Changes

=Summary==[[United States Patent and Trademark Office]]Acts with pages=The United States Patent and Trademark Office is the organization within the United States government that examines and grants patents and trademarks. Established under the Department of Commerce on July 19, 1952[https://www.federalregister.gov/agencies/patent-and-trademark-office] by 35 U.S.C. §1[http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/USCODE-2013-title35/html/USCODE-2013-title35-partI-chap1-sec1.htm], the USPTO is intended to fulfill the mandate in Article I, Section 8, Clause 8 of the United States Constitution "to promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries."[https://www.constituteproject.org/constitution/United_States_of_America_1992]. Since 1790, the USPTO has issued more than 6.5 million patents[http://www.uspto.gov/about-us/news-updates/uspto-web-database-now-includes-all-patents-dating-1790]. The agency's main offices reside in Alexandria, Virginia, with several satellite offices around the country.

=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]]==Patent Pools==*114, S.1137 [[PATENT Act]]*114, S.632 [[STRONG Patents Act]]*114, [[S. 1890: Defend Trade Secrets Act of 2016]]

{| {{table}}| align="center" style="background:#f0f0f0;"|'''Bill'''| align="center" style="background:#f0f0f0;"|'''Congress'''| align=Benefits"center" style="background:#f0f0f0;"|'''Sponsor'''| align="center" style="background:#f0f0f0;"|'''Committee'''Ideally| 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, companies are able Allyson Y. [D-PA-13] (Introduced 06/28/2013)||House - Ways and Means||||06/28/2013 Referred to reduce costs during product development by using patent pools 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 share intellectual property assetsthe Subcommittee on Courts, Intellectual Property, and the Internet.|-| [[Innovation Protection Act|H.R. Patent pools would be able 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 increase efficiency the Subcommittee on Courts, Intellectual Property, and positively affect competition and innovationthe Internet.|-| [[America Invents Act|H.R.1249 - Leahy-Smith America Invents Act]]||112th Congress (2011-2012)||Rep. Smith, Lamar [http:R-TX-21] (Introduced 03/30/www2011)||House - Judiciary; Budget||H.wipoRept.int112-98||09/export16/sites2011 Became Public Law No: 112-29. (TXT | PDF)|-| [[Prize Fund for HIV/wwwAIDS Act|S.1138 - Prize Fund for HIV/ipAIDS Act]]||112th Congress (2011-2012)||Sen. Sanders, Bernard [I-competitionVT] (Introduced 05/en26/studies2011)||Senate - Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions||||05/patent_pools_report15/2012 Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Subcommittee on Primary Health and Aging. Hearings held.pdf With printed Hearing: S.Hrg. 112-570.|-| [[Medical Innovation Prize Fund Act|S.495 - Medical Innovation Prize Fund Act]]||115th Congress (WIPO2017-2018)| Get alerts||Sen. Sanders, Bernard [I-VT] In a situation in which two companies own different IP assets that are not enough (Introduced 03/02/2017)||Senate - Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions||||03/02/2017 Read twice and referred to create specific productsthe Committee on Health, Education, Labor, these companies would be blocking each other's patents and preventing the introduction Pensions.|-| [[The Shield Act|H.R.845 - Saving High-Tech Innovators from Egregious Legal Disputes Act of an innovative product or service 2013]]||113th Congress (2013-2014)||Rep. DeFazio, Peter A. [D-OR-4] (Introduced 02/27/2013)||House - Judiciary||||04/08/2013 Referred to the marketSubcommittee on Courts, Intellectual Property, And The Internet.|-| [[Patent Fee Integrity Act|S. 2146 - Patent pools deals with these inefficiencies by organizing complementary IP assets under one contractFee Integrity Act]]||113th Congress (2013-2014)||Sen. Feinstein, Dianne [http:D-CA] (Introduced 03/13/2014)||Senate - Judiciary||||03/13/www2014 Read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.wipo|-| [[PATENT Act|S.int1137 - PATENT Act]]||114th Congress (2015-2016)||Sen. Grassley, Chuck [R-IA] (Introduced 04/export29/sites2015)||Senate - Judiciary||||02/www25/ip2016 Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship. Hearings held.|-competition| [[STRONG Patents Act|S.632 - STRONG Patents Act of 2015]]||114th Congress (2015-2016)||Sen. Coons, Christopher A. [D-DE] (Introduced 03/03/en2015)||Senate - Judiciary||||02/studies25/patent_pools_report2016 Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship. Hearings held.|-| [[S. 1890: Defend Trade Secrets Act of 2016|S.pdf 1890 - Defend Trade Secrets Act of 2016]]||114th Congress (WIPO2015-2016)||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)|-| |}

Companies can also reduce the amount spent on litigation by settling disputes with the creation of patent pools. This would benefit small- =United States Patent 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)]Trademark Office=

==Patent pools have many flaws, which may explain why they have been used so infrequently. [http://www.theglobalipcenter.com/sites/default/files/reports/documents/Prizes__Patent_Pools.pdf (GIPC)]Pools==

'''Elimination of Competition''' Opponents criticize Patent pools are agreements between patent pools for the potential of antiowners to share, or cross-license, their own patents with one another.[http://www.wipo.int/export/sites/www/ip-competitive behavior and collusioncompetition/en/studies/patent_pools_report. pdf (WIPO)] According to the World Intellectual Property OrganizationGenerally, "a patent pool may be regarded as a cartelpools 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)] Patent pools potentially create . Complementary patents are patents that are must be used together for the development of a way for companies to share competitively sensitive informationspecific new product, such as pricing, marketing strategiesand therefore, or R&D information among its members." necessitate shared licensing [http://www.wipo.int/export/sites/www/ip-competition/en/studies/patent_pools_report.pdf (WIPO)].

'''Licensing Practices''' If a Opponents criticize patent pool restricts its members from licensing its pools for the potential of anti-competitive behavior and collusion, primarily with regards to substitute patents. Substitute or non-essential patents independently, it lowers the incentive 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 produce alternatives share competitively sensitive information such as marketing and inflates the costs of goods or technology for consumerspricing 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 state stated that restrictions on licensing patent pools may create "a barrier barriers to entry if existing relationships make it harder for 'new firms to come in and overcome since the patent thicket'." required patents will be inaccessible [http://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/atr/legacy/2007/07/11/222655.pdf (DOJ)]

==Patent Trolls==Patent Trolls are an innovation bogeymen, with numerous research articles and legislation addressing ways to curb troll activity. Patent Trolls, also known as [[Patent Assertion Entities]] (PAEs), generate revenue through suing or threatening In order to sue businesses that infringe on patents. Experts dispute terms for such corporations, labeling them as either [[Patent Assertion Entities]] (PAEs) or [[Non-Practicing Entities]] (NPEs). There is no widely agreed upon definition of 'Patent Troll', because it is often used interchangeably with address the terms [[Patent Assertion Entities]] and [[Non-Practicing Entities]], whereas we make a distinction between these three terms. For our study, we define Patent Trolls as a 'person or entity that attempts to enforce patent rights concerns raised against supposed infringement far beyond the patent's actual value'[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patent_troll]. Their asked damages are far beyond pools, the market value Department of the Justice (DOJ) has taken steps to standardize patent. This is a tactic used to scare small businesses pools in the initial demand letter, when pressing them order to pay the fee to license prevent violations of antitrust laws. The DOJ requires the following characteristics for a patent.pool:

'''Hypothesis# Essential patents included only. # Complementary patents included only. # Sensitive information may not be shared amongst parties. # Substitute products may still be developed by parties included in the licensing agreement.# Patent pool has an established expiration date.# Pricing in downstream production cannot be affected by or discussed by members of the patent pool. [http: Patent trolls will generally push for settlements and jury trials//www.wipo.int/export/sites/www/ip-competition/en/studies/patent_pools_report.pdf].'''

In all 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 cases eDekka filed 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 2015a 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, each one asked for trial both parties can develop substitute technologies without risk of infringement. Companies can also reduce the amount spent on litigation by jurysettling disputes with the creation of patent pools.However, another company This would benefit small- and medium-sized businesses that is considered 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 big patent troll, Oberalis does not file for trial by jurypool.

In cases that involve educational institutions (PAEs/NPEs but not patent trolls), the educational institution doesn't ask for a jury trial. In fact, the company being sued responds to the complaint with a jury demand. Some examples of this:*Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation v. Apple Inc*Trustees of Boston University v. Everlight Electronics Co*The Regents of the University of California v. Micro Therapeutics Inc. et al*Cambridge University Press et al v. Patton et al ==Prize System for InnovationPatent Trolls====Prize System for Inventions== 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, which leads to higher product costs for the consumer. One example of a patent leading to exorbitantly high prices would be Daraprim, a drug produced by Turing Pharmaceuticals. Martin Shkreli, the CEO of Turing Pharmaceuticals, led the charge to increase the price of Daraprim from $13.50 to $750 per pill. [http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-34331761 (BBC)] Critics of the current patent system also believe it does not incentivize enough research and development for drugs that benefit society as a whole. [http://articles.economictimes.indiatimes.com/2012-05-28/news/31877151_1_drug-prices-intellectual-property-innovation (Economic Times)] Because of such abuses of patent protections, economists and legislators have advocated for a prize system (see [[Medical Innovation Prize Fund Act]]) instead of a patent system for pharmaceutical drugs. [https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/radical-bill-seeks-to-reduce-cost-of-aids-drugs-by-awarding-prizes-instead-of-patents/2012/05/19/gIQAEGfabU_story.html (Washington Post)] Under this system, companies that invent a new drug will receive a lump sum prize. The rights to the drug will then be placed in the public domain, creating generic drugs. The biggest benefit of a prize system is the ability to target research towards a specific problem. With prize money as the incentive, research companies are more likely to devote time and resources towards the identified issue. In addition, the prize system lowers barriers to entry; nontraditional parties are encouraged to participate.

Although the prize system idea sounds promising for individuals requiring medication without high reservation price{{#section:The Truth Behind Patent Trolls|trolls}}Currently, there is no systematic data that proves the issue existence of sustained government funding for such endeavors hurts this proposal. Private investors, such as the Bill patent trolls and Melinda Gates Foundation, offer similar prize systems for pharmaceuticals discoveriesthat quantifies their financial effects on companies. However, if private investment has proven to be effective, why does the government need to intervene?

Legislators have proposed bills that provide for prize systems for a small class of drugs (see =[[Prize Fund for HIV/AIDS America Invents Act]]).={{#section:Leahy_Smith_America_Invents_Act|aia}}

<section begin=Patent_Reform />'''[[Innovation Act]]''':{{#section:Innovation_Act| summary}}'''[[Protecting American Talent and Entrepreneurship (PATENT) Act]]''':{{#section:Protecting_American_Talent_and_Entrepreneurship_(PATENT)_Act| PatentAct}}<section end==Problems & Considerations Surrounding the Prize System===Patent_Reform />

No one knows the economic effects of prize systems; there is lack of empirical evidence supporting the benefits of a prize system over a patent system. There are several factors that need ===Bills Relevant to be considered in creating a prize system [http://www.bu.edu/law/journals-archive/scitech/volume131/documents/wei_web.pdf (BU)]:Innovation===

'''Valuation Problems'''What Below is the criteria for awarding a prize and how much prize money is each innovative drug worth? This is one table containing brief overviews of the biggest problems in establishing a prize system. Prize payments that are too low won’t provide enough incentive, while payments bills pertaining to innovation that are too high may incur resource duplication costs. The prize payment amount also has to be individually tailored to have been passed or introduced by the benefit of the drug. People suggest the value of the payment be dependent on the ‘social value’ of a drug, but how is that social value determined? Will a distinction be made between medically necessary drug inventions and lifestyle improvement drugs (e.g114th Congress. acne medication)?

'''Timing {| class="wikitable"|-! Bill! Prognosis! Sponsor!Full Title!Date Introduced!Status|-|[[S. 1890: Defend Trade Secrets Act of Prize Payments'''2016]] [https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/114/s1890]|Enacted|Orrin Hatch (R-Utah)The timing |A bill to amend chapter 90 of title 18, United States Code, to provide Federal jurisdiction for the prize payment has 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 be timed well; if awarded too early make improvements and technical corrections, and for other companies may not be incentivized 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 Act to produce 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 drug that would’ve been higher quality than United States patent are unfair or deceptive acts or practices, and for other purposes.|Apr 28, 2015|Reported by Committee on Apr 29, 2015|-|[[H.R. 1832: Innovation Protection Act]] [https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/114/hr1832]|5%| John Conyers Jr. (D-Michigan)|To provide for 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 Act of 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 drug inventors that won grow the prizecountry's economy.|Mar 3, 2015|Referred to Committee on Mar 3, 2015|-|[[S. 926: Grace Period Restoration Act of 2015]] [https://www.govtrack. After us/congress/bills/114/s926]|4%| Tammy Baldwin (D-Wisconsin)|A bill to amend the prize is awardedpatent law to promote basic research, incentive to commercialize stimulate publication of scientific documents, to encourage collaboration in scientific endeavors, to improve the drug is reduced since there is no patent systemtransfer of technology to the private sector, and for other purposes.|Apr 14, 2015|Referred to Committee on Apr 14, 2015|-|[[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|-|[[H.R. 1896: Demand Letter Transparency Act of 2015]] [https://www.govtrack. One potential solution is us/congress/bills/114/hr1896]|0%| Jared Polis (D-Colorado)|To amend chapter 26 of title 35, United States Code, to defer prize payment until there has been a certain degree require the disclosure of commercializationinformation related to patent ownership, and for other purposes.|Apr 20, 2015|Referred to Committee on Apr 20, 2015|}

'''Administrative Problems'''== Market of Ideas ==The MIPF creates a board of trustees that has the responsibility of awarding prize payments. Though the board of 13 members is designed to be unbiased, it is unlikely that they will not be subject to political and external pressures, leading to a distorted allocation <section begin=Market_of_Ideas />[[Market of resources. Ideas Research Notes]]

<ref name=History of Patent Reform?"GovTrack"> [https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/114/hr9#] 'H.R. 9: Innovation Act', govtrack.us. </ref><ref name="innovationactsummary"> [https://judiciary.house.gov/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/782015_InnovationAct3.pdf] 'The Innovation Act', ''Judiciary Committee: Chairman Bob Goodlatte'', (Washington, D.C.). </ref><ref name="PAsummary"> [https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/Patents,%2004-29-15,%20PATENT%20Act%20-%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] 'S.1137: PATENT Act', 'govtrack.us'. </ref><ref name=Current "USPTO report"> [http://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/USPTOFY15PAR.pdf] 'United States Patent Reform=and Trademark Office Performance and Accountability Report: Fiscal Year 2015', "United States Patent and Trademark Office", (Alexandria, Virginia). </ref>[[Category: Internal]][[Category:Innovation Policy]]