IPWatchdog.com is in the process of transitioning to a newer version of our website. Please be patient with us while we work out all the kinks.

Posts Tagged: "Senator Chuck Schumer"

New Reports says Engine, EFF are Shills for Google on Patent Reform

Google’s efforts to decimate the U.S. patent system to protect its own interests is a fact of life that is becoming more clear day by day. The latest scathing report, published in May by the watchdog organization Campaign for Accountability, highlights Google’s unscrupulous activities in supporting the efforts of organizations like Engine Advocacy and the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), organizations portraying themselves as advocates for smaller entities but instead attempt to influence the political debate on Google’s behalf in many areas, including patent reform.

Senate confirms dozens of Trump nominees, including new IP Czar

Vishal Amin was confirmed to be the IP enforcement coordinator at the White House and Peter Davidson was confirmed to be general counsel at the Commerce Department. Amin had been a lawyer for Congressman Lamar Smith (R-TX) working on the AIA and then for Congressman Bob Goodlatte (R-VA) working on the Innovation Act. Therefore, Amin has been in the middle of IP legislation since President Obama took office in January 2009. Before that he worked in the Bush White House and Commerce Department on patent reform and IP issues.  Amin generally favors the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) and going after patent trolls.

Federal Circuit Vacates PTAB Decision Applying Incorrect Definition for CBM Patents

Claimed methods incidental or complimentary to financial services are not necessarily reviewable as CBM patents. The claims as they were written must be directed to methods and apparatuses that have particular uses in connection with a financial product or service. For a patent to be a CBM patent, “[i]t is not enough that a sale has occurred or may occur, or even that the specification speculates such a potential sale might occur.”

President Obama should nominate Judge Raymond Chen to the Supreme Court

Chen, an Obama appointee, was confirmed only several years ago by a vote of 97-0. Born in 1968 he is 47 years old, meaning he could easily serve on the Court throughout the next generation, in modern times an important consideration for a Presidential nomination to the High Court. Chen also comes from the Federal Circuit, which is anything but politically controversial, primarily responsible for handling patent appeals. Chen would also become the first Asian American to serve on the Supreme Court, another potentially important consideration for President Obama, who has shown throughout his term in Office that he likes breaking glass ceilings with appointments and nominations. Thus, Chen would have virtually all the same upside as would Srinavasan without any of the baggage that would make confirmation difficult, if not impossible.

Will a Patent Question Come Up At The Presidential Debates?

At this point in the presidential cycle it is too early to expect a great deal of substance on issues like patents? The point where patents may come up in the debates will be in these application layer issues of drug pricing, taxes or maybe trade. But even then the discussion will be delicate and nuanced, unless we have a February 2008 situation. Sure litigation gamesmanship (generally and not just patents) remains important and perhaps for reasons not widely appreciated given the recent Supreme Court decisions on class action lawsuits and arbitration issues that have changed the balance of the force. Senator Ted Cruz, Carly Fiorina and Senator Rick Santorum have already publicly expressed specific views about the Constitution and the patent system. And certainly the Constitution gets referenced a lot at the debates. But are they going to use their finite time at a debate to discuss patents when there is broader interest in guns, terrorism, refugees, wars, and the powers of the president?

Patent Reform in 2016, Maybe Not as Dead as you Think

As interesting as the Senate may become when patent reform resurfaces, the dynamic in the House will be fascinating for many reasons. Since patent reform stalled there is a new Speaker of the House, Paul Ryan (R-WI). Speaker Ryan has said he plans to return the House to regular order and allow business to trickle up from members to the full House rather than have legislation forced down from leadership on Members. It is widely known that Goodlatte and Issa continue to want more patent reform and are seeking opportunities to push forward to a vote in the House. Will Speaker Ryan allow the Innovation Act to come to a vote in the House?

University exception to fee shifting in PATENT Act won’t help Iowa State or University of Iowa

Senator Chuck Grassley (R-IA) added language to the fee-shifting provisions in the PATENT Act that would offer an economic hardship exception to fee shifting for “an institution of higher education.” The reason that Iowa State and the University of Iowa find themselves on the outside looking in is because of the way they have structured their patent ownership and licensing efforts. As is rather common, Iowa State and the University of Iowa place ownership of patents outside the institution and in the hands of a Research Foundation, which is a separate entity altogether.

Patent Reform 101: A comparison of current fee-shifting language

Goodlatte was incredulous, explaining that he sees no substantive difference between the language in the Innovation Act and the language in the PATENT Act. The difference between the House bill and the Senate bill boils down to the presumptions made and who will wind up bearing the burden of proof. Congressman Goodlatte is sophisticated and knowledgeable. Surely he has to understand both that there is a difference and that the difference is meaningful.

Vocal minority cannot keep PATENT Act from passing Senate Judiciary

At the end of a three-hour long hearing held by the U.S. Senate Committee on the Judiciary this Thursday, June 4th, S.1137, the proposed legislation known as the PATENT Act, was approved to move to the floor of the United States Senate by a 16-4 vote of the Senate committee. Proponents of the bill lauded the bipartisan support which brought the bill committee approval. Interestingly, a small but vocal bipartisan minority has developed, a couple of whom have pledged to continue debate aspects of this legislation which they fear will pose a threat to American innovation.

Senators mistaken, IPRs do not frustrate Hatch-Waxman

Senators repeatedly brought up the Hatch-Waxman legislation. One after another Senators discussed how inter partes review (IPR) of pharmaceutical patents at the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) has, in an unanticipated way, upset the delicate balance reached in Hatch-Waxman to ensure that generic drugs would come to market quickly. Those familiar with IPR and Hatch-Waxman will undoubtedly recognize that this concern is entirely misplaced. A successful IPR would result in the immediate death of patent claims, which would inure to the benefit of all generics, which would in fact result in generics entering the market quickly.

Senate Judiciary Committee to Markup PATENT Act

According to Grassley’s office, the amended PATENT Act will provide important reforms for the way that the Patent Trial and Appeals Board (PTAB) of the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) operates. For instance, the managers amendment would: (1) Require the PTAB to apply the claim construction standard used in federal district court (i.e., the Phillips standard) and further requires the PTAB to consider if claims have previously been construed in district court. (2) Makes explicit that for purposes of PTAB adjudications patents are presumed to be valid, although does so retaining the current law providing that the petitioner has the burden to prove a proposition of unpatentability by a preponderance of the evidence. (3) Makes clear that the Director has discretion not to institute an IPR or PGR if doing so would not serve the interests of justice. (4) Allows patent owners to submit evidence in response to a petition to institute an IPR or PGR, and petitioners to file a reply to respond to new issues. (5) Directs the PTO to modify the institution process so that the same panels do not make institution and merits decisions. (6) Directs the PTO to engage in rulemaking in order to institute a Rule 11-type obligation in IPR and PGR proceedings.

Patent Reform 2.0 – The Next Round of Patent Reform

On Monday, May 11, 2015, IPWatchdog will a co-sponsor a roundtable discussion on patent reform. This event will take place at the law offices of McDermott Will & Emery, which is located directly across the street from the U.S. Capitol. Bernie Knight, a partner with McDermott and a former General Counsel to the United States Patent and Trademark Office, will co-moderate the event along with me. We hope you can join us for this discussion.

Patent reform on the agenda when Congress returns this week

Patent reform is back on the agenda when Congress returns from recess this week. On Tuesday, April 14, 2015, at 2:00 pm ET, the House Judiciary Committee will hold a hearing on H.R. 9, more commonly referred to as the Innovation Act. Then on Thursday, April 16, 2015, at 11:00 am ET, the Commerce, Manufacturing and Trade (CMT) Subcommittee of the House Energy & Commerce Committee will also hold a patent related hearing. The subject of the CMT hearing will be the Targeting Rogue and Opaque Letters Act (TROL Act).

Senate Small Business Committee finds consensus on patent reform

Significant consensus was reached between representatives of small business and universities at a hearing of the U.S. Senate Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship on March 19, 2015. The hearing was held to take testimony relating to proposed reforms to the U.S. patent system. The day’s discussion prompted Sen. Chris Coons (D-DE) to make the comment that the argument over…

Senate Judiciary Committee seeks balance on patent troll legislation

Earlier today the Senate Judiciary Committee held a hearing on patent reform. The hearing was titled The Impact of Abusive Patent Litigation Practices on the American Economy. There was a variety of diverse views presented by the witnesses, including one witness, Krish Gupta, who continued to cite the bogus and thoroughly debunked Bessen-Meurer “study” that erroneously claims that patent trolls…