Patent law in the United States gained a higher profile on 16 May as the House Judiciary Committee's Subcommittee on Courts, the Internet, and Intellectual Property voted to send the long-touted Patent Reform Bill to full Committee stage. Only Republican congressman Jim Sensenbrenner voted against the move, arguing that the Subcommittee should ‘continue to put pressure on the stakeholders who are complaining about various parts of the Bill, and at least get everyone onboard or not opposing the legislation before we mark it up.’

The ‘stakeholders’ Sensenbrenner referred to are elements in the technological industry that have reacted badly to some of the Bill’s content. Two chief concerns are a) the establishment of a special review board within the USPTO that would allow patents to be challenged out of the expensive court system – which some smaller firms have said will offer unlimited scope to attack certified patents; and b) a clause that would link damages won in infringement suits to the extent of a patent’s improvement over prior art.

Grouped together under the Innovation Alliance banner, many smaller tech firms such as AmberWave Systems, Eyeonics and the Boston Scientific Corporation wrote to prominent House leaders, including speaker Nancy Pelosi, the day before the vote to voice their fears on the Bill’s implications. The letter praised Californian Democrat Howard Berman’s leadership on the Bill, but warned:

‘… we strongly believe that certain provisions, such as those dealing with apportionment of monetary damages for patent infringement … an open-ended post grant opposition system, and a narrow grace period will not strengthen our patent system but instead will fundamentally undermine patent certainty, discourage investment in innovative technologies, and reduce publication and collaborative activities among academic scientists.

‘For companies (directly, and as university licensees) in industries such as ours, the consequences – greater bureaucracy, inability to rely on valid patents, weakened protection against infringement and a decreased access to capital – would be devastating. The harm to investment in tomorrow’s technologies would be felt immediately, and would hurt US competitiveness for years to come.’

Berman said that he would continue to listen to suggestions about the Bill and make any amendments deemed necessary.

User Comments

Post a comment