Protecting American Talent and Entrepreneurship (PATENT) Act - Revision history

Juliette.richert at 16:28, 5 April 2017

2017-04-05T16:28:37Z

Julia at 19:08, 2 September 2016

2016-09-02T19:08:16Z

Julia at 18:19, 2 September 2016

2016-09-02T18:19:34Z

Julia at 21:41, 31 August 2016

2016-08-31T21:41:20Z

DylanDickens at 21:54, 21 June 2016

2016-06-21T21:54:27Z

MarcelaInteriano: /* Provisions */

2016-06-15T16:29:49Z

Provisions

MarcelaInteriano at 16:19, 15 June 2016

2016-06-15T16:19:55Z

MarcelaInteriano: /* Analysis */

2016-06-15T16:04:24Z

Analysis

MarcelaInteriano: /* References */

2016-06-15T15:46:31Z

References

MarcelaInteriano: /* Analysis */

2016-06-15T15:43:54Z

Analysis

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:28, 5 April 2017
Line 1:		Line 1:
	Return to [[Innovation Policy#Patent Reform\|Patent Reform]]		Return to [[Innovation Policy#Patent Reform\|Patent Reform]]
		+
		+	[[114-S1137 PATENT Act]]

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

@@ Line 41: / Line 41: @@
 <ref name="patentactgovtrack"> [https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/114/s1137] 'S.1137: PATENT Act', 'govtrack.us'. </ref>
-[[Category: Internal]]
+[[Category: Public]]
-[[Internal Classification::Legislation| ]]
+[[Public Classification::Legislation| ]]

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
 Return to [[Innovation Policy#Patent Reform|Patent Reform]]
@@ Line 43: / Line 40: @@
 <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>

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:41, 31 August 2016
Line 1:		Line 1:
		+	[[Category: Internal]]
		+	[[Internal Classification::Legislation]]
		+
	Return to [[Innovation Policy#Patent Reform\|Patent Reform]]		Return to [[Innovation Policy#Patent Reform\|Patent Reform]]

@@ Line 36: / Line 36: @@
 ===Small Businesses===
 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.
 ==References==
 <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>

@@ Line 26: / Line 26: @@
 ===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.
+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, or severance of accused infringers.
 ===Fees and recovery===

@@ Line 15: / Line 15: @@
 *Discouraging abusive litigation practices.
 <section end=PatentAct />
 ==Provisions==
@@ Line 21: / Line 23: @@
 ===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.
+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===
@@ Line 32: / Line 34: @@
 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===
+===Small Businesses===
 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.

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:04, 15 June 2016
Line 35:		Line 35:
	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.		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.
−
−	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)]

	[[category:internal]]		[[category:internal]]

← Older revision		Revision as of 15:46, 15 June 2016
Line 54:		Line 54:

	==References==		==References==
−	<ref name="PAsummary"	+	<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>

← Older revision		Revision as of 15:43, 15 June 2016
Line 52:		Line 52:

	[[category:internal]]		[[category:internal]]
		+
		+	==References==
		+	<ref name="PAsummary"