More

U.S. Patent System Overhaul Approved By House Of Representatives

Patent System House Vote

By JIM ABRAMS   06/23/11 07:11 PM ET   AP

WASHINGTON -- The House on Thursday voted to rewrite 60-year-old patent law to give inventors a better shot of obtaining patents in a timely manner and bringing the U.S. patent system in line with those of other industrialized nations.

The legislation also takes steps to help the underfunded U.S. Patent and Trademark Office deal with a backlog that forces inventors to wait three years to get a decision on patent applications and has swamped the agency with some 1.2 million pending applications.

The vote was 304-117, closer than the 95-5 vote by which a similar bill cleared the Senate in March. The two chambers still have to reconcile differences, but the bill has the advantage of being supported by the White House, major business groups, and leaders from both parties who have hailed it as a major jobs-creating measure.

"This legislation modernizes our patent system to help create private-sector jobs and keep America on the leading edge of innovation," said House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio.

Before getting to a final vote, House supporters had to overcome challenges from opponents who charged that the legislation violated the Constitution and would make it more difficult for the small-scale inventor to prevail in disputes with large corporations.

There was also strong opposition to a provision that allows financial institutions to challenge patents issued on business methods, such as ways to process checks. The opponents said the provision amounted to a bailout for banks, but Rep. Robert Goodlatte, R-Va., chairman of the Judiciary intellectual property subcommittee said business method patents, a fairly recent phenomenon, were "a fundamental flaw in the system that is costing consumers millions each year."

An amendment to remove the section concerning the business method patents was defeated 262-158.

The most significant change brought about by the bill would put the United States under the same first-inventor-to-file system for patent applications used by Europe and Japan. Currently the country operates on a first-to-invent system that House Judiciary Committee Chairman Lamar Smith, R-Texas, said is "outdated and dragged down by frivolous lawsuits and uncertainty regarding patent ownership."

A chief opponent of the change, former Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers, D-Mich., said it would "permit the Patent and Trademark Office to award a patent to the first person who can win a race to the patent office regardless of who is the actual inventor."

But Smith said that for a $110 fee an inventor can file a provisional application that gives him a year to prepare for his formal application. He said it can cost $5 million for legitimate inventors to defend themselves against unwarranted lawsuits.

The Senate and House will also have to work out differences on another major element of the bill, how to fund the patent office.

The Senate ensures that the PTO can keep all the user fees it collects. Since 1992, the office has lost nearly $1 billion because it gets less from Congress than the fees it collects, which go to the general Treasury. This is a major factor in the backlog in processing applications.

The House, however, acceded to Appropriations and Budget committee demands that Congress retain control over the PTO's purse strings. As a compromise it was agreed to set up a reserve fund for fees collected that exceed what Congress allots to the PTO in a given year. An attempt to reverse this decision was defeated 283-140.

The chief Senate sponsor of the bill, Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., and the White House said they continued to support the bill despite the House change in the office's revenue stream.

Among supporters of the legislation – some with specific concerns – are IBM; the U.S. Coalition for 21st Century Patent Reform, which represents major manufacturers and pharmaceutical companies; and the Coalition for Patent Fairness, which represents Apple, Dell, Google and other high-tech companies.

Opposition came mainly from groups representing independent inventors, small businesses and academics.

The legislation sets up a process for third parties to submit information regarding a patent application and establishes a new administrative framework for post-grant reviews that allows disputes involving patent quality and scope to be settled, ideally without lawsuits.

FOLLOW HUFFPOST POLITICS
Subscribe to the HuffPost Hill newsletter!
WASHINGTON -- The House on Thursday voted to rewrite 60-year-old patent law to give inventors a better shot of obtaining patents in a timely manner and bringing the U.S. patent system in line with tho...
WASHINGTON -- The House on Thursday voted to rewrite 60-year-old patent law to give inventors a better shot of obtaining patents in a timely manner and bringing the U.S. patent system in line with tho...
Filed by Alexander Belenky  | 
 
 
  • Comments
  • 145
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2 3 4 5  Next ›  Last »  (5 total)
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Christian Howell
Totalitarian STEM Master...
01:31 PM on 08/04/2011
Hey if they really drop the price I'll be happy. I had a patent or two but couldn't afford the fee.
05:26 PM on 06/24/2011
You want energy independence in this country.

Release the patents!
04:23 PM on 06/24/2011
I am sure this was pushed by Monsanto, so that they can continue to patent more seeds quicker. The market for normal seeds is dwindling and soon only patented GM seeds will be the only ones you can get.
05:04 PM on 06/24/2011
amen to that. i was excited, hoping to see something about how no company can patent the human genome or other biological/organic material/organisms. guess we have to wait until it's too late, like with EVERY decision this country makes.
01:12 PM on 06/24/2011
Lame.
photo
OGigi
It is NOT only about the Economy
01:08 PM on 06/24/2011
Many patents go through the military first. Many ideas are stolen from the petitioner or someone shows up on their doorstep. Been going on for years. People have developed all sorts of great inventions, many would put big businesses out of big business had they been allowed to be patented.
12:56 PM on 06/24/2011
A patent should state a "cash value" computed by a simple formula: (Cost to invent) x (50).

The original patent application would need to state this "cash value" explicitly, and describe, in a page or two, all factors included in the "cost to invent" amount.

For an individual inventor, the cost to invent would be a minimum of one year of his or her present-day cost of living plus any material expenses, but could not include years of the person's life that were clearly before the main work on the invention. A flash-inspiration, or less than a year of work, would have the potential to reward a person with 50 years of living expenses! Any investment money actually spent to pay for living expenses and equipment and other development costs (e.g., university or corporate overhead) would naturally become a factor in the "cost to invent" amount, and could be rewarded up to 50X.

Anyone could send a payment directly to the U.S. government to force the patent to be put in to the "public domain". Upon cash payment received, the patent would be instantly and permanently cancelled, and reported as such on the patent office web site on the same day. This would be a fast, transparent mechanism for ending patents, that could not be delayed or blocked. The payment would merely be held in escrow, and the patent owner could then file to retrieve that payment.
photo
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
redsongia
is not Chicago
02:01 PM on 06/24/2011
This is what patent infringement cases basically determine: a reasonable royalty. The standards you advocate would tend to fluxuate wildly, so wouldn't really "settle" anything, just encourage tons of evidence at trial to be introduced attempting to establish what "a year's living expenses" amount to.
04:06 PM on 06/24/2011
To add on to what redsongia said, the "cash value" of the patent wouldn't even be based on the value of the patented technology but rather on the effort of the inventor. Under your formula, lone individuals who come up with the next great idea would be confined to living expenses times 50, which would be on average only 2.5 million. Large companies would argue that their idea is the result of a 2 million dollar R&D project, so the cash value would be 100 million. Plus, nothing would stop stupid ideas from having a greater "cash value" than fantastic ideas.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
A Dub
Conservative government is an organized hypocrisy
12:03 PM on 06/24/2011
So how many jobs will this create?
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
bthechangeyouseek
11:54 AM on 06/24/2011
"Opposition came mainly from groups representing independent inventors, small businesses and academics."

Is this another win for corporations? Adding more resources to review seems like a no-brainer, but will the affect of this bill be good for the academic or garage inventor?
01:23 PM on 06/24/2011
It seems like this will accelerate the corporate domination of technology through leveraged patent portfolios.

For one thing, this allows a corporation with resources to observe a technical demo, use their superior resources to file a patent on what they saw and the courts will side with them instead of the true inventor.

It should have a chilling effect on independent and educational R&D efforts that often rely on the ability to exchange ideas in the invention phase. I don't see how this won't solidify iron control of innovation to the mega-corporate R&D labs operated under the strictest Non-disclosure restrictions and layers of security with the pace of innovation tightly controlled based on the interest of this increasingly tiny handful of corporations.

We needed patent reform that pushed things away from this trend to spur small business and innovation. This thing is a total sop to the corporations.
photo
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
redsongia
is not Chicago
11:47 AM on 06/24/2011
It's awesome that most people commenting on this thread learned everything they know about patent law and policy from this heavily slanted article, yet they feel so certain of their opinion that nothing good can come from this reform and everything bad will happen as a result.
01:27 PM on 06/24/2011
The situation is already pretty bad. Apple thinks they "invented" the idea of putting more than one finger on a tactile sensor display with basic mechanical characteristics specifically designed to sense when more than one finger is put on it. This is going to make all that nonsense far worse.

The business practices stuff is a net plus I guess. But it doesn't help anyone but some big bankers.

How, exactly is this a win for anyone not a mega-corp?
photo
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
redsongia
is not Chicago
01:52 PM on 06/24/2011
Because if you are a small inventor now and Microsoft or Apple infringes you, you have to face years of complicated litigation to prove it. The fact is, there are only a handful of lawyers competent to handle these cases from begining to end, and as Microsoft or Apple factors the cost of patent litigation into their business model, the large companies ALWAYS make small inventors pursue them in court until final disposition -- In other words, even when caught dead to rights, they never ever settle. First to file is easier to prove than "first to invent" which involves a great deal of ambiguity, and so perhaps not in every case, but in a number of cases as they have existed in the past 20 years, first to file standards would have given several small plaintiffs an easier case to prove than the ones they had.
06:33 PM on 06/24/2011
Truth. But, this could be said about every single article ever published and commented on re: patent law. Everyone thinks they _know_ best about patent law, which is why the patent bar is the _only_ group of attorneys conceited enough to regularly be heard claiming that the SCOTUS doesn't know what they're talking about when they hear patent cases.
11:38 AM on 06/24/2011
All patents will be awarded to people in the top 1% of income so they can trickle down the benefits to everyone else - including the real inventor.
photo
OGigi
It is NOT only about the Economy
01:11 PM on 06/24/2011
Or taken to China for production.
11:32 AM on 06/24/2011
As pointed out in the article, $110 for a provisional patent gives an inventor a year to file a complete patent application. That seems like plenty of protection for an individual inventor! If an inventor can't make some sort of deal with investors or future corporate partners, if necessary, to finance the completion of the patent application, then the inventor probably doesn't have anything worth patenting.

Also, I am totally for the new "first to file" rule. The idea of "first to invent" is totally insane. Someone with initiative and actual interest in developing a product can file for a patent, and then anyone with a similar idea in a notebook or gathering dust on a workbench can jump in at any time and claim to have precedence; that's about as insane as the modification to copyright law that made all original works created by a person implicitly copyrighted.

I would like to see both business method patents and software patents ELIMINATED. Both of those types of patents have severely sabotaged businesses in the USA. Instead of interoperability and open standards, and the economic advancement those things would promote, much of our country's manpower is diverted to expensive, protracted legal battles over GIF, MP3, MPEG4, one-click purchases, web browser plug-ins, check scanning, etc. And nobody is *really* sure who owns what idea.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
bthechangeyouseek
11:56 AM on 06/24/2011
What do you think of the recent patents by bio companies, which patent human dna or specific genes?
01:42 PM on 06/24/2011
I think patents of human DNA, or specific genes, are ridiculous!

The whole purpose of the patent and copyright protection laws is to encourage people to invent and create things, and eventually share those things with the public. I don't think allowing patents of human DNA was necessary to greatly accelerate the date when society would know the sequence of base pairs in the human DNA molecule!

Also, I very much dislike the commonplace situation where the state of technology makes a particular new invention obvious and easy to implement, and yet a single person is essentially arbitrarily selected to enjoy the rewards of what was essentially "society's invention". I realize that all inventions owe credit to all of human history, and I don't mean to go that far with my argument. I just think that if an invention is absolutely obvious and trivial to implement within just a year of a patent application being filed, then this probably indicates that granting a patent and burdening all of society with paying tribute, was probably a bad thing!
photo
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
Bike Commuter
logical
12:43 PM on 06/24/2011
You don't pay $110 for a provisional patent. You pay $110 to file a provisional application. Essentially, this reserves the idea for you. However, it does not patent the idea, PLUS it makes your idea public. Other companies can develop the idea while you are finalizing and waiting for your patent to be approved (this currently takes a couple of years). If you are a small inventor then you may find your potential market is gone by the time you get your patent. .......... I am not necessarily against the "first to file" rule, but there needs to be protection of filed ideas.
01:09 PM on 06/24/2011
Provisional applications are not published. Plus, it takes 18 months for the PTO to publish a non-provisional application.

Plus, plus... even if you gave permission for an earlier publication of the application, you'd still have a claim to damages once the patent issues. And since damages are based largely on reasonable royalties, it technically does not matter if a competitor has eaten up a large portion of your potential market.
01:23 PM on 06/24/2011
I accidentally omitted the word "application" in the first clause of the first sentence of my comment, but my point was that $110 is a low cost to reserve the idea for a whole year, and that this should be plenty of time, for anyone actually motivated to bring an idea to market, to find money to finish the patent process.

If someone isn't ready to run with an invention, then they shouldn't file a provisional patent application!

If a person fears that others might invent the same thing some time soon, and rushes to file a provisional patent application, then that's basically an acknowledgement that the whole system is just a lottery, where just a few days or weeks of difference in lucky serendipity or other accidental circumstances means that the winner takes all. There's no social justice in that system, even if an individual inventor sometimes wins that race.

An individual inventor will need to make a deal with a big company or big investor to eventually make money from the invention. If the invention is worth the money, then that big partner will be willing to fight any other companies that "stole" the idea from the provisional patent application.
photo
kwhitney333
Common sense is not common
10:37 AM on 06/24/2011
So let me get this straight, they can pass overhauls like this with no problem but real issues that affect main street they play games with...kind of like where is the pea in a shell game...pathetic!
photo
stape45
Spin this!
11:33 AM on 06/24/2011
The objective is to stall for time until the next election, so that it will be all about what OBAMA didn't get done. All that he HAS done will probably go unnoticed.
photo
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
redsongia
is not Chicago
11:41 AM on 06/24/2011
The US Patent office is a federal agency, so yes. It's easier.
01:40 PM on 06/24/2011
Isn't HHS a federal agency?
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
ScottV
Missouri Yellow Dog Dem
09:59 AM on 06/24/2011
So the hypocrisy is that a government department that has the ability to fully fund themselves with a clear revenue stream can't because greedy politicians want their cut for their pet projects. Business as usual.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
McGyver1
Big Fan of Mr. Bojangles
09:42 AM on 06/24/2011
This sounded good at first until I started reading the comments. I always learn more from the posters than I do the reporter. Makes you wonder if congress actually studies and debates these bills...
photo
OGigi
It is NOT only about the Economy
01:10 PM on 06/24/2011
They do what their real bosses tell them to do.
photo
DXM
A sane moderate living during insane extreme times
09:33 AM on 06/24/2011
Yet more legislation to help large corporations. Where is the help for small businesses that employ the majority of people in this country and spark an out sized share of its innovation?
photo
OGigi
It is NOT only about the Economy
01:10 PM on 06/24/2011
Where? purely a myth, by definition