Leahy and Hatch on Patent Reform Act of 2007 - we’re making progress beacuse no one is entirely happy
This morning’s Washington Times includes Meaningful Patent Reform, an op/ed piece co-authored by Senators Leahy and Hatch. Characterizing themselves as “close partners on intellectual property issues,” the current and immediate past chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee pitched their case for passage of S.1145, the Patent Reform Act of 2007.
The primary rationale advanced by the Senators can be paraphrased as such:
Congress has neglected to modernize our patent system to keep pace with the boom in American innovation. Recent Supreme Court decisions have nudged things in the right direction…[b]ut the Court is constrained in its decisions by the laws on the books….If we are to maintain our position at the forefront of the global economy and continue to lead the world in innovation and production, we need an efficient and streamlined patent system that issues high-quality patents while limiting wheel spinning and counterproductive litigation.
The article specifically notes the post grant review, forum shopping (venue), and inequitable conduct reform measures contained in the bill. It also carefully addresses the controversial damages provision which appears to be the key sticking point at this time:
We must also restore fairness to the rules that govern how courts determine damages when a patent is infringed. The threat of excessive damages is ruthlessly curtailing progress, and the loss of jobs and innovation is directly linked to litigation costs. But we must be careful to strike the right balance so that violating the intellectual property rights of others does not just become an acceptable cost of doing business. The goal of our reforms is to ensure that patent holders will be able to obtain appropriate compensation in case of infringement.
The Senators close with an interesting note about the bill’s progress to date:
As legislators, we know we are headed in the right direction when everyone is complaining that the entire bill is not going their way. We see this as a necessary, albeit somewhat difficult, part of the legislative process. But we welcome it. But at the end of day, we are confident that we will resolve the remaining issues in ways that should make everyone comfortable and will ensure final passage.
You might enjoy these related posts:
- Senate reform bill to be delayed? A group of five Republican Senators has asked that the...
- Dudas: S1145 creates a false choice on innovation, but balance can be struck Jon Dudas held a Q&A with the media this morning...
- Patent reform down to four sticking points? According to Hewlett-Packard Co. General Counsel Mark Holston, the comprehensive...
- Cable GC - patent reform is about loopholes, frivolous lawsuits, and American jobs According to Grier C. Raclin, executive vice president and general...
- Dirty pool in patent politics? The “Dear Senator” letters and memoranda on patent reform have...
If you enjoyed this post, please consider to leave a comment or subscribe to the feed and get future articles delivered to your feed reader.
All this talk of a need for patent “deform” is but a red herring fabricated by a handful of large tech firms as a diversion away from the real issue…that they have no valid defense against charges they are using other parties’ technologies without permission. It’s not about reforming the system. It’s about legalizing theft!
The objective of these large firms is not to fix the patent system, but to destroy it or pervert it so only they may obtain and defend patents; to make it a sport of kings. Patents are a threat against their market dominance. They would rather use their size alone to secure their market position. Patents of others, especially small entities, jeopardize that. For example, the proposed change to eliminate the use of injunctions would only further encourage blatant infringement. Any large company would merely force you to make them take a license. They would have little to lose. Everything would be litigated to death -if a small entity can come up with the cash to pursue. That’s what these large multinationals are betting against.
Sadly, some legislators and other parties have been duped by these slick firms and their well greased lawyers, lobbyists (some disguised as trade or public interest groups), and stealth PR firms. Don’t be surprised to find the Washington lobbyist scandal spreading into the patent deform proceedings.
When corporate America agrees to not use our inventions without consent, American inventors and small entities will agree to stop suing them.