Advertisement
*
Reproduction permitted for personal use only. For reprints and reprint permission, contact reprints@wistechnology.com.

State congressional delegation pulls together on patent reform

Madison, Wis. - While the Wisconsin Legislature appears deadlocked on everything from the state budget bill to a multi-state compact to protect the Great Lakes, the state's congressional delegation just delivered a lesson on putting partisanship aside to solve a problem.

The issue at hand: How to rewrite the nation's patent laws without harming the very entrepreneurs and inventors those laws were designed to protect.

The U.S. House of Representatives voted Sept. 7 to endorse some of the most significant changes in American patent law in more than 50 years. The 220 to 175 vote was hardly a landslide, and leaders in the Senate will be reluctant to bring the bill to a floor vote until at least 60 of 100 senators (a filibuster-proof margin) signal they will support it. However, the state's delegation played a vital role in rewriting a bill that Wisconsin opponents once described as dangerous and now find largely acceptable.

U.S. Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner, the veteran Republican from Menomonee Falls, and U.S. Rep. Tammy Baldwin, the Democrat from Madison, normally would have trouble agreeing the sun rises in the east. But on this issue, these two lawmakers worked with other members of the House delegation to soften some of the most egregious aspects of the bill.

“It's a better bill than what was introduced,” said Carl Gulbrandsen, managing director of the Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation. “By agreeing to work together, the Wisconsin congressional delegation was at the (negotiating) table.”
Advertisement
The debate over reforming the nation's patent laws - which are rooted in the Constitution - has created some strange alliances. Democrats and Republicans have been split within their own congressional caucuses, and different sectors of the nation's tech-based economy have also disagreed.

For example, the bill found support in the software industry, with its shorter product life cycles, while the biotechnology and pharmaceutical sectors were opposed. For some tech-based companies that do business in multiple countries, the status quo is troublesome. For others, it's a safeguard.

Speed bump for innovation

The opponents were joined by organizations such as WARF, which handles patent filings and licensing for inventions that arise on the University of Wisconsin-Madison campus. A subsidiary of WARF, called WiSys, does the same for most other University of Wisconsin campuses. Since its creation in 1925, WARF has returned $940 million in license revenue to the UW-Madison, which has used the money to fund research and other campus activities.

Like those at many academic R&D organizations, managers at WARF worried that sweeping changes in U.S. patent law would discourage innovation - not only on campuses, but among entrepreneurs who lack the money and expertise to quickly file patents. The bill shifts from a first-to-invent system to a first-to-file approach, which matches the rest of the world but will alter behaviors here.

One amendment worked by the Wisconsin congressional delegation would require an “inventor's oath” to demonstrate it's really the inventor who is filing, not someone else rushing to the patent office with a pilfered idea.

Changes pushed by Wisconsin's congressional delegation would also give academic R&D organizations such as WARF the ability to file patent-infringement lawsuits in a federal district court close to home. Other amendments would create filing “grace periods” for academic patents and delay some provisions until the effects on U.S. innovation are studied.

Gulbrandsen said provisions related to damages and review periods for patents after they are granted remain a problem from WARF's perspective, but those issues may get more scrutiny in the Senate. Wisconsin Sens. Herb Kohl and Russ Feingold both sit on the Senate Judiciary Committee, the main stop for the bill.

Pulling together

The goal of Congress is to weed out poor-quality patents and make litigation less likely, without harming “the little guy” who drives innovation through patent-worthy ideas. The fight is far from over, and lawmakers should ensure unintended consequences are few. When it came time to pull together on this round, however, Wisconsin's House delegation did so.

Recent articles by Tom Still

Tom Still: High-end exports can distinguish Wisconsin in China's emerging markets - for now

Tom Still: Tapping a hidden resource: Academic R&D in the UW System

Tom Still: New report shows Wisconsin making headway in building a new economy

Tom Still: Medical diplomacy should survive the Thompson campaign

Tom Still: Fact check: Simpson misinformed on publicly funded research

Tom Still is president of the Wisconsin Technology Council. He is the former associate editor of the Wisconsin State Journal in Madison.

The opinions expressed herein or statements made in the above column are solely those of the author, and do not necessarily reflect the views of Wisconsin Technology Network, LLC.

WTN accepts no legal liability or responsibility for any claims made or opinions expressed herein.

Comments

Lawrence B. Ebert responded 1 year ago: #1

Some folks might believe Congress is to be criticized, not praised, for the present state of the USPTO. In the 1990s, Congress began fee diversion from the USPTO, so that monies needed by the USPTO to conduct its affairs were re-directed into general revenue. The backlog of pending applications increased dramatically. Sadly, the current efforts by Congress in HR 1908 do nothing to address the present deficit of resources at the USPTO.

The goal of Congress is to weed out poor-quality patents, and one notes a significant irony in the use of the word "quality." The report of that National Academy of Sciences (NAS/STEP) did not actually find evidence of a decline in patent quality. Page 3 of the report states: "The claim that quality has deteriorated in a broad and systematic way could be, but has not been, empirically tested. Therefore, conclusions must remain tentative." Congress should not be acting on tentative conclusions. Moreover, recent empirical evidence suggests that the patent grant rate is much lower than that represented to Congress by various academics. See
http://ipbiz.blogspot.com/2007/08/more-on-patent-grant-rate-uspto-is-not.html

Congress ought to be up-to-speed on the recent findings. Furthermore, even if there were numerous poor-quality patents for Congress to weed-out, the quality approach, as defined by Deming, would be to improve the production step (that is, patent examination) rather than to add an inspection step (for example, post-grant review). It is sad to see a non-quality approach taken in the guise of improving "quality."

Gulbrandsen said provisions related to damages and review periods for patents after they are granted remain a problem from WARF's perspective. One notes that H.R. 1908, in enhancing the burden on patentees in inter partes re-examinations (which can take place at any time during the patent lifetime), places the issue well beyond that of a "review period." This burden will be harshest as to small inventors and universities, who don't have substantial resources to defend patents.

In correctly assessing the state of affairs, it is the New Jersey Congressional delegation, including Democrat and Ph.D. holder Rush Holt and most Republicans, who "got it right."

Jack Lohman responded 1 year ago: #2

As the holder of several patents, I'd be willing to give them up totally if we'd just eliminate the whole patent system. The only winners in this are the lawyers, and the few companies that block others from moving forward. There are products I would have developed were it not for the fear of getting sued.

Atnhony Cauterucci responded 1 year ago: #3

I fail to see how this patent will do any good, I only see inventors, innovators, research institutions, and the manufacturing sector getting hurt, losing yet more jobs. If the first paragraphs from the Economic Times of India is any indication, this is a license to hurt one the key economic drivers in the U.S.

NEW DELHI: A Crucial bill making its way through the US Congress is set to give a new inexpensive option for Indian drug makers to attack the patents that give monopoly rights to top-selling MNC brands in the largest pharmaceutical market.

The bill passed by the judiciary committees of the House and the Senate last week, for a sweeping overhaul of the US patent system, allows an interested party to invalidate patents outside a court of law. They could approach the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) for this after the patent is issued.

“The patent reform is beneficial to Indian companies as they are usually not patent holders and are often excluded from the U.S. market by the threat from weak patents,” said US-based intellectual property law firm Darby & Darby PC’s Washington DC Office managing principal Dr. Raj S. Dave.

Lawrence B. Ebert responded 1 year ago: #4

The only winners in this are the lawyers, and the few companies that block others from moving forward,-- the American people have been the winners because of the patent system time after time. Chester Carlson, the inventor of xerography, could advance that revolutionary process ONLY BECAUSE of the patent system. Even with patents, he could not interest any "big" companies, and IBM turned him down three times. The Wright Brothers, even with patents, were repeatedly ignored by the federal government, and could protect their interests (imperfectly) with their patents.
[see http://ipbiz.blogspot.com/2007/06/it-is-always-easier-to-deal-with-things.html]

Without patents, we have the Hobbesian "plagiarize with pride" world of the Harvard Business Review wherein marketing guys devour the idea guys, which might be all right for the marginally incremental world of IT, but isn't a terrific idea for everybody else.

Returning to the initial article (praising the Wisconsin Congressmen on HR 1908), one notes that self-interested patent lawyers love the post-grant review (opposition) provisions of HR 1908, because it will generate more work than ever for them. Oppositions will run in the hundreds of thousands of dollars range, as the more affluent, larger entities will tie up the smaller inventive entitites in proceedings that the smaller entitities ultimately cannot afford. Universities can't afford them either.

-Add Your Comment

Name:
E-mail:

Comment Policy: WTN News accepts comments that are on-topic and do not contain advertisements, profanity or personal attacks. Comments represent the views of the individuals who post them and do not necessarily represent the views of WTN Media or our partners, advertisers, or sources.

WTN Media cannot accept liability for the content of comments posted here or verify their accuracy. If you believe this comment section is being abused, contact edit@wistechnology.com.

Advertisement
Advertisement
WTN Media Presents