Posts Tagged: "pto director"

This will be the first time that Lee has had a confirmation hearing. The timing suggests that the Obama Administration and Senator Reid think that they can get Lee confirmed prior to the end of this Congressional session, which may well be the case. Assuming that this hearing will be more than just a show, there are a number of difficult questions that should be asked of Lee… Why is the Patent Office secretly subjecting applications to extraordinary scrutiny? Do you support fee-shifting legislation to combat the perceived problem of “patent trolls”? Does Congress need to step in and amend 35 U.S.C 101 to provide a more clear definition of what is patent eligible?

Immediately prior to becoming Director of the un-opened Silicon Valley Patent Office, from 2003 to 2012, Lee was the Deputy General Counsel and Head of Patents and Patent Strategy at Google Inc. Google has been a outspoken critic of the U.S. patent system and based on their public positions and lobbying it is clear that the company would like to see software patents abolished and the patent system significantly curtailed. Recently other large Silicon Valley companies have split with Google and have started to work to promote the importance of patents as a tool for American innovation.

Although the current administration talks the talk of promoting invention and innovation, they are influenced by special interests that have negative views regarding patents and the patent process, particularly in view of the “patent troll problem.” Unfortunately, it appears that the reason for the long delay in selecting a USPTO head lies almost exclusively with the administration’s and Congress’ views on the patent troll issue, i.e., the head person must be willing to make whatever changes to the patent system to curtail patent trolling, apparently regardless the effect on the patent system as a whole.

Back on June 2, 2014, Senator Orrin Hatch (R-UT) wrote to President Obama expressing concern with the fact that the United States Patent and Trademark Office has been without a director for more than 16 months. A further 11 weeks has passed and we are still without a presidential nominee to run the USPTO. Between the diametrically opposed lobby groups who love and hate patents, the reality that many candidates who have been approached have declined, and those qualified candidates who are willing to accept cannot get support in the Senate, President Obama may not have a Director during his second term, which is truly embarrassing.

In recent weeks news has come out that Phil Johnson’s nomination as Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office is dead. It seems to be dead due to the protest of at least one Senator on the Senate Judiciary Committee, not because the onerous vetting process produced any red flags or because the White House has lost interest. The Senator allegedly unhappy is Senator Chuck Schumer (D-NY)… [N]ominees [are put] through an extraordinary vetting process that reportedly can take between 5 to 9 months to complete even in the best case scenario. Let’s say that the White House has decided to move past Johnson and will not look back. They must first identify a willing candidate; someone who can pass through the gauntlet that is the vetting process, has the requisite experience and who is willing to take a substantial pay cut. Such an individually would likely having to unwind investments and holdings, or at least put them into some blind trust. Even if the White House can this week identify that person who accepts the invitation to take the position and who is willing to subject themselves to scrutiny that would make an IRS inquiry look like a day in the park, that means we are looking at at least January 2015 before confirmation.

News of the death of Johnson’s nomination is both a shocking surprise and yet all too predictable in a town that increasingly makes little logical sense . . . From what my sources are telling me, Johnson’s nomination is dead at the moment, but there have been no bridges burned. However, absent the White House reconsidering and moving forward with a Johnson nomination he will not be the next Director of the USPTO. From what I have pieced together so far all of this seems to translate as follows: Johnson has opposition on the Senate Judiciary Committee not inside the White House. Given that Johnson, like the overwhelming majority of the industry, was against expanding covered business method (CBM) review it is easy to speculate where that opposition is coming from, but more on that in the coming days and weeks.

Dave Kappos did more for PTO-academic relations than any other Commissioner or Director in the history of the Office. This is a true statement, but hardly does credit to his real contributions in this area. That’s for the simple reason that very few former leaders of the Patent Office had much if anything to do with academics. The bar was so low in fact that had Dave been merely cordial and refrained from open derision of academics and their research, he might well have set a new standard with only that. He did much more, of course. Director Kappos actively sought out academic researchers. He brought them into formal roles in the PTO.

Johnson has detractors, which is almost incomprehensible, but there are those who are unhappy. . . Johnson’s detractors are also pointing to the fact that he was not in support of the most recent round of patent “reform,” but truthfully very few within the industry were in favor of the latest patent legislation, which is why it went down to a rather ignominious defeat. There were some within the tech sector who were pushing hard for the latest failed patent reform, such as Google, but after being in harmony with Google for many years Apple and Microsoft finally broke off and similarly did not support the failed patent legislation. Therefore, anyone who says that “tech is upset because Johnson didn’t support patent reform” is simply not being completely truthful. There were many within the tech sector who rely on patents to make their research and development worthwhile who were in agreement with Johnson. Furthermore, there is absolutely no doubt that the pharmaceutical industry will find Johnson acceptable, and the pharmaceutical industry is one of the most important of all U.S. industries.

I prophesy that the best we can hope for is a Bilski-esque vague instruction (wherein our top court opined that some business methods are patentable, citing the machine or transformation test as one viable test, without pointing to other valid tests and without enlightening the confused public.) The Court is once again likely to limit software patentability in some arcane way that harms job creation and stifles economic growth. The bright side is that the Court’s failure to protect our largest growth industries may help spur the legislative branch into further action. A decade of intermittent patent reforms has created a permanent cadre of patent lobbyists very willing to focus their considerable efforts and talents on a new patent issue. It would be advantageous to the patent system if that attention were productively channeled to specifically include our emerging technologies in our patent statutes, and to legislate patent eligibility in a manner that treats 101 as the broad filter it was intended to be, while employing the other patent statutes, such as 112 and 103, to correctly provide the narrower filters.