Changes

Jump to navigation Jump to search
3,371 bytes added ,  12:56, 24 March 2017
no edit summary
=United States Patent and Trademark OfficeActs with pages={{#section:United_States_Patent_and_Trademark_Office|USPTO}}
=Current Issues Facing the The following acts have their own pages:*114, Ways & Means Committee, [[Innovation Promotion Act]]. See also https://www.congress.gov/bill/113th-congress/house-bill/2605*114, H.R.9 [[Innovation Act]]. See also [[H.R. 9: Innovation Act]]*114, S.1137 [[Protecting American Talent and Entrepreneurship (PATENT) Act]]*114, H.R.2045 [[Targeting Rogue and Opaque Letters (TROL) Act]]*114, S.632 [[Support Technology and Research for Our Nation’s Growth (STRONG) Patents Act]]*114, H.R.1896 [[Demand Letter Transparency Act]]*114, H.R.1832 [[Innovation Protection Act]]*112, H.R.1249 [[America Invents Act]]*112, S. 1138 [[Prize Fund for HIV/AIDS Act]]*113, S. 627 and 115, S. 295 [[Medical Innovation Prize Fund Act]]*113, H.R.845 [[The Shield Act]]*113, S. 2146 [[Patent System=Fee Integrity Act]]*114, S.1137 [[PATENT Act]]*114, S.632 [[STRONG Patents Act]]*114, [[S. 1890: Defend Trade Secrets Act of 2016]]
==Criticisms==
In recent years{| {{table}}| align="center" style="background:#f0f0f0;"|'''Bill'''| align="center" style="background:#f0f0f0;"|'''Congress'''| align="center" style="background:#f0f0f0;"|'''Sponsor'''| align="center" style="background:#f0f0f0;"|'''Committee'''| align="center" style="background:#f0f0f0;"|'''Reports'''| align="center" style="background:#f0f0f0;"|'''Last Action'''|-| [[Innovation Promotion Act|H.R.2605 - Manufacturing Innovation in America Act of 2013]]||113th Congress (2013-2014)||Rep. Schwartz, Allyson Y. [D-PA-13] (Introduced 06/28/2013)||House - Ways and Means||||06/28/2013 Referred to the House Committee on Ways and Means.|-| [[H.R. 9: Innovation Act|H.R.9 - Innovation Act]]||114th Congress (2015-2016)||Rep. Goodlatte, Bob [R-VA-6] (Introduced 02/05/2015)||House - Judiciary||H. Rept. 114-235||02/25/2016 Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship. Hearings held.|-| [[Protecting American Talent and Entrepreneurship (PATENT) Act|S.1137 - PATENT Act]]||114th Congress (2015-2016)||Sen. Grassley, Chuck [R-IA] (Introduced 04/29/2015)||Senate - Judiciary||||02/25/2016 Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship. Hearings held.|-| [[Targeting Rogue and Opaque Letters (TROL) Act|H.R.2045 - Targeting Rogue and Opaque Letters Act of 2015]]||114th Congress (2015-2016)||Rep. Burgess, Michael C. [R-TX-26] (Introduced 04/28/2015)||House - Energy and Commerce||H. Rept. 114-877||12/16/2016 Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 688.|-| [[Support Technology and Research for Our Nation’s Growth (STRONG) Patents Act|S.632 - STRONG Patents Act of 2015]]||114th Congress (2015-2016)||Sen. Coons, Christopher A. [D-DE] (Introduced 03/03/2015)||Senate - Judiciary||||02/25/2016 Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship. Hearings held.|-| [[Demand Letter Transparency Act|H.R.1896 - Demand Letter Transparency Act of 2015]]||114th Congress (2015-2016)||Rep. Polis, Jared [D-CO-2] (Introduced 04/20/2015)||House - Judiciary||||05/15/2015 Referred to the Subcommittee on Courts, Intellectual Property, and the Internet.|-| [[Innovation Protection Act|H.R.1832 - Innovation Protection Act]]||114th Congress (2015-2016)||Rep. Conyers, John, Jr. [D-MI-13] (Introduced 04/16/2015)||House - Judiciary||||05/15/2015 Referred to the Subcommittee on Courts, Intellectual Property, and the Internet.|-| [[America Invents Act|H.R.1249 - Leahy-Smith America Invents Act]]||112th Congress (2011-2012)||Rep. Smith, there has been an increase in patent reform legislation due Lamar [R-TX-21] (Introduced 03/30/2011)||House - Judiciary; Budget||H. Rept. 112-98||09/16/2011 Became Public Law No: 112-29. (TXT | PDF)|-| [[Prize Fund for HIV/AIDS Act|S.1138 - Prize Fund for HIV/AIDS Act]]||112th Congress (2011-2012)||Sen. Sanders, Bernard [I-VT] (Introduced 05/26/2011)||Senate - Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions||||05/15/2012 Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Subcommittee on Primary Health and Aging. Hearings held. With printed Hearing: S.Hrg. 112-570.|-| [[Medical Innovation Prize Fund Act|S.495 - Medical Innovation Prize Fund Act]]||115th Congress (2017-2018) | Get alerts||Sen. Sanders, Bernard [I-VT] (Introduced 03/02/2017)||Senate - Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions||||03/02/2017 Read twice and referred to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.|-| [[The Shield Act|H.R.845 - Saving High-Tech Innovators from Egregious Legal Disputes Act of 2013]]||113th Congress (2013-2014)||Rep. DeFazio, Peter A. [D-OR-4] (Introduced 02/27/2013)||House - Judiciary||||04/08/2013 Referred to the Subcommittee on Courts, Intellectual Property, And The Internet.|-| [[Patent Fee Integrity Act|S.2146 - Patent Fee Integrity Act]]||113th Congress (2013-2014)||Sen. Feinstein, Dianne [D-CA] (Introduced 03/13/2014)||Senate - Judiciary||||03/13/2014 Read twice and referred to wide range the Committee on the Judiciary.|-| [[PATENT Act|S.1137 - PATENT Act]]||114th Congress (2015-2016)||Sen. Grassley, Chuck [R-IA] (Introduced 04/29/2015)||Senate - Judiciary||||02/25/2016 Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship. Hearings held.|-| [[STRONG Patents Act|S.632 - STRONG Patents Act of criticisms 2015]]||114th Congress (2015-2016)||Sen. Coons, Christopher A. [D-DE] (Introduced 03/03/2015)||Senate - Judiciary||||02/25/2016 Committee on current patent institutions Small Business and practices demanding stricter reformEntrepreneurship. Hearings held.|-| [[S. 1890: Defend Trade Secrets Act of 2016|S.1890 - Defend Trade Secrets Act of 2016]]||114th Congress (2015-2016)||Sen. Hatch, Orrin G. [R-UT] (Introduced 07/29/2015)||Senate - Judiciary | House - Judiciary||S. Rept. 114-220; H. Rept. 114-529||05/11/2016 Became Public Law No: 114-153. (TXT | PDF)|-| |}
'''[[=United States Patent and Trademark Office|USPTO]]''': In April 2016, the USPTO had an unexamined patent backlog of 549,896 and 352,573 application filings for review. The unexamined patent backlog is a record of how many [[Patent Types| UPR Patents]] are waiting for review by a patent examiner, and application filings are how many patents are being sent in for review. [http://www.uspto.gov/corda/dashboards/patents/main.dashxml?CTNAVID=1005] The USPTO reports that in 2016 the average total pendency time, the time between filing a patent application and issuing or dismissing a patent, has been 26 months. [https://hbr.org/2015/03/why-congress-needs-to-pass-the-innovation-act-this-time| Harvard Business Review] reports that the increase in cases being referred to lower, random courts raises the cost of processing a patent application and causes the patent system to rely on juries often without requisite technical or procedural expertise. These juries are expected to decide whether high level technology or processes satisfy the requirements for protection.
'''Patent Litigation'''{{#section: Critics at Wired believe that the amount of patent litigation and patent infringement claimed has created a "disastrous environment for innovation." [http://www.wired.com/2012/11/ff-steven-levy-the-patent-problem/ (Wired)] Litigation and lawsuits may result in a significant decrease in product development. In 2015, Google and Apple invested more in supporting patent purchases and litigation than in R&D.[http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/08/technology/patent-wars-among-tech-giants-can-stifle-competition.html?_r=0 (NYT-PW)] Additionally, "junk patents" are a source of contention as HBR suggests they lead to pointless trials. The technology industry often suffers of overly broad patents, which also may lead to pointless litigation. Amazon has successfully patented buying things with one-click in the United States, and Apply has claimed ownership of rounded-edged, rectangular-shaped communication devices on which icons are arranged in a grid with a row of persistent icons at the bottom.  '''Rapidly Growing Industries''': The biotechnology industry as a whole provides new ethical challenges to the patent system and introduces new competitive threats such as me-too drugs. Me-too drugs are approved after pioneering drugs to function as substitute products [http://www.who.int/intellectualproperty/topics/ip/Me-tooDrugs_Hollis1.pdf]. Limiting the scope of discoveries that can be patented in biotechnology is an ongoing issue. The DOJ's declaration that genes may not be patented in a case dealing with Myriad Genetics and the University of Utah Research Foundation resulted in sharp public criticism in 2010. [http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/02/health/02gene.html?_r=0] The Biotech industry along with others such as e-commerce or computer software face the challenge of overcoming overlapping patents that could result in many separate patent infringements. [http://faculty.haas.berkeley.edu/shapiro/thicket.pdf] United_States_Patent_and_Trademark_Office|USPTO}}'''Right to Exclude'''{{#section: The current patent system allows companies to file for the right to exclude if they have a novel, non-obvious invention. The right to exclude creates a temporary monopoly for a certain product, creating the potential for higher prices for consumers. Daraprim, a drug produced by Turing Pharmaceuticals, was at one point in time priced at $750 per pill for commercial sale.The CEO OF Turing Pharmaceuticals, Martin Shkreli, led the charge to such an exorbitant price hike, earning himself the title of "Most Hated Man in America." <ref name= "BBC" />United_States_Patent_and_Trademark_Office|USPTO2}}
==Patent Pools==
Patent pools are agreements between patent owners to share, or cross-license, their own patents with one another.[http://www.wipo.int/export/sites/www/ip-competition/en/studies/patent_pools_report.pdf (WIPO)] Generally, patent pools cover mature and complex technologies that require complementary patents to develop compatible products and services. [http://www.wipo.int/export/sites/www/ip-competition/en/studies/patent_pools_report.pdf (WIPO)]. Complementary patents are patents that are must be used together for the development of a specific new product, and therefore, necessitate shared licensing [http://www.wipo.int/export/sites/www/ip-competition/en/studies/patent_pools_report.pdf (WIPO)].
More recentlyOpponents criticize patent pools for the potential of anti-competitive behavior and collusion, primarily with regards to substitute patents. Substitute or non-essential patents cover competing technologies that can be developed in parallel without risk of infringement [http://www.wipo.int/export/sites/www/ip-competition/en/studies/patent_pools_report.pdf]. Certain patent pools have been found to share competitively sensitive information such as marketing and pricing strategies and R&D findings.[http://www.wipo.int/export/sites/www/ip-competition/en/studies/patent_pools_report.pdf] The Department of Justice and Federal Trade Commission stated that patent pools may create barriers to entry for new firms since the required patents will be inaccessible [http://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/atr/legacy/2007/07/11/222655.pdf (DOJ)] In order to address the concerns raised against patent pools, the Department of Justice (DOJ) has taken steps to standardize patent pools in order to prevent violations of antitrust laws. The DOJ requires the following characteristics for a patent pool:
# Essential patents included only.
# Pricing in downstream production cannot be affected by or discussed by members of the patent pool. [http://www.wipo.int/export/sites/www/ip-competition/en/studies/patent_pools_report.pdf].
===Support===These restrictions allow for patentees and standard setting organizations to maximize the benefits of creating patent pools. The creation of patent pools mainly benefits the owners of complementary and essential patents. Essential patents are patents required for a product or process to meet a given sector's technical standards. Cross-licensing between companies in a patent pool facilitates building upon previous technologies and increases the efficiency of innovation by organizing complementary intellectual property assets under one contract [http://www.wipo.int/export/sites/www/ip-competition/en/studies/patent_pools_report.pdf (WIPO)]. Mutually blocking patents often slow technological developments as neither party can make use of its technology without infringing on the other party's patent. By forming a patent pool, both parties can develop substitute technologies without risk of infringement. Companies can also reduce the amount spent on litigation by settling disputes with the creation of patent pools. This would benefit small- and medium-sized businesses that usually cannot afford the costs of expensive litigation. [http://www.wipo.int/export/sites/www/ip-competition/en/studies/patent_pools_report.pdf (WIPO)] Transaction costs as well as royalties can also be lowered in a patent pool.
'''Efficiency''': The creation of patent pools mainly benefits the owners of complementary and essential patents. Essential patents are patents required for a product or process to meet a given sector's technical standards. Cross-licensing between companies in a patent pool facilitates building upon previous technologies and increases the efficiency of innovation by organizing complementary intellectual property assets under one contract [http://www.wipo.int/export/sites/www/ip-competition/en/studies/patent_pools_report.pdf (WIPO)]. Mutually blocking patents often slow technological developments as neither party can make use of its technology without infringing on the other party's patent. By forming a patent pool, both parties can develop substitute technologies without risk of infringement. ==Patent Trolls==
'''Cost Reduction'''{{#section: Companies can also reduce the amount spent on litigation by settling disputes with The Truth Behind Patent Trolls|trolls}}Currently, there is no systematic data that proves the creation existence of patent pools. This would benefit small- trolls and medium-sized businesses that usually cannot afford the costs of expensive litigation. [http://www.wipo.int/export/sites/www/ip-competition/en/studies/patent_pools_report.pdf (WIPO)] Transaction costs as well as royalties can also be lowered in a patent poolquantifies their financial effects on companies.
=[[America Invents Act]]==Criticisms==={{#section:Leahy_Smith_America_Invents_Act|aia}}
'''Elimination of Competition''': Opponents criticize patent pools for the potential of anti-competitive behavior and collusion, primarily with regards to substitute patents. Substitute or non-essential patents cover competing technologies that can be developed in parallel without risk of infringement [http://www.wipo.int/export/sites/www/ip-competition/en/studies/patent_pools_report.pdf]. =Proposed Patent pools formed between companies holding substitute patents eliminate competition in that particular technological sector. The [http://www.wipo.int/export/sites/www/ip-competition/en/studies/patent_pools_report.pdf|World Intellectual Property Organization] refers to patent pools exhibiting this behavior as cartels. Certain patent pools have been found to share competetitively sensitive information such as marketing and pricing strategies and R&D findings.[http://www.wipo.int/export/sites/www/ip-competition/en/studies/patent_pools_report.pdf] For example, R&D information and developments could be shared in grant-back provisions, where companies share new or downstream technologies and innovations with members of the pool without additional fees. Reform=
'''Licensing Practices''': If a patent pool restricts its members from licensing its patents independently, it lowers the incentive to produce alternatives and inflates the costs of goods or technology for consumers. The Department of Justice and Federal Trade Commission stated that patent pools may create barriers to entry for new firms since the required patents will be inaccessible [http:<section begin=Patent_Reform //www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/atr/legacy/2007/07/11/222655.pdf (DOJ)] Additionally, downstream products or firms may unknowingly use technology protected by a patent pool. An article published by the [http://www.nber.org/chapters/c10778.pdf| NBER] claims that these companies may then be burdened by cumulative taxes and a time holdup in production. >'''Pricing''': Given agreements between patent holders to reduce royalties, there may be collusion to fix higher prices for consumers. Technology may become inaccessible to a large number of consumers, hurting the overall public good. ==Patent Trolls==Patent Trolls are an innovation bogeymen. Numerous research articles and legislation have been focused on ways to curb troll activity, making patent trolls one of the most publicly denounced issues in the patent system. Experts dispute terms for such corporations, labeling them as either Patent Assertion Entities (PAEs) or Non-Practicing Entities (NPEs). PAEs are defined by the FTC as companies that earn revenue by purchasing patents and accusing companies using those patented technologies of infringement.[https://www.ftc.gov/policy/studies/patent-assertion-entities-pae-study] NPEs are firms that rely on Patent Licensing activities for revenue. [http://www.unifiedpatents.com/news/2016/5/30/2015-patent-dispute-report] Patent litigation involving NPEs in 2015 accounted for approximately 67% of cases reviewed by District Courts. The high-tech sector is highly vulnerable to NPE lawsuits as 88% of high-tech patent litigation in 2015 was related to NPEs.<ref name="unified" /> Patent Trolls generate revenue through suing or threatening to sue businesses that infringe on patents. Typically, the damages asked for by Patent Trolls are far beyond the market value of the patent in order to scare small businesses in the initial demand letter, when pressing them to pay the fee to license the patent. =Patent Reform= ==Proposed Legislation== *[[Innovation Act]]:''': {{#section:Innovation_Act| summary}}*'''[[Protecting American Talent and Entrepreneurship (PATENT) Act|PATENT Act]]*[[Targeting Rogue and Opaque Letters ''':{{#section:Protecting_American_Talent_and_Entrepreneurship_(TROLPATENT) Act_Act|TROL Act]]PatentAct}}*[[Support Technology and Research for Our Nation’s Growth (STRONG) Patents Act|STRONG Patents Act]]*[[Demand Letter Transparency Act]]*[[Innovation Protection Act]]<section end=Patent_Reform />
==Future Legislation=Bills Relevant to Innovation===*[[Innovation Promotion Act]]
==Previously Considered Patent Reform==Below is a table containing brief overviews of the bills pertaining to innovation that have been passed or introduced by the 114th Congress.
*{| class="wikitable"|-! Bill! Prognosis! Sponsor!Full Title!Date Introduced!Status|-|[[Prize System S. 1890: Defend Trade Secrets Act of 2016]] [https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/114/s1890]|Enacted|Orrin Hatch (R-Utah)|A bill to amend chapter 90 of title 18, United States Code, to provide Federal jurisdiction for Inventionsthe theft of trade secrets, and for other purposes.|JUL 29, 2015|Enacted — Signed by the President on May 11, 2016|-|[[H.R. 9: Innovation Act]] [https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/114/hr9]*|36% | Bob Goodlatte (R-Virginia)| To amend title 35, United States Code, and the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act to make improvements and technical corrections, and for other purposes.|Feb 5, 2015|Reported by Committee on Jun 11, 2015|-|[[S. 1137: PATENT Act]] [https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/114/s1137]|36% | Charles “Chuck” Grassley (D-Iowa)|A bill to amend title 35, United States Code, and the Leahy -Smith America Invents Actto make improvements and technical corrections, and for other purposes.|Apr 29, 2015|Reported by Committee on Jun 4, 2015|-|[[H.R. 2045: Targeting Rogue and Opaque Letters Act of 2015]][https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/114/hr2045]|24% | Michael Burgess (R-Texas)|To provide that certain bad faith communications in connection with the assertion of a United States patent are unfair or deceptive acts or practices, and for other purposes.|Apr 28, 2015|Reported by Committee on Apr 29, 2015*|-|[[Prize Fund H.R. 1832: Innovation Protection Act]] [https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/114/hr1832]|5%| John Conyers Jr. (D-Michigan)|To provide for HIV/AIDS the permanent funding of the United States Patent and Trademark Office, and for other purposes.|Apr 16, 2015|Referred to Committee on Apr 16, 2015|-|[[S. 632: STRONG Patents Actof 2015]][https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/114/s632]|4%| Chris Coons (D-Delaware)|A bill to strengthen the position of the United States as the world's leading innovator by amending title 35, United States Code, to protect the property rights of the inventors that grow the country's economy.*|Mar 3, 2015|Referred to Committee on Mar 3, 2015|-|[[Medical Innovation Prize Fund S. 926: Grace Period Restoration Actof 2015]][https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/114/s926]|4%| Tammy Baldwin (D-Wisconsin)|A bill to amend the patent law to promote basic research, to stimulate publication of scientific documents, to encourage collaboration in scientific endeavors, to improve the transfer of technology to the private sector, and for other purposes.|Apr 14, 2015|Referred to Committee on Apr 14, 2015|-*|[[The Shield H.R. 2370: End Anonymous Patents Act]] [https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/114/hr2370]*|0%| Theodore Deutch (D-Florida)|To amend title 35, United States Code, to require disclosure of ownership and transfers of ownership of patents, and for other purposes.|May 15, 2015|Referred to Committee on May 15, 2015|-|[[Patent Fee Integrity H.R. 1896: Demand Letter Transparency Actof 2015]][https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/114/hr1896]|0%| Jared Polis (D-Colorado)|To amend chapter 26 of title 35, United States Code, to require the disclosure of information related to patent ownership, and for other purposes.|Apr 20, 2015|Referred to Committee on Apr 20, 2015|}
== Market of Ideas ==<section endbegin=Patent_Reform Market_of_Ideas />[[Market of Ideas Research Notes]]
=References=
<references>
<ref name = "BBCGovTrack"> [httphttps://www.bbcgovtrack.comus/newscongress/world-bills/114/hr9#] 'H.R. 9: Innovation Act', govtrack.us. </ref><ref name="innovationactsummary"> [https://judiciary.house.gov/wp-canada-34331761content/uploads/2016/02/782015_InnovationAct3.pdf] 'Who is Martin Shkreli - 'the most hated man in America?'The Innovation Act', ''BBC NewsJudiciary Committee: Chairman Bob Goodlatte'', (WasingtonWashington, D.C.). </ref><ref name="unifiedPAsummary">[httphttps://www.unifiedpatentsjudiciary.comsenate.gov/newsimo/2016media/5doc/30/2015Patents,%2004-patent29-dispute15,%20PATENT%20Act%20-report%20One%20Pager.pdf] 'The Protecting American Talent and Entrepreneurship Act (PATENT) Act: Short Summary', "Senate Committee on the Judiciary" (Washington, D.C). </ref><ref name="patentactgovtrack"> [https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/114/s1137] '2015 Patent Dispute ReportS.1137: PATENT Act', 'govtrack.us'Unified Patents. </ref><ref name="USPTO report"> [http://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/USPTOFY15PAR.pdf] 'United States Patent and Trademark Office Performance and Accountability Report: Fiscal Year 2015', "United States Patent and Trademark Office",(San JoseAlexandria, CAVirginia). </ref>[[Category: Internal]][[Category:Innovation Policy]]

Navigation menu