edegan.com - User contributions [en]

2015 Patent Data

2016-06-01T21:51:41Z

RichardGoldman: Created page with "==Patent Filings== From Data Visualization Center: *Total Filings: '''580,327''' **RCE (Request for Continued Examination) Filings: '''168,594''' **Non-RCE Filings: '''411,7..."

==Patent Filings==

From Data Visualization Center:

*Total Filings: '''580,327'''
**RCE (Request for Continued Examination) Filings: '''168,594'''
**Non-RCE Filings: '''411,733'''
***Design Filings: '''37,735'''

==Patent Litigation==

From LexMachina:

*Patent Case Filings: '''5,820'''
**Cases Open: '''3,003'''
**Cases Terminated: '''2,817'''

*'''44%''' of FY2015 case filings were through the Eastern District of Texas.
*'''29%''' of FY2015 case filings were viewed by Judge James Rodney Gilstrap.

==Patent Legislation==

From Govtrack.us:

(114th Congressional Session)

*Total Unique Pieces of Legislation: '''101'''
**House: '''75'''
***House Simple: '''0'''
***House Concurrent: '''1''' (Same as Senate Concurrent)
**Senate: '''55'''
***Senate Simple: '''0'''
***Senate Concurrent: '''1''' (Same as House Concurrent)

*Some pieces of legislation are under considerarion in both chambers. I have included repeats in subsets of "House" and "Senate", but NOT in "Unique Pieces of Legislation."
*"Simple" Resolutions affect only that particular chamber in which it is passed. Usually deal with more fluffy policy, such as designating a week in honor of small businesses.
*"Concurrent" Resolutions do not carry the force of law (unlike a joint bill) but must be approved by both chambers in identical form.

===Top Patent Legislation===

*[https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/114/s1137 PATENT Act] (36% of enactment)
*[https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/114/s632 STRONG Patents Act of 2015] (4% chance of enactment)
*[https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/114/hr9 Innovation Act] (36% chance of enactment)
*[https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/114/hr1832 Innovation Protection Act] (5% chance of enactment)
*[https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/114/hr2045 Targeting Rogue and Opaque Letters Act of 2015] (24% chance of enactment)

===Not So Top Patent Legislation===

*[https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/114/hr1896 Demand Letter Transparency Act of 2015] (0% chance of enactment)
*[https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/114/hr2370 End Anonymous Patents Act] (0% chance of enactment)
*[https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/114/s560 PARTS Act] (0% enactment)

==Sources & Links==

*[http://patentlyo.com/patent/2015/10/patent-application-filings.html Patentlyo FY2015 Filings Article]
*[http://www.uspto.gov/dashboards/patents/main.dashxml USPTO Data Visualization Center]
*[http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/ac/ido/oeip/taf/st_co_14.htm FY2014 USPTO Report (Provides More Detail than FY2015 Data)]
*[http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/ac/ido/oeip/taf/us_stat.htm FY2014 USPTO Patent Statistics]
*[https://law.lexmachina.com/cases/?case_types-include=27&filed_on-from=2015-01-01&filed_on-to=2015-12-31&filters=true&view=analytics&tab=summary&cols=475 LexMachina FY2015 Patent Case Filings]
*[http://www.txed.uscourts.gov/ US District Court - Eastern District of Texas]

[[category:internal]]

Patent Fee Integrity Act

2016-06-01T21:29:05Z

RichardGoldman: Created page with "Return to Patent Reform '''S. 2146: Patent Fee Integrity Act (2014)''' [https://www.congress.gov/bill/113th-congress/senate-bill/2146?q=%7B%22search%22%3A%5B%22%5C%22s214..."

Return to [[Patent Reform]]

'''S. 2146: Patent Fee Integrity Act (2014)''' [https://www.congress.gov/bill/113th-congress/senate-bill/2146?q=%7B%22search%22%3A%5B%22%5C%22s2146%5C%22%22%5D%7D&resultIndex=2 Congress]

The Patent Fee Integrity Act was introduced on March 13, 2014, by Senator Dianne Feinstein, D-CA, and referred to the Senate Committee on the Judiciary. The bill was referred to the Senate Judiciary Committee and subsequently died. S. 2146 had 4 cosponsors (1 Democrat and 3 Republicans). No reintroduction of the bill has happened during the current session.

==Summary==

The Patent Fee Integrity Act served as the sister bill to the [[Innovation Protection Act]], introduced by Rep. Conyers in the House. This senate bill would create a revolving fund known as the [[United States Patent and Trademark Office]] Innovation Promotion Fund. This piece of legislation is identical to the aforementioned Innovation Protection Act through its power delegation, termination of existing USPTO accounts, and annual reports.

The Shield Act

2016-06-01T21:28:28Z

RichardGoldman: Created page with "Return to Patent Reform '''H.R.845: The Shield (Saving High-Tech Innovators From Egregious Legal Disputes) Act''' [https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/113/hr845] *In..."

Return to [[Patent Reform]]

'''H.R.845: The Shield (Saving High-Tech Innovators From Egregious Legal Disputes) Act''' [https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/113/hr845]

*Introduced in 2013, but was not enacted
*Requires an unsuccessful plaintiff in an infringement suit to pay the defendant’s legal fees
*Effort to dissuade frivolous patent lawsuits

Medical Innovation Prize Fund Act

2016-06-01T21:27:35Z

RichardGoldman: Created page with ""The patent system give pharmaceutical companies a government-backed monopoly over the sale of their drug for 20 years. Within that period of time, they can charge as much as..."

"The patent system give pharmaceutical companies a government-backed monopoly over the sale of their drug for 20 years. Within that period of time, they can charge as much as they want for the drug." [http://www.vox.com/2015/9/25/9397069/bernie-sanders-drug-prices]

[[Image:Profit_margins_by_industry.jpg]]

==Summary==

The Medical Innovation Prize Fund Act is a [http://www.edegan.com/wiki/index.php/Patent_Reform#Legislation_Considered_in_Previous_Congressional_Sessions patent reform act] proposed in a previous congressional session.

The Medical Innovation Prize Fund Act, introduced in 2013 and sponsored by Bernie Sanders was designed to transform the patent system into a prize system. It died in a previous session of Congress. The Act would enact a prize system for all ‘medical innovations relating to a drug, a biological product, or a new manufacturing process for a drug or biological product’ [https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/113/s627/summary]. The plan establishes an annual fee for health insurers to fund this Act, which would go into a Medical Innovation Prize Fund (MIPF). Prize payments would be distributed from MIPF, and the payments would total 0.5% of GDP from the preceding fiscal year [http://www.bu.edu/law/journals-archive/scitech/volume131/documents/wei_web.pdf].

Besides providing incentives to invest in R&D in new medicines, and allowing the government to target research in a specified area, this act also encourages parties to invest in major breakthrough drugs versus only improving drugs in existing classes. The MIPF would reward innovations based on incremental benefit, so the largest prizes would be given to first-in-class drugs. The value of the prizes will be determined based on the number of patients, incremental therapeutic benefits of the innovation, the pertinence of the innovation, and the improved efficiency of the manufacturing process for the drug.

One problem with this proposed Act is that it does not provide a formula or a description on how the Board will determine the amount of the prize payments. Companies are only given rough guidelines on how their innovation will be judged, so they don't know what to expect when taking on a project - this is a problem that needs to remedied for the prize fund system to be effective. The bill only states that at least 4% of the MIPF fund must be allocated to global neglected diseases, at least 10% to orphan diseases, and at least 4% to global infectious diseases or other global health priorities [https://www.opencongress.org/bill/s1137-112/text (OpenCongress)].

Prize Fund for HIV/AIDS Act

2016-06-01T21:26:31Z

RichardGoldman: Created page with "The Prize Fund for HIV/AIDS Act is a [http://www.edegan.com/wiki/index.php/Patent_Reform#Legislation_Considered_in_Previous_Congressional_Sessions patent reform act] proposed..."

The Prize Fund for HIV/AIDS Act is a [http://www.edegan.com/wiki/index.php/Patent_Reform#Legislation_Considered_in_Previous_Congressional_Sessions patent reform act] proposed in a previous congressional session.

==Summary==

S. 1138[https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/112/s1138/text], Prize Fund for HIV/AIDS Act, was proposed by Sen. Bernie Sanders during the 112th session of Congress. The bill sought to change the current patent system for drugs treating AIDS to a prize system where the inventor would receive a lump sum payment for discovering a drug, and then void any claim on a paten for the drug. The bill died in Congress, and was re-introduced as S. 626 in the 113th Congressional session[https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/113/s626].

==Provisions==

*Drug companies void their right to patent a drug that treats HIV/AIDS.
*In lieu of patents, companies would receive prize funds from the Prize Fund for HIV/AIDS.

===Administrative===

*Secretary of Health and Human Services appoints a Prize Fund Director, advisory board other officials, as needed.

===Prize Fund===

*Prize Fund operates as a revolving fund.
**Secretary of Treasury credits Fund with proceeds.
*Prize Fund Director responsible for giving prizes for medical innovation drugs.
**New prizes do not exclude older prizes (e.g. if a company finds an innovative drug and receives prize money and another company builds on the previous drug and receives money, then both companies would receive prize funds).
**Prize funds may be granted for a maximum of 10 fiscal years for a particular treatment.
**No one particular treatment may receive funds in excess of 50% of the total Prize Fund amount.
*At least 5% of prizes dedicated to Open Source Dividend Prizes

===Funding===

*Seed capital for fund was defined "as needed", which has a level of ambiguity.
**Subsequent funds were defined as .02% of GDP for the preceding fiscal year (e.g. the prize fund would have received ~$3,354,000,000 in FY2014)

===Donor Innovation Prize Fund===

*The Donor Innovation Prize Fund is also created, with the goal of encouraging medical innovation related to HIV/AIDS in developing countries.
**Fund would contain 10% of the funding for the President's Emergency Plan for AIDS relief (PEPFAR).
***FY2013 Funding would equal $652,700 (10% of the $6,527,000 total PEPFAR budget[http://www.pepfar.gov/documents/organization/252516.pdf])

==Heterogeneity of Patent and Prize Systems==

The act nullifies patents on manufacturing processes of drugs, so that no company may hold the patent on the manufacturing process of a drug. However, a company becomes eligible for prize funds by holding a patent on the manufacturing process they use to create a drug. [Bill language: ''...in the case of a manufacturing process for a qualifying treatment for HIV/AIDS, the holder of the patent with respect to such process...'']. No new firms may be eligible for prize funds if they use a manufacturing process they did not hold a patent for.

Innovation Protection Act

2016-06-01T21:24:37Z

RichardGoldman: Created page with "Return to Patent Reform '''H.R.1896: Demand Letter Transparency Act of 2015''' [https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/house-bill/1896 (Congress)] The bill was int..."

Return to [[Patent Reform]]

'''H.R.1896: Demand Letter Transparency Act of 2015''' [https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/house-bill/1896 (Congress)]

The bill was introduced by Republican Senator Jared Polis from Colorado and assigned to the House Judiciary Committee. The full title of the bill is "To amend chapter 26 of title 35, United States Code, to require the disclosure of information related to patent ownership, and for other purposes."

GovTrack predicts that the Demand Letter Transparency Act has a 0% chance of being enacted.The latest action on the bill was in May of 2015 when it was referred to the Subcommittee on Courts, Intellectual Property, and the Internet.

==Summary==

Requires any entity that sends a specified number of demand letters during any 365-day period to submit to the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), with respect to each patent that was the subject in each letter, a disclosure identifying:

*the patent, including a confirmation that the entity that sent the letter is the owner of the patent and is the last recorded entity in USPTO records for purposes of assignment, grant, or conveyance;
*the entity that has the right to license the patent or the name of the exclusive licensee;
*each entity asserting a claim with regard to the patent;
*each obligation to license the patent and the financial terms at which such patent has been licensed;
*the ultimate parent entity of such entity;
*the number of recipients of the letter;
*any case that has been filed by such entity relating to such patent; and
*any ex parte review or inter partes review of such patent.

The bill defines "demand letter" as any written communication directed to an unaffiliated third party stating or indicating that the intended recipient, or anyone affiliated with that recipient, is or may be infringing a patent, or may bear liability or owe compensation to another because of such patent. The act also authorizes a court, in a patent infringement or validity action brought by an entity that does not meet such USPTO disclosure requirements, to sanction such entity for an amount to be awarded to the adverse party to cover any costs incurred as a result of such violation.The act exempts from such disclosure requirements: (1) original or joint inventors, (2) institutions of higher education, and (3) technology transfer organizations facilitating the commercialization of technology developed by institutions of higher education. The act directs the USPTO to establish a publicly accessible and searchable database of the information obtained pursuant to such disclosures.

The act requires any demand letter sent to another entity to include specified information concerning:

*each claim of each patent allegedly infringed, including each accused instrumentality;
*each party alleging infringement;
*the direct infringement for each claim alleged to have been infringed indirectly;
*the principal business of the party alleging infringement;
*each complaint filed that asserts or asserted any of the same patents, each case filed by such entity, and any ex parte or inter partes review for each patent;
*whether the patent is subject to any licensing term or pricing commitments;
*owners, co-owners, assignees, or exclusive licensees of the patent;
*any person who has a legal right to enforce the patent;
*any person with a direct financial interest in the outcome of the action; and
*how the recipient can access the USPTO demand letter database.
*Permits a recipient of a demand letter to file a petition with the USPTO if it believes that disclosure or patent letter information requirements have not been met. Directs the USPTO, if it determines that a *requirement has not been met, to notify the patent owner that the patent will be voided unless a fee is paid.

Requires the USPTO to consider good faith mistakes in the determination of whether to void a patent.

[[category:internal]]

Demand Letter Transparency Act

2016-06-01T21:23:17Z

Support Technology and Research for Our Nation’s Growth (STRONG) Patents Act

2016-06-01T21:22:14Z

RichardGoldman: Created page with "Return to Patent Reform '''S.632: Support Technology and Research for Our Nation’s Growth (STRONG) Patents Act of 2015''' [https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/..."

Return to [[Patent Reform]]

'''S.632: Support Technology and Research for Our Nation’s Growth (STRONG) Patents Act of 2015''' [https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/senate-bill/632 (Congress)]

The STRONG Patents Act was introduced in the Senate in 2015 by Democratic Senator Christopher Coons of Delaware and assigned to the Senate Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship, as well as the Senate Judiciary Committee.

The full title of the bill is "'''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'''."

Currently the bills has 4 cosponsors (2 Democrats, 2 Republicans). GovTrack predicts that the STRONG Patents Act has a 4% chance of being enacted. Below are the main institutions that will be affected by the enactment of the STRONG Patents Act, as well as the other actions produced by the bill.

This bill mentions the terminology inter partes frequently; an inter partes review (IPR) is a procedure for challenging the validity of a United States patent before the United States Patent and Trademark Office. The procedure is conducted by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB). The Bill also deals with Post Grant Review (more can be read on Post Grant Review below).

=="Post Grant Review"==
"Post grant review" is a trial proceeding conducted at the Board to review the patentability of one or more claims in a patent on any ground that could be raised under § 282(b)(2) or (3). Post grant review process begins with a third party filing a petition on or prior to the date that is 9 months after the grant of the patent or issuance of a reissue patent. The patent owner may file a preliminary response to the petition. A post grant review may be instituted upon a showing that, it is more likely than not that at least one claim challenged is unpatentable. If the proceeding is instituted and not dismissed, a final determination by the Board will be issued within 1 year (extendable for good cause by 6 months). The procedure for conducting post grant review took effect on September 16, 2012, and generally applies to patents issuing from applications subject to first-inventor-to-file provisions of the AIA." [http://www.uspto.gov/patents-application-process/appealing-patent-decisions/trials/post-grant-review (USPTO)]

==U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO)==

The STRONG Patent Acts directs the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) to prescribe regulations requiring the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) to construe patent claims in post-issuance proceedings for inter partes or post-grant review in the same manner as a court in a civil action is required to construe claims regarding the validity of a patent in accordance with the ordinary and customary meaning. The bill also requires that the USPTO consider a court's claim construction if the court has previously construed the claim in a civil action to which the patent owner was a party.

The bill prohibits post-issuance review petitions from being filed with the USPTO unless the person, or a real party in interest or privy of the person, is eligible to file: (1) a petition for an inter partes review because the person has been sued for or charged with infringement such that the petitioner would have standing to bring a declaratory judgment action in federal court, or (2) a petition for post-grant review because the person demonstrates a reasonable possibility of being sued for or charged with infringement or demonstrates a competitive harm related to the validity of the patent.

==Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB)==
The act requires a patent owner's motion to amend a patent during a post-issuance review to be granted if the owner has not already amended the patent during the review and the proposed number of substitute claims is reasonable. STRONG also provides the PTAB with discretion to grant or deny any additional motions to amend the patent if the owner has already amended the patent during the review.

Under the bill, the PTAB would be required apply a presumption of validity standard during post-issuance challenges, thus placing the burden on the petitioner to prove "un-patentability" of: (1) a previously issued claim by clear and convincing evidence, and (2) an amended claim by a preponderance of the evidence. Currently, the preponderance of evidence standard applies to all such claims.

The bill prohibits post-issuance reviews from being heard by PTAB members who participated in a decision to institute the review.

==Supreme Court==
The bill requires the Supreme Court to eliminate the model complaint for patent infringement.

==Small Business Administration==

The STRONG Patents Act directs the Small Business Administration to report on the impact of: (1) patent ownership by small businesses, and (2) civil actions against small businesses relating to patent infringement.

==Administrative Office of U.S. Courts==

The bill requires that the Administrative Office of U.S. Courts expand an existing pilot program to expedite and provide additional resources to cases in which an individual or small business is accused of patent infringement.

==Federal Trade Commission==
The bill directs the Federal Trade Commission, and authorizes state attorneys general, to enforce against the pattern or practice of sending written communications (commonly referred to as demand letters) that represent in bad faith that the recipient bears liability or owes compensation for infringing a patent. The bill also requires the practice of sending such bad faith demand letters to be treated as an unfair or deceptive act or practice in violation of the Federal Trade Commission Act.

Under the FTC Act, the Federal Trade Commission is empowered, among other things, to (a) prevent unfair methods of competition, and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in or affecting commerce; (b) seek monetary redress and other relief for conduct injurious to consumers; (c) prescribe trade regulation rules defining with specificity acts or practices that are unfair or deceptive, and establishing requirements designed to prevent such acts or practices; (d) conduct investigations relating to the organization, business, practices, and management of entities engaged in commerce; and (e) make reports and legislative recommendations to Congress.

==Other Action Points==
*Allows discovery for review proceedings to include evidence identifying the petitioner's real party in interest.

*Allows patent owners to present supporting evidence in a preliminary response to a petition for review.

*Prohibits inter partes or post-grant reviews while the patent is the subject of a reissue or reexamination proceeding.

*Requires reexamination requests to identify real parties in interest.

*Prohibits ex parte reexaminations if the request is filed more than one year after the requester, or a real party in interest or privy of the requester, is served with a complaint alleging infringement of the patent. (An ex parte decision is one decided by a judge without requiring all of the parties to the controversy to be present.)

*Requires all patent and trademark fees to be credited to a revolving fund in the Treasury to be known as the United States Patent and Trademark Office Innovation Promotion Fund, which will be available to cover USPTO expenses without fiscal year limitation.

*Provides courts with discretion to increase damages awarded to a claimant up to three times the amount found by a jury or assessed by the court upon determining, by a preponderance of the evidence, that infringement was willful or in bad faith.

*Allows a finding of liability for actively inducing infringement of a process patent, or for contributory infringement of a process patent, even if the steps of the patented process are not practiced by a single entity.

*Provides micro entity status (such status makes certain small entities eligible for reduced patent fees) to certifying: (1) institutions of higher education; or (2) tax exempt, nonprofit organizations that hold title to patents and patent applications on behalf of such an institution of higher education for the purpose of facilitating commercialization of the technologies.

[[category:internal]]

Targeting Rogue and Opaque Letters (TROL) Act

2016-06-01T21:21:20Z

RichardGoldman: Created page with "Return to Patent Reform '''H.R.2045: Targeting Rogue and Opaque Letters (TROL) Act (2015)''' The TROL Act was introduced on April 28, 2015, by Representative Michael Bu..."

Return to [[Patent Reform]]

'''H.R.2045: Targeting Rogue and Opaque Letters (TROL) Act (2015)'''

The TROL Act was introduced on April 28, 2015, by Representative Michael Burgess (R-TX) and was referred to the Subcommittee on Commerce, Manufacturing, and Trade. Currently the bill has 6 cosponsors. (5 Republicans and 1 Democrat). [https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/house-bill/2045 (Congress)]

The TROL Act is intended "to stop the practice of fraudulent and abusive patent demand letters while preserving the ability of patent holders to legitimately protect their intellectual property." [https://energycommerce.house.gov/news-center/fact-sheets/hr-2045-targeting-rogue-and-opaque-letters-trol-act (House)] The full title of the bill is "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."

GovTrack predicts the TROL Act has a 24% chance of being enacted.

==Summary==
*Requires demand letters to include specific details about the person with the rights of the patent, parent companies, contact information, and information on how the recipient is infringing the patent
*Establishes that sending demand letters that misrepresent patent rights is an unfair or deceptive act or practice under the Federal Trade Commission Act and allows the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and State Attorneys General to fine violators
*Directs the Federal Trade Commission, and authorizes state attorneys general, to enforce against written communications (commonly referred to as demand letters) that represent in bad faith that the recipient bears liability or owes compensation for infringing an asserted patent. Requires the pattern or practice of sending such bad faith demand letters to be treated as an unfair or deceptive act or practice in violation of the Federal Trade Commission Act.
**Bad faith is defined as "'clear and convincing evidence' that the infringement assertions are 'objectively baseless' to avoid dismissal on summary judgment or a motion to dismiss"[http://patentlyo.com/patent/2013/05/what-is-happening-in-vermont-patent-law-reform-from-the-bottom-up.html]
*Sets forth the types of bad faith representations, compensation requests, or omissions that are considered to be unfair or deceptive.
*Provides an affirmative defense if the sender can show that statements, representations, or omissions were mistakes made in good faith, which may be demonstrated by a preponderance of evidence that the violation was not intentional and resulted from a bona fide error notwithstanding the maintenance of procedures reasonably adapted to avoid any such error.

==Reactions==

===Supporting===

*The American Intellectual Property Law Association (AIPLA) argues that "widespread sending of demand letters containing vague allegations and minimal information" takes place before lawsuits are filed. AIPLA "commend[s] the Subcommittee for taking an approach that seeks to target the abusive behavior in this manner while not inhibiting free speech or legitimate patent licensing and enforcement."[http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2014/07/10/house-subcommittee-takes-up-trol-act-on-demand-letters/id=50371/]

*The Innovation Alliance issued a statement "applaud[ing] the House Energy and Commerce Committee for their work over the past several months to achieve a meaningful, balanced bill on the issue of demand letters that will address the abusive behavior that small businesses and retail interests face."[http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2014/07/10/house-subcommittee-takes-up-trol-act-on-demand-letters/id=50371/]

*An open letter by 51 economists and professors cited the social costs of patent litigation as a hindrance to small businesses and innovation.[http://www.utdallas.edu/~ugg041000/IPScholarsLettertoCongress_March_2_2015.pdf]

===Dissenting===

*A reply to the letter written by 51 scholars in support of restricting patent litigation states that studies claiming large problems with patent litigation misconstrue the issues. Adam Mossoff is one of the co-authors for the reply letter.[http://cpip.gmu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/Economists-Law-Profs-Letter-re-Patent-Reform.pdf][http://patentlyo.com/patent/2015/03/professor-patent-reform.html]

*The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) has stated that TROL act does not do enough in regard to patent reform for reasons listed below:
#TROL Act provides FTC power it already has to pursue patent trolls
#TROL Act would strike down state laws on patent reform

==Similar Legislation (State Level)==

Several states have passed legislation combating "patent trolls" by specifically targeting demand letters written in bad faith. [http://www.forbes.com/sites/ericgoldman/2013/05/22/vermont-enacts-the-nations-first-anti-patent-trolling-law/#66a17f406dfe Vermont] became the first state to pass a bad faith demand letter bill. State legislators of [http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2014/01/nebraska-ag-seeks-to-shut-down-vague-patent-demand-letters/ Nebraska], [http://legalnewsline.com/stories/510517105-oregon-lawmaker-lauds-passing-of-patent-troll-bill-says-it-will-give-ag-more-tools Oregon], and [http://legalnewsline.com/stories/510517035-kentucky-introduces-its-own-bill-to-combat-patent-trolls Kentucky] have introduced similar pieces of legislation.

Hrdy (2013) argues for state patents over U.S. patents to boost innovation spillover and encouraging patent reform from the bottom up.[http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2259368]

==Demand Letters==

Quantifying the number of demand letters may feel like a Sisyphean task. The nature of demand letters creates a private relationship between a Patent Assertion Entity (PAE) or a law firm representing them and the company that allegedly infringed on a patent. These letters are mailed directly to the alleged infringer, and do not fall under a required part of discovery in the event of a lawsuit. Letters may warn or threaten a lawsuit from the PAE, but are not legally binding documents. Although the official number of demand letters related to patent infringements does not exist, several online resources host example of demand letters.

*[https://trollingeffects.org Trolling Effects]

The website Trolling Effects hosts a [https://trollingeffects.org/letters collection] of demand letters. As of March 7, 2016, 54 demand letters from 2008 to 2015 are available. Of those, eight are from subsidiaries of MPHJ Technology Investments, LLC.

===Costs to Economy===

Bessen & Meurer (2012) estimate that patent asserting entitites non-practicing entities have accrued $29 million of direct costs to businesses during 2011.[http://www.pcworld.com/article/258395/patent_trolls_cost_tech_companies_29_billion_last_year_study_says.html][http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2091210##] "The authors used a database of 1,630 patent troll lawsuits compiled by Patent Freedom. Because many of the lawsuits had multiple defendants, there was a total of 4,114 plaintiff-defendant pairs. The median defendant over all of these pairs lost $20.4 million in market capitalization, while the mean loss was $122 million."[http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2011/09/study-patent-trolls-have-cost-innovators-half-a-trillion-bucks/]

The two Boston University faculty members have also published a book, ''Patent Failure: How Judges, Bureaucrats, and Lawyers Put Innovators at Risk'' [http://www.amazon.com/Patent-Failure-Bureaucrats-Lawyers-Innovators/dp/069113491X/arstech-20], where they claim patent trolls "cost publicly traded defendants $500 billion since 1990."[http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2011/09/study-patent-trolls-have-cost-innovators-half-a-trillion-bucks/]

==MPHJ Technology Investments, LLC==

One of the biggest motivations behind the TROL Act is the 2014 Federal Trade Commission investigation into MPHJ Technology Investments, LLC (MPHJ). The investigation revealed that MPHJ had sent demand letters to "16,465 small businesses located in all fifty states and the District of Columbia."[https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/documents/cases/150317mphjtechcmpt.pdf]

[[category:internal]]

Protecting American Talent and Entrepreneurship (PATENT) Act

2016-06-01T21:20:32Z

RichardGoldman: Created page with "Return to Patent Reform '''S.1137: Protecting American Talent and Entrepreneurship (PATENT) Act (2015)''' [https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/senate-bill/1137 (..."

Return to [[Patent Reform]]

'''S.1137: Protecting American Talent and Entrepreneurship (PATENT) Act (2015)''' [https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/senate-bill/1137 (Congress)]

The PATENT Act was introduced on April 29, 2015 by Senator Chuck Grassley (R-IA) and referred to the Senate Committee on the Judiciary. On September 8, 2015, the bill was placed on the Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Currently the bill has 6 cosponsors (3 Republicans and 3 Democrats). The full title of the bill is "A bill to amend title 35, United States Code, and the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act to make improvements and technical corrections, and for other purposes."

GovTrack predicts the PATENT Act has a 36% chance of being enacted. [https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/114/s1137 (GovTrack)]

The House Innovation Act and Senate Patent Act are very similar; both acts address abusive litigation through “increased transparency, more limited discovery, heightened pleading standards, and ‘loser pays’ fee shifting”. However, there has been a delay in the passing of the bills because of controversy surrounging the shifting of attorney fees. Fee shifting was originally suggested as a way to incentivize small firms and businesses that were being unfairly accused of patent infringement to bring the case to court, so that they would not have to pay their attorney fees. However, there have been arguments stating that fee shifting would actually increase the settlement rate of small businesses being accused of patent infringement, because they don’t want to take the risk of losing and paying for the winner’s attorneys’ fees, in addition to their own. [http://www.bna.com/debate-patent-reform-n17179934625/ (Bloomberg BNA)]

==Summary==
===Pleading and early disclosure===
The PATENT Act requires patent owners to identify each claim of each patent allegedly infringed and which products or processes are infringing. If the details are not available, the patent owner must explain why.

===Customer stay===
The act allows cases against consumers to be stayed while the manufacturer litigates the alleged patent infringement if the manufacturer is involved in a similar case in the United States. This stay is only for consumers at the end of the supply chain who are using the product in its final form without material modifications.

===Discovery limits===
The PATENT Act requires a court to stay expensive discovery pending the resolution of preliminary motions, such as the dismissal of a case, a change of venue, of the severance of accused infringers.

===Fees and recovery===
The act provides that reasonable attorney fees will be awarded if the court finds that the non-prevailing party was not objectively reasonable. This prevents patent trolls from extorting their targets into settling for thousands of dollars rather than spending millions of dollars in legal battles. Universities are exempt from this fee-recovery provision. In the case that an entity is unable to pay the fee, fees may be recovered from third parties that have a "substantial financial interest" in the patent.

===Disclosure of patent ownership===
The PATENT Act requires patent holders to disclose to the Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) whenever there is an assignment of interest in the patent that results in a change of ultimate parent entity. This transparency allows defendants to who has a stake in the case, as well as if the patent has been litigated before.

===Small business provisions===
The act directs the PTO to develop educational resources for businesses targeted by patent suits and to create a list of pending patent cases on its website.

==Analysis==

According to the drafters of the PATENT Act, the proposed legislation aims to "stop abusive patent litigation practices" and prevent "bad actors," namely patent trolls, "from undermining the patent system." [http://files.bakerbotts.com/file_upload/IPReport201507-ProposedPatentReformin2015.htm#footnote2r (Baker Botts)]

A 2015 [http://www.pwc.com/us/en/forensic-services/publications/assets/2015-pwc-patent-litigation-study.pdf study] from PriceWaterhouseCoopers on patent litigation shows that 2014 saw a 13 percent decrease in the amount of patent lawsuits filed, contrary to the average 20 to 30 percent increases seen since 2009.

The 2015 Patent Dispute Report from Unified Patents shows that 68 percent of District Court patent dispute cases consisted of NPE (non-practicing entity) litigation. The majority of litigation cases involved the high-tech industry, and 89.8 percent of high-tech cases involved NPE litigation. [http://unifiedpatents.com/1st-half-2015-patent-dispute-report/ (Unified Patents)]

One of the major criticisms of the PATENT Act is against its "customer stay" provision. Making manufacturers instead end users responsible allows for a loophole in which many manufacturers could qualify as customers because they buy or import components of products. [http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2015/05/20/study-should-pause-patent-reform/id=57946/ (IP Watchdog)] Because of the way the provision is written, even the largest technology companies could prevent patent litigation because they purchase items from other manufacturing companies.

The PATENT Act is strongly supported by Microsoft [https://news.microsoft.com/2015/04/29/microsoft-supports-patent-act/ (Microsoft)] and the National Retail Federation. [https://nrf.com/advocacy/policy-agenda/fair-patent-laws (NRF)]

Organizations like the Innovation Alliance [http://innovationalliance.net/from-the-alliance/innovation-alliance-statement-introduction-patent-act/ (IA)] and National Venture Capital Association [http://nvca.org/issues/patent-reform/ (NVCA)] have spoken out against various provisions of the bill. The NVCA states that the PATENT Act, as well as the [[Innovation Act]] (H.R.9), will increase the risk of patent litigation for startups by creating an overly broad fee shifting system that gives large companies and large patent trolls with huge financial resources an advantage against smaller startups.

[[category:internal]]

United States Patent and Trademark Office

2016-06-01T21:14:02Z

RichardGoldman:

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 fulfills 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.

==History==

==Organization==

===Administration===

*'''Director and Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property''': Michelle K. Lee[http://www.uspto.gov/about-us/executive-biographies/michelle-k-lee]
:Michelle Lee was nominated by President Barack Obama to serve as the Director of the USPTO on November 11, 2014[https://www.congress.gov/nomination/113th-congress/2103] and officially took the oath of office on March 12, 2015[http://dcinno.streetwise.co/2015/03/13/new-us-patent-chief-sworn-in-at-sxsw/]. She is the first female to hold the office.[http://www.uspto.gov/about-us/executive-biographies/michelle-k-lee]. Her first role within the USPTO was serving as the Director of the USPTO Silicon Valley regional office.[http://www.uspto.gov/about-us/news-updates/us-secretary-commerce-penny-pritzker-names-michelle-k-lee-next-deputy-director]. Prior to joining the USPTO, Lee served as the Deputy General Counsel for Google[https://www.commerce.gov/news/blog/2015/03/spotlight-commerce-michelle-k-lee-under-secretary-commerce-intellectual-property].
*'''Deputy Director''': Russell Slifer
*'''Chief of Staff''': (Vacant)
*'''Commissioner for Patents''': Drew Hirshfeld
*'''Commissioner for Trademarks''': Mary Boney Denison
*'''Chief Policy Officer and Director for International Affairs''': Shira Perlmutter
*'''Chief Administrative Officer''': Frederick Steckler
*'''Chief Communication Officer''': (Vacant)
*'''Chief Financial Officer''': Anthony P. Scardino
*'''Chief Information Officer''': John Owens II
*'''General Counsel''': Sarah Harris
*'''Acting Deputy General Counsel for Intellectual Property Law and Solicitor''': Thomas Krause
*'''Director of the Office of Equal Employment Opportunity and Diversity''': Bismark Myrick

===Employment===

The USPTO released its 2015-2018 People Plan, which outlines three pillars of focus for its workforce through the 2018 fiscal year.[http://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/USPTO%202015%20-%202018%20People%20Plan.pdf] The Office intends to use the three pillars of ''lead'', ''engage'', and ''enable'' for its strategic human capital planning, which is "the process by which an organization takes stock of how its people and people-management activities align with and support the agency’s strategic goals." Some human capital planning recommendations include diversifying and developing its workforce, connecting its employees with the core vision of the USPTO, and maximizing its internal leadership capabilities.

At the end of FY 2015, the USPTO employed 12,667 individuals, which includes 9,161 patent examiners and 456 trademark examining attorneys.[http://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/USPTOFY15PAR.pdf]. This number is up from 12,450 total federal employees in FY 2014[http://www.uspto.gov/about/stratplan/ar/USPTOFY2014PAR.pdf] and 11,773 employees in FY 2013[http://www.uspto.gov/about/stratplan/ar/USPTOFY2013PAR.pdf]. The USPTO is expected to employ around 13,500 employees for FY 2016.[http://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/fy16pbr.pdf]

{| class="wikitable" border=0
|+ align="center" size="14px"|'''USPTO Employment'''
|-
| scope="col" align="center" style="background:#f0f0f0;"|'''Fiscal Year'''
| scope="col" align="center" style="background:#f0f0f0;"|'''Total Employees'''
| scope="col" align="center" style="background:#f0f0f0;"|'''Patent Examiners'''
| scope="col" align="center" style="background:#f0f0f0;"|'''Trademark Examining Attorneys'''
|-
| align="center" style="background:#f9f9f9;"| 2016 || align="center" style="background:#f9f9f9;"|~13,500 || align="center" style="background:#f9f9f9;"|??? || align="center" style="background:#f9f9f9;"|???
|-
| align="center" style="background:#f9f9f9;"| 2015 || align="center" style="background:#f9f9f9;"|12,667 || align="center" style="background:#f9f9f9;"|9,161 || align="center" style="background:#f9f9f9;"|465
|-
| align="center" style="background:#f9f9f9;"| 2014 || align="center" style="background:#f9f9f9;"|12,450 || align="center" style="background:#f9f9f9;"|8,611 || align="center" style="background:#f9f9f9;"|429
|-
| align="center" style="background:#f9f9f9;"| 2013 || align="center" style="background:#f9f9f9;"|11,173 || align="center" style="background:#f9f9f9;"|8,051 || align="center" style="background:#f9f9f9;"|409
|-
| align="center" style="background:#f9f9f9;"| 2012 || align="center" style="background:#f9f9f9;"|11,531 || align="center" style="background:#f9f9f9;"|7,935 || align="center" style="background:#f9f9f9;"|386
|}

===Regional Offices===

The USPTO currently holds four regional offices in addition to its headquarters in Alexandria, VA. In 2010, the office piloted its first regional office in Detroit, MI through the Nationwide Workforce Program.[http://www.uspto.gov/about-us/news-updates/uspto-open-first-ever-satellite-office-detroit] The Leahy-Smith America Invents Act provided for the USPTO to "establish 3 or more satellite offices in the United States to carry out the responsibilities of the Office."[http://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/aia_implementation/bills-112hr1249eh.pdf] Subsequently, the USPTO decided to expand to all time zones through offices in Denver, CO, Silicon Valley, CA, and Dallas, TX.[http://www.uspto.gov/about-us/news-updates/us-commerce-department-open-four-regional-us-patent-offices-will-speed-patent]

Regional offices were created with the purpose to[http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/USCODE-2013-title35/html/USCODE-2013-title35-partI-chap1-sec1.htm]:

*(1) increase outreach activities to better connect patent filers and innovators with the Office;
*(2) enhance patent examiner retention;
*(3) improve recruitment of patent examiners;
*(4) decrease the number of patent applications waiting for examination; and
*(5) improve the quality of patent examination.

=====Alexandria, VA=====

In 2006, the USPTO offices were consolidated in a new campus encompassing ten buildings all connected by underground walkways.[http://www.buildings.com/article-details/articleid/3374/title/uspto-makes-its-mark-with-consolidation.aspx] The location includes 70,000-square-foot mission-critical data center and the National Inventors Hall of Fame and Museum, which re-opened on May 21, 2014.[http://www.uspto.gov/about-us/uspto-locations/alexandria-va/national-inventors-hall-fame-and-museum]

=====Detroit, MI=====

The Elijah J. McCoy United States Patent and Trademark Office[http://www.uspto.gov/about-us/uspto-locations/detroit-michigan], serves as the first regional office of the USPTO. Originally created under the National Workforce Program in 2012, the office provides services including but not limited to complete patent databases, collaborative workstations, regularly scheduled workshops, and public tours. Christal Sheppard serves as the current director of the regional office.[http://www.uspto.gov/about-us/uspto-locations/detroit-mi/christal-sheppard] The regional office serves the states of Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Ohio and Wisconsin.

=====Denver, CO=====

The Rocky Mountain Regional Office, located in the Byron G. Rogers Federal Building in downtown Denver, has been open since June 30, 2014.[http://www.uspto.gov/about-us/uspto-locations/rocky-mountain-regional-office-colorado] The office serves the states of Idaho, Utah, Montana, Wyoming, Colorado, North Dakota, South Dakota, Nebraska, and Kansas.

=====Silicon Valley, CA=====

=====Dallas, TX=====

===Budget===

==Patent Database==

===[[2015 Patent Data]]===

Classification Numbers can be found [http://www.uspto.gov/web/patents/classification/selectnumwithtitle.htm here].

USPTO's new visual database, PatentsView, can be found [http://www.patentsview.org/web/ here].

Google's helpful article on downloading USPTO PAIR (Patent Application Information Retrieval) data can be found [https://www.google.com/googlebooks/uspto-patents-pair.html#AvailableApplications here].

===Patent Types===

[http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/ac/ido/oeip/taf/h_counts.htm]

====Utility Patent====

Utility patents protect a "machine, article of manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof"[http://www.uspto.gov/learning-and-resources/glossary]

====Design Patent====

Design patents protect a "new, original, and ornamental design for an article of manufacture"[http://www.uspto.gov/learning-and-resources/glossary]

====Plant Patent====

Plant patents protect a "distinct and new variety of plant that can be asexually reproduced"[http://www.uspto.gov/learning-and-resources/glossary]

==Funding==

The USPTO receives its operating funds through application fees, officially designated as "offsetting collections" to be placed in the Patent and Trademark Office Appropriations Account. However, the office must publish annal reports to Congress on its expected level of revenue and expenditure. From there, Congress appropriates a certain level of funding that the USPTO may keep form its fee collection in order to run the office. Essentially, the USPTO must request permission to keep and use the money it receives from the application fees. No additional appropriation through Congress is usually approved. The net appropriation for the past three years has been $0.

The Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (AIA) created a reserve fund for the USPTO, where all excess fees are to be deposited. Further, the AIA granted the USPTO authority "to set or adjust by rule any fee established or charged by the Office". This provision increased the office's flexibility on fee setting and helped pave the way for a new class of fees for "micro entities."[http://www.uspto.gov/custom-page/inventors-eye-advice]

For FY 2016, the office requested $3.2 billion of allowed expenditure from its fee collections, which with funds from other income and the Operating reserve balance, is expected to fund the necessary operating budget of $3.5 billion.[http://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/fy16pbr.pdf]

===Reserve Fund===

Section 22 of the America Invents Act (AIA) created a Patent and Trademark Fee Reserve Fund, where excess fees collected by the USPTO are to be deposited.[http://www.uspto.gov/patent/laws-and-regulations/america-invents-act-aia/fees-and-budgetary-issues] The reserve fund is meant to reduce uncertainty in financial stability for the office, especially during government shutdown. The reserve should be able to sustain the operations of the USPTO for three months of its patent operations and four-to-six months of its trademark operations. The office projects the reserve fund to hold $1.9 billion through FY 2019, which will allow the office "to propose reducing trademark fees in FY 2015."[http://www.uspto.gov/blog/director/entry/an_update_on_sustainable_funding]

However, the USPTO must still petition Congress annually for permission to spend the money deposited in the reserve fund.

===Proposed Legislation===

*'''[[Innovation Protection Act]]'''

*'''[[Patent Fee Integrity Act]]'''

==Fee Diversion==

The USPTO's funding process through congressional appropriations left the Office subject to "fee diversions," a process of taking excess funds accumulated by the USPTO but not requested in the annual budget and appropriating them to the general Treasury fund. All fees collected by the USPTO must be credited to the Patent and Trademark Office Appropriations Account, from which the USPTO may take money that has been appropriated by Congress and see all excess funds appropriated elsewhere.

This practice of fee diversion helped other sectors of the federal government cover additional expenses without exceeding appropriation limits. The USPTO reacted to this practice by closely estimating expected revenue and matching this estimate with its annual appropriations proposal for Congress.

The Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act (OBRA) of 1990[http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/STATUTE-104/pdf/STATUTE-104-Pg1388.pdf] established the USPTO as a fully fee funded organization. The passage of this act, designed to cut the budget deficit, meant that Congress would not appropriate additional sources of funding for the USPTO. Instead, the office would have to remain afloat through only the fees it collects through processing patent and trademark applications. During the eight years of OBRA, an estimated $234 million in fee payments were collected by the USPTO in excess of the budget authority for the office.[https://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RS20906.pdf] The excess funds were not placed in a reserve fund, and instead were appropriated to non-USPTO related activities. A Congressional Research Service report has estimated $1.009 billion diverted or made unavailable to the USPTO from FY1990 to FY2011.[https://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RS20906.pdf]

The Leahy-Smith Act America Invents Act created a USPTO reserve fund to hold excess fees collected in a given fiscal year. Although the reserve fund balance may only be appropriated to USPTO activities, the director of the USPTO must still petition Congress to use these funds in its annual budget request.

==Criticism==

==Contact Information==

===Office Locations===

*'''Alexandria, VA''':

:USPTO Madison Building
:600 Dulany Street
:Alexandria , VA 22314

*'''Detroit, MI''':

:Midwest Regional Office - USPTO
:300 River Place South
:Suite 2900
:Detroit, MI 48207

*'''Denver, CO''':

:Rocky Mountain Regional Office (USPTO)
:1961 Stout Street
:Denver, CO 80294

*'''Silicon Valley, CA''':

:Silicon Valley USPTO
:26 S. Fourth Street
:San Jose, CA 95113

*'''Dallas, TX''':

:Texas Regional Office (USPTO)
:207 South Houston St.
:Dallas, TX 75202

===Online Locations===

*[http://www.uspto.gov/ Website]
*[https://www.facebook.com/uspto.gov Facebook]
*[https://twitter.com/uspto Twitter]
*[https://www.youtube.com/user/USPTOvideo YouTube]

[[category:internal]]

Innovation Act

2016-06-01T21:11:16Z

RichardGoldman: Created page with "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 De..."

Work Logs

2016-06-01T20:53:04Z

RichardGoldman:

[[Category:Internal]]
==Dylan Dickens==
{{:Dylan Dickens (Work Log)}}

[[Category:Internal]]
==Jake Silberman==
{{:Jake Silberman (Work Log)}}

[[Category:Internal]]
==Richard Goldman==
{{:Richard Goldman (Work Log)}}

Work Logs

2016-06-01T20:51:34Z

RichardGoldman: /* Richard Goldman */

[[Category:Internal]]
==Dylan Dickens==
{{:Dylan Dickens (Work Log)}}

[[Category:Internal]]
==Richard Goldman==
{{:Richard Goldman (Work Log)}}

United States Patent and Trademark Office

2016-06-01T20:35:52Z

Small Business Administration

2016-06-01T20:33:48Z

RichardGoldman: Created page with "==About== <onlyinclude>Created in 1953 as an independent agency of the federal government, the Small Business Administration (SBA) has two strategic goals: first, growing busi..."

==About==
<onlyinclude>Created in 1953 as an independent agency of the federal government, the Small Business Administration (SBA) has two strategic goals: first, growing businesses and creating jobs, and second, to serve as the voice for [[:Small Business]]. SBA claims that the core of their entrepreneurial development is the foundation of targeted, effective advising, training, and mentoring services to drive business. Their entrepreneurial development performance goal focuses on driving greater participation in the resource partner advising and mentoring programs and training courses. The [[:SBA]] primarily offers a range of financial assistance programs for small businesses that may have trouble qualifying for a traditional bank loan. The SBA guarantees $65 million in loans to small businesses through its two major loan programs, 7(a) and 504. Follow this link for a list of the major [[SBA Loans]]. SBA's programs also include financial and federal contract procurement assistance, management assistance, and specialized outreach to women, minorities and armed forces veterans. SBA also provides loans to victims of natural disasters and specialized advice and assistance in international trade. [https://www.sba.gov/about-sba/what-we-do/history| ] </onlyinclude>

Agencies affiliated with the SBA include: Small Business Investment Company ([[SBIC]]), Small Business Innovation Research ([[SBIR]]), and Small Business Development Centers ([[SBDC]]).

==Contact==

Answer desk: answerdesk@sba.gov

Houston office: houston@sba.gov

Office of Chief Information Officer: (202-205-6708)

Office of Performance Management and the Chief Financial Officer: (202-205-6449)

==FY 2016 Entrepreneurship Goals==
*Broad goal: Strengthen entrepreneurial ecosystems through a variety of strategic partnerships to provide tailored training, mentoring, and advising services that support entrepreneurs during every phase of their business growth.
*Performance goal: reach 1.4 million clients with online and in-person training, mentoring, and advising in FY 2016.
*Programs offered: Small Business Development Centers, Women's Business Centers, SCORE, Learning Center, Boots to Business, Regional Innovation Clusters, Entrepreneurship Education, Emerging Leaders
*Strategies:
#Harness SBA's nationwide network of resource partners
#Improve entrepreneurial ecosystems through cross-agency and public-private partnerships
#Offer tailored training through structured programs and online access

==Budget==

SBA's total budget request for FY 2016 (including Stafford Act Disaster funding) is $860 million. Of this amount, $3.3 million is for business loan subsidy, $19.9 million for the Office of the Inspector General and $9.1 million for the Office of Advocacy. This total is inclusive of $28 million for administering non-Stafford Act disasters.
[https://www.sba.gov/sites/default/files/files/1-FY_2016_CBJ_FY_2014_APR_508.pdf|SBA FY16 Budget Highlights]

Some 2016 budget reforms include:
*Launch SBA One, a program designed to increase loan efficiency process
*Allocates $3 million towards "idea lab" which will help adopt private sector best practices

For further detail, see [[SBA Budget Graphs]].

==Criticisms==
The most prevalent criticisms of the SBA include [http://www.cato.org/publications/congressional-testimony/waste-fraud-abuse-small-business-administration-programs| ]:
#Creates uneven playing field by aiding some businesses while denying aid to others, thus distorting markets;
#Duplicating activities already provided in private markets;
#Harms businesses and consumers;
#Government intervention in deciding market trends can often bet on the wrong companies at taxpayer expense;
#SBA fosters corruption.

Specifically,

*GAO released Report 10-108 which found that failing to hold firms accountable sent a message to the contracting community that there is no punishment or consequences for committing fraud. See [http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d10108.pdf| the report] for more information.
*The SBA has difficulty in [[SBA Lender and Loan Oversight]].
*The CATO Institute argues that the very conception of the SBA was a bad idea, questioning the federal government's strategy in intervening in the credit market. They say that the United States grew to be an economic powerhouse with a small centralized federal government that largely left business development to the private sector. For more information about the CATO institute's criticism, see this [http://www.cato.org/publications/congressional-testimony/waste-fraud-abuse-small-business-administration-programs| article].

==Literature==
===SBIC===
*[http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-16-107 GAO report on SBIC]
**GAO recommended that SBA provide guidance to SBIC on how to collect and report data on their investments in minority, women, and veteran owned businesses.
*[http://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/description-of-the-small-business-23940/ Description of the SBIC Debenture Program]
===SBIR===
*[http://www.gao.gov/assets/670/669651.pdf GAO report finds SBIR data reporting inadequate]

==McNair Center Internal==
[[McNair Center-specific courses of further action regarding SBA]]
===Articles===
[[SBA and Data Reporting]]