around as they seek follow-on innovation.

Not only does the Patent Office handsomely charge for the acquisition and maintenance of a patent, they also handsomely charges for the right to challenge those patents after issue. On its face this creates a perverted incentive. The arms dealer nature of how the AIA has transformed the Patent Office is not lost on many within the industry. Add in the insecurity of the USPTO budget and the fact that the Patent Trial and Appeal board (PTAB) directly reports to the Director, thereby not enjoying any true judicial autonomy (at least on paper) and you would be hard pressed to have come up with a more conflicted structure or system.

What we can, and should, address are institutional challenges. Regrettably, our institutional approach to patents has only further challenged small business and diminished innovation. Those challenges come from changes to our patent law in the America Invents Act (AIA), and precedent that has compromised the exclusive nature of the patent right (eBay v. MercExchange), and rewritten the law of patent eligible subject matter (Alice, Mayo and Myriad). Perhaps most significantly, pending legislation (S. 1137 and H.R. 9), if enacted, will further curtail the patentee’s ability to enjoy the rights granted and to seek just reward for infringement. On top of all this is profound uncertainty as the US Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) struggles to keep up with these changes.

Small businesses and independent inventors are critical to revolutionary advancement of American technology. They file over 20% of the applications at the USPTO, and their patents are more likely to encompass breakthrough inventions, rather than incremental change. While Congress has considered a range of legislative reforms, the other branches of government have also been moving forward with challenges confronting the patent system. It is important for America that we get this right. Thoughtful legislation can further improve the patent system and lead to more job creation and economic growth as long as we remember that it is the patent system fuels America’s innovative spirit.

Under President Jackson America rebooted the patent system and started numbering patents from 01. The prior patents under the Jeffersonian registration system were re-designated with the letter X. Since the American Invents Act (AIA) in 2011, we now have a Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) within the United States Patent and Trademark Office. This PTAB has the authority to hold administrative trials for the purpose of stripping property rights from patent owners. Perhaps we should once again re-designate all issued patents, this time with the letter “Y” after they survive what is essentially a de novo redo by the PTO. Why “Y”? “Y bother to patent anymore”? Or perhaps “Y bother to spend the time and money for a lengthy and onerous examination process that seems to mean nothing”?

This month, Inventors Digest features interviews with two heavyweights in American enterprise: Priceline inventor and chair of Walker Digital, Jay Walker; and Mark Cuban, founder of Broadcast.com, owner of the Dallas Mavericks and a regular on the popular TV series Shark Tank. Both men are billionaires who believe the patent system is flawed, but for different reasons. Both want to “fix” the patent system—with diametrically opposing methods.