Good morning! Here’s some patent news from this week. On Tuesday, a whole bunch of prominent companies (many in non-tech industries, like retail and food) sent a letter to Congress encouraging them to expand Covered Business Method (CBM) reviewA covered business method review is an adversarial procedure created by the AIA for challenging patents, similar to an IPR. Like an IPR, the parties argue before an Administrative Patent Judge, not a patent examiner and the challenger must show a reasonable likelihood of successfully invalidating one claim before the PTAB will agree to grant a petition for review. Unlike an IPR, a CBM can More; Patent Progress has pointed out repeatedly ([1], [2], [3]) that expanding CBM review is the most important reform that’s been introduced. Expansion of CBM review is currently found in Senator Schumer’s Patent Quality Improvement Act and Representative Issa and Representative Chu’s STOP Act.
On Monday, Matt Levy previewed a Wednesday talk by FTCU.S. Federal Trade Commission. An independent regulatory agency charged with consumer protection and competition policy, which conducted several influential studies on how patents work in practice. Authored several key studies: 2003’s To Promote Innovation: The Proper Balance of Competition and Patent Law and Policy [PDF] and 2011’s The Evolving IP Marketplace: Aligning Patent Notice and Remedies with Competition [PDF]. Commissioner Julie Brill on patent assertion entities, and yesterday he announced that she did in fact support the FTCU.S. Federal Trade Commission. An independent regulatory agency charged with consumer protection and competition policy, which conducted several influential studies on how patents work in practice. Authored several key studies: 2003’s To Promote Innovation: The Proper Balance of Competition and Patent Law and Policy [PDF] and 2011’s The Evolving IP Marketplace: Aligning Patent Notice and Remedies with Competition [PDF]. doing a 6(b) study, joining her colleagues Edith Ramirez and Maureen Ohlhausen. This means a majority of commissioners have expressed interest, and so action seems likely.
Wednesday also brought the launch of EFF’s Trolling Effects, a crowd-sourced database of patent demand letters, to bring transparency and attention to that troubling practice. And yesterday Matt Levy also pointed out that comedian Marc Maron (who was sued by Personal Audio, the infamous podcast patent trollAn entity in the business of being infringed — by analogy to the mythological troll that exacted payments from the unwary. Cf. NPE, PAE, PME. See Reitzig and Henkel, Patent Trolls, the Sustainability of ‘Locking-in-to-Extort’ Strategies, and Implications for Innovating Firms.) gave a great explanation and framing of the patent trollAn entity in the business of being infringed — by analogy to the mythological troll that exacted payments from the unwary. Cf. NPE, PAE, PME. See Reitzig and Henkel, Patent Trolls, the Sustainability of ‘Locking-in-to-Extort’ Strategies, and Implications for Innovating Firms. issue in a recent interview.
Finally, yesterday’s House Judiciary Committee hearing on copyright, “Innovation in America: The Role of Technology,” ended up having quite a few discussions of problems in the patent system; these issues are clearly on the minds of several witnesses, and quite a few Congressmen. Some tweets from another CCIA blog, DisCo (the Disruptive Competition Project), about the hearing are embedded below.
There were some comments from Nathan Seidle of SparkFun (@ChipAddict):
.@ChipAddict: We survive by constantly innovating. The pace of the patent system makes patents irrelevant. #copyright (#fixpatents)
— DisCo (@DisCo_Project) August 1, 2013
.@ChipAddict: Patent trolls and patent thickets are really hurting innovation in this country. #copyright (#fixpatents)
— DisCo (@DisCo_Project) August 1, 2013
Van Lindberg of Rackspace (@VanL):
.@VanL: To really encourage innovation in America, stop the patent trollAn entity in the business of being infringed — by analogy to the mythological troll that exacted payments from the unwary. Cf. NPE, PAE, PME. See Reitzig and Henkel, Patent Trolls, the Sustainability of ‘Locking-in-to-Extort’ Strategies, and Implications for Innovating Firms. problem and help us with the legal abuse. #copyright #fixpatents
— DisCo (@DisCo_Project) August 1, 2013
.@VanL: In all of my years of work, I have yet to find a patent that was not invalidated by prior artPrior art is the knowledge in the field of a patent that was publicly available before the patent was filed.. #copyright #fixpatents
— DisCo (@DisCo_Project) August 1, 2013
And Jim Fruchterman of Benetech (@JRandomF):
.@JRandomF: I own two patents for defensive reasons, even though I think software patents are a terrible idea. #copyright (#fixpatents)
— DisCo (@DisCo_Project) August 1, 2013
Did we miss something? Questions or suggestions? Feel free to leave a comment below, mention us on Twitter (@PatentProgress), or email us: patentprogress[AT]ccianet[DOT]org
