PublishedApril 14, 2014

Progress on Patent Reform Takes a Little Time

As you may have heard, we basically have a deal on patent reform in the Senate Judiciary Committee. While lawmakers couldn’t quite get it done before recess, they left town with what Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) described as a “broad bipartisan agreement in principle” on patent reform. I’m hearing from sources that nearly everything is worked out except the fine tuning of language.  We can expect to see the manager’s amendment in a couple of weeks when the Senate returns.

The members of the Senate Judiciary Committee spent weeks listening to stakeholders and conducting a lot of in depth substantive discussions. And lest you think that this bill sprang out of nowhere, provisions to deal with patent trolls were debated as part of the America Invents Act; that’s 8 years in the making.

This deal comes after the House passed the Innovation Act 325-91, with Democrats supporting it 2 to 1. Chairman Leahy is working in collaboration with Chairman Goodlatte of the House Judiciary Committee, which really improves the chances of getting the House and Senate to agree on a bill pretty quickly.

Another sign that we’re nearly there is that some big companies seem to be accepting the inevitability of reform. One harbinger is the recent news that Intellectual Ventures, the “gentleman gangster” of patent trolls, is having trouble with some of its early funders. Reports late last week in Reuters and National Journal say Apple and Intel—both previous financial backers of IV—have demurred on investing in its latest acquisition fund. Some analysts say the decision by Apple and Intel to shut off the spigot to IV has more to do with IV’s diminishing rate of return than with politics. But I have to believe that the impending reality of patent reform played a major role.

On the other hand, pronouncing patent reform doomed due to partisan bickering is a provocative narrative, so some commentators are running with it.

But don’t believe it. Given where we are, the current legislative process is normal. Part of the work has been navigating the right compromises—and there will be gentle compromises, be they around fee shifting, customer-stay, heightened pleading standards or other contested provisions.

I personally wasn’t happy, for instance, to learn that an expansion of the Covered Business Method (CBM) review program is not in the cards. Currently only available for a limited group of financial services patents, CBM petitions facilitate PTO reviews that are an important, less costly alternative to litigation. It’s a powerful tool that, if expanded to technology patents, could bring needed expertise to what is otherwise the private, legal hell wrought by trolls on many honest business people and electronics customers. But we all need to accept the give and take process that will get us to a balanced, workable solution.

As Senator Charles Schumer (D-NY) said a few weeks ago, “getting a good bill is better than just getting a bill.” It looks like we’re getting a good bill.

After the home district ribbon cuttings and Easter egg hunts of this current recess, Senators of both parties should jump on this legislation as soon as possible in order to remove the enormous drag on economic growth caused by unchecked patent trolls run amok.

Matt Levy

Previously, Matt was patent counsel at the Computer & Communications Industry Association

Josh Landau

Patent Counsel, CCIA

Joshua Landau is the Patent Counsel at the Computer & Communications Industry Association (CCIA), where he represents and advises the association regarding patent issues.  Mr. Landau joined CCIA from WilmerHale in 2017, where he represented clients in patent litigation, counseling, and prosecution, including trials in both district courts and before the PTAB.

Prior to his time at WilmerHale, Mr. Landau was a Legal Fellow on Senator Al Franken’s Judiciary staff, focusing on privacy and technology issues.  Mr. Landau received his J.D. from Georgetown University Law Center and his B.S.E.E. from the University of Michigan.  Before law school, he spent several years as an automotive engineer, during which time he co-invented technology leading to U.S. Patent No. 6,934,140.

Follow @PatentJosh on Twitter.

More Posts

Much Ado About Injunctions: Redux

Patent policy debates have raged since 2006 when the Supreme Court decided eBay Inc. v. MercExchange, L.L.C., 547 U.S. 388 (2006). Critics of eBay frequently cite the decision as having effectively en...

Tuesday Markup of Litigation Funding Legislation

Although John Squires is busy destroying the PTAB—as of last week, he has now gone 0 for 34 on allowing institution of IPR petitions he reviews—the story in Congress is more positive. Tomorrow, t...

Step 1: Destroy IPR.  Step 2: ???  Step 3: Profit.

Last week, the USPTO issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) containing major changes to the institution process for inter partes review.  Combined with other changes made by the USPTO, inc...

Subscribe to Patent Progress

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.