Friday, April 18, 2014 8:31:59 AM
Written by John White
Patent Attorney - Berenato & White
PLI Patent Bar Review Lecturer
Posted: April 18, 2014 @ 8:00 am
The US patent system has a storied history: written into the Constitution by Madison; the Patent Act itself written by Jefferson; and, requested to be passed in Washington’s first State of the Union speech. As a former speech writer for the Commissioner back in 1985, I had the fun task of finding little interesting factotums about the US patent system to add some flavor to whatever audience the Commissioner was addressing. Such facts might include: local inventors, known statewide innovative companies, or just interesting moments in the course of the system and its contribution to the development of the then brand new United States.
Some fun stuff: Abraham Lincoln reckoned that, along with the invention of the printing press and Columbus discovery of America, the US patent system was among the three most important events in the history of the world. Of the 4 faces on Mt. Rushmore, 3 are inventors (Roosevelt is the exception); but, only Lincoln got a patent. The British burned pretty much everything in Washington that mattered in 1812; except, the Patent Office, around which they placed a guard. And so it goes.
Why am I resorting to the emotional heart strings; because the current round of patent reform is an existential threat to the US patent system. If these proposals pass, we will be left with a very, very expensive registration system in which the Fortune 50, and no one else, will be able to participate. In case no one has noticed, the Fortune 50 do not innovate (with few exceptions, it is those who will become the Fortune 50 that do the innovating) and so, the system ceases to exist. Let me explain.
I know the alleged problem the current round of reform is meant to address: patent trolls. But, while the proposals will likely have some of the desired effect, it will be like a cancer treatment for every other healthy cell in the body: all innovators will face the same poison meant for the trolls. The proposals will greatly increase the costs and risks of enforcing patents, regardless of ownership or origin. The immediate effect will be a further extrapolation of what is already being felt through the last patent reform effort bringing on Inter partes review (a.k.a. patent death squads); to wit: a great diminution of patent value and an almost cavalier attitude among accused infringers.
I quote what I have been told: “I throw away ten deals a day.” Said the oft accused infringer. They cannot be stopped and cannot be made to pay. An infringer can drag you through endless PTO rounds of attack, if necessary (taking into account the current stats, 1 round is likely enough!), and now the Judge will be equipped to create a series of high hurdles followed by summary execution. You think Tech Transfer has trouble with a Valley of Death attracting capital and enthusiasm now; just take their patents out and shoot them… that ought to help. Start-ups will have absolutely no basis in value except for a popularity contest. Whatever the IP is or was, is worthless, and can never be sold for any value because it can never be enforced. Take that ….tech transfer.
Let’s look among the patent system Hemlock currently on the agenda: 1) heightened pleading requirements: now there’s a winner. You have to have, in hand, before pleading, all the facts necessary to prove your case. Every claim, every clause, every accused item. I guess the American tradition of post filing discovery applies to everything and everyone except patent holders. 2) Discovery standards: well, as we know, in light of No. 1 here we do not need discovery so we should not miss this much, and besides, since the patent will be invalidated by the PTO after a stay is put in place, why have any discovery. Saves time and money for everyone to just execute the patent before the copyist is put to any trouble, 3) Fee shifting: here we go, execute the patent and the owner! That will show those no good inventors what we think of their coming forward to pay for the examination and publication and issuance of their ideas through our patent system: if they make a mis-step and we can outspend them, we get it all back plus their ruination. 4) Mechanism to ensure recovery, even against shell companies: again, let us dispense with the entire basis for creating a corporation to limit liability, etc., when it comes to patent enforcement we want to reach right through and eliminate those wretched inventors. You can spill chemicals, kill people in mines, have shoddy workplace safety, all protected by the corporate veil; but, by golly, if you have the temerity to enforce your patents, woe be to you, you rotten monopolistic inventor. This is, plainly, idiotic. And yet, it is being seriously debated, and the general consensus is that some combination of these features in varying degrees of severity will emerge this year, pre-election!
Some Senator(s) are alleged to be conflicted on the basis that actual inventors are among the ranks of their citizenry, and calling for their execution would be, somehow, wrong. I hope good sense overwhelms that particular Senator and they, alone if necessary, put a stop to this mindlessness.
I put one question to these Senators, and their thoughtful staff, who are proposing to rid us of the US patent system: suppose another country that had a patent system were proposing any of these procedures or requirements to be put in place for US patent owners to enforce in that country: would the good Senators sit idly by and let the rights and property of US innovative companies (and stalwart campaign contributors) be summarily reduced in value and taken or destroyed by foreign governments and foreign companies? I thought not. Then why do it to US companies of whom we do not yet know but which are hatchlings trying to grow and attract capital; to tech transfer; to garage inventors, etc. across America? (Do not get me started on what a give-away CBM is to bailed out too-big-too fail Banks. Boy, don’t those pity poor Wall Streeters need some help fending off the minnows of patent owners from their battleship of public capitalization. (If you do not get the dripping sarcasm here, you are not very keen.))
I would suggest, in the absolute and complete alternative to the present proposals to eliminate the patent system, this: before a patent suit can be brought, the PTO works with a patent owner, like the ITC, to certify an infringement. Cost: under $ 5000.00. Once that is certified, a District Court complaint can be filed with notice to State AGs about who and how many accused exist within their state, the process is then automatically stayed until validity is likewise certified, also by the PTO, on the basis of the accused, alone or in combination, paying for and challenging validity. Once validity is determined up and through CAFC appeal, the court proceeds to enjoin and/or mete out damages. All of this occurs within 2 years. Inasmuch as the PTO is the gate keeper for infringement and validity, the claim interpretation does not change. The District Court does what they do best, determine damages, not claim scope and meaning. The CAFC runs it all, subject to occasional interference (guidance) from the S.Ct. Everyone is a winner. Both sides have predictable timelines, costs and outcomes. It is not, as it is now, rigged so that the victory goes to the well capitalized, and merit is of little or no import, and the patent is an afterthought.
About the Author
John White is a US patent attorney and a patent lecturer. He is an Adjunct Law Professor at the University of Virginia School of Law, and he is also the principal lecturer/author of the PLI Patent Bar Review Course, a course that he originally created. In fact, since John began teaching patent bar review courses in 1995, he has personally taught approximately 50% of all practicing patent attorneys and agents how to successfully become admitted to the Patent Bar. John has also taught numerous US Patent Examiners at the United States Patent & Trademark Office (USPTO) in the “Law and Evidence Course” necessary for them to advance to Partial Negotiation authority as Examiners.
http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2014/04/18/for-whom-the-bell-tolls-the-us-patent-system/id=49067/
Sustainable Revenue of AT LEAST $800 million EXPECTED
in 1 to 3 years. I will accept no less. "The Investors's Chief
Problem--and even his worst enemy--is likely to be himself"
---Benjamin Graham
Recent IDCC News
- Form 144 - Report of proposed sale of securities • Edgar (US Regulatory) • 05/06/2024 08:06:54 PM
- InterDigital Announces Financial Results for First Quarter 2024 • GlobeNewswire Inc. • 05/02/2024 12:30:08 PM
- InterDigital awarded injunction against Lenovo • GlobeNewswire Inc. • 05/02/2024 12:30:00 PM
- InterDigital’s Doug Castor Elected Co-Chair of the ATIS Next G Alliance Steering Group • GlobeNewswire Inc. • 04/29/2024 08:00:00 AM
- New Report Pins 6G Success on Novel Benchmarks Extending Beyond Speed, Latency, and Mobility • GlobeNewswire Inc. • 04/25/2024 08:00:00 AM
- InterDigital Announces Date for First Quarter 2024 Financial Results • GlobeNewswire Inc. • 04/19/2024 12:30:00 PM
- InterDigital and Concordia University Announce Research Collaboration on AI-enabled Immersive Media Delivery over 5G Networks • GlobeNewswire Inc. • 04/15/2024 08:00:00 AM
- InterDigital Announces Convertibility of 3.50% Senior Convertible Notes Due 2027 • GlobeNewswire Inc. • 04/04/2024 12:30:00 PM
- InterDigital to Showcase Innovations in High Definition and Sustainable Video Streaming Alongside Partners at NAB 2024 • GlobeNewswire Inc. • 03/26/2024 08:00:00 AM
- InterDigital Declares Regular Quarterly Cash Dividend • GlobeNewswire Inc. • 03/20/2024 08:30:00 PM
- InterDigital’s Xiaofei Wang Appointed Chair of the IEEE 802.11 Artificial Intelligence and Machine Learning (AIML) Standing Committee • GlobeNewswire Inc. • 03/20/2024 08:00:00 AM
- Interdigital to Speak at the 36th Annual Roth Conference • GlobeNewswire Inc. • 03/11/2024 12:30:00 PM
- Form 4 - Statement of changes in beneficial ownership of securities • Edgar (US Regulatory) • 03/06/2024 09:58:21 PM
- Form 144 - Report of proposed sale of securities • Edgar (US Regulatory) • 03/05/2024 09:03:32 PM
- InterDigital’s Atle Monrad Elected Chair of 3GPP’s SA6 Working Group • GlobeNewswire Inc. • 03/05/2024 09:00:00 AM
- InterDigital Honors Wireless and Video Innovation Leaders Michael Starsinic and Fabrice Le Léannec as Inventors of the Year • GlobeNewswire Inc. • 02/22/2024 09:30:00 PM
- Keysight and InterDigital to Demonstrate AI in 6G Systems at Mobile World Congress 2024 • Business Wire • 02/21/2024 04:00:00 PM
- At MWC, InterDigital to Showcase Innovation Empowering Connected Experiences ‘At Work, At Rest, and At Play’ • GlobeNewswire Inc. • 02/19/2024 09:00:00 AM
- Form 10-K - Annual report [Section 13 and 15(d), not S-K Item 405] • Edgar (US Regulatory) • 02/15/2024 01:37:02 PM
- Form 8-K - Current report • Edgar (US Regulatory) • 02/15/2024 01:33:18 PM
- InterDigital Reports Fourth Quarter and Full Year 2023 Financial Results • GlobeNewswire Inc. • 02/15/2024 01:30:36 PM
- U.S. Futures Edge Higher Ahead of Key Economic Data Release, Oil Prices See Modest Declines • IH Market News • 02/15/2024 11:35:32 AM
- InterDigital and Broadpeak Announce Collaboration on MPEG V3C Standardized Content Distribution At Scale • GlobeNewswire Inc. • 02/13/2024 09:00:00 AM
- InterDigital appoints Ken Kaskoun as Chief Growth Officer • GlobeNewswire Inc. • 02/12/2024 01:30:00 PM
- Form 4 - Statement of changes in beneficial ownership of securities • Edgar (US Regulatory) • 02/07/2024 01:43:10 PM
"Defo's Morning Briefing" Set to Debut for "GreenliteTV" • GRNL • May 21, 2024 2:28 PM
North Bay Resources Announces 50/50 JV at Fran Gold Project, British Columbia; Initiates NI 43-101 Resources Estimate and Bulk Sample • NBRI • May 21, 2024 9:07 AM
Greenlite Ventures Inks Deal to Acquire No Limit Technology • GRNL • May 17, 2024 3:00 PM
Music Licensing, Inc. (OTC: SONG) Subsidiary Pro Music Rights Secures Final Judgment of $114,081.30 USD, Demonstrating Strength of Licensing Agreements • SONGD • May 17, 2024 11:00 AM
VPR Brands (VPRB) Reports First Quarter 2024 Financial Results • VPRB • May 17, 2024 8:04 AM
ILUS Provides a First Quarter Filing Update • ILUS • May 16, 2024 11:26 AM