More smoke signals from the Senate on patent reform…and they’re beginning to get interesting

The Senate is issuing more smoke signals on patent reform, and they’re beginning to get interesting.

Yesterday, the Protecting America’s Competitive Edge (PACE) Act, a package of three bills, was introduced with the support of about 30 Senators. The Act is a comprehensive set of measures aimed at various policy areas with the goal of “securing America’s continued economic prosperity in the twenty-first century.”

The PACE Through Education and Research Act, S.2198 - part of the PACE package, includes another “sense of the Senate” section relating to patent reform. In December of last year, the National Innovation Act of 2005 (S.2109) was introduced with a similar “sense of the Congress” section.

We haven’t seen any specific details on patent reform from the Senate yet. S.2109 and S.2198 are nothing more than smoke signals — they’re short on details and calculated to send signals of support.

For several reasons, though, the signals are beginning to get interesting. First, the PACE Act specifically calls for a 20% increase in funding for the Patent and Trademark Office. Second, it lends support to two of the major reform proposals - first-to-file and post grant review (similar to S.2109). Third, it calls for a statutory-backed research exemption to patent infringement. Finally, and perhaps most interesting, it suggests that “specific industries with specialized patent needs” should be treated differently by the patent laws.

Will the Senate attempt to draw a line between big pharma/biotech and software/high technology?

The text of the patent reform section of the PACE Act appears below. I have the full text of the bill if anyone is interested. I’ll post a .pdf soon.

S. 2198 —

SEC. 321. PATENT REFORM.

It is the sense of the Senate that–
(1) the United States Patent and Trademark Office should be
provided with sufficient resources to make intellectual
property protection more timely, predictable, and effective;

(2) the resources described under paragraph (1) should
include a 20 percent increase in overall funding to hire and
train additional examiners and implement more capable
electronic processing; and

(3) Congress should implement comprehensive patent reform
that–
(A) establishes a first-inventor-to-file system;
(B) institutes an open review process following the grant
of a patent;
(C) encourages research uses of patented inventions by
shielding researchers from infringement liability; and
(D) reduces barriers to innovation in specific industries
with specialized patent needs.