Insights on patent reform as of the end of July 2005
Although the interview of Purva Patel of the Houston Chronicle with Jonathan P. Osha suggests an enormous consensus for the patent reform bill (HR 2795), the events of the end of July 2005 may suggest otherwise, according to The Professional Inventors Alliance USA. We'll have to wait until after Labor Day to see what will happen.
--> from the Houston Chronicle, July 27, 2005:
Reporter Purva Patel spoke with patent attorney Jonathan P. Osha about the proposal.
Q: Who will the reforms benefit?
A: We believe everybody will benefit.
Currently the system is quite inefficient in the United States because there is so much litigation.
By making the system more predictable, we believe everyone will benefit.
Q: How will the reforms affect the global economy?
A: There's a lot of inefficiency globally in the patent system because patent offices in all countries are duplicating their efforts instead of sharing information. The more we can harmonize these systems, the better off the global economy will be. The first to file versus the first to invent systems could be analogized to driving on the right side of the road or the left side of the road. Each system is fine by itself.
Because the economy has become more globalized, we've built more and more bridges where the left side of the road meets the right side of the road and it's having a disastrous effect.
Changing our system to be like the rest of the world's, we believe, will make the world economy more efficient.
Q: Who are the main opponents?
A: There are some minor specific points that are highly contentious. The primary opponents of the bill as a whole are the small inventors' groups. There is a fear, which is quite understandable, that the change will move the balance in favor of big companies and big interests. I believe, however, when you looked at the picture as a whole, the bill actually presents a better balance for everyone.
Q: There's been talk about reform for 10 years. Do you think Congress will make changes this year?
A: It's hard to predict. The amazing thing is there's an enormous consensus in support of the principal objects of this patent reform bill.
The first being the change to the first-to-file system and the second is the introduction of an opposition period, meaning a limited time within which the public can contest the patent. This patent reform will introduce an opposition period of nine months where any member of the public can say "Dear patent office, you messed up and that patent shouldn't have been issued and here's why." That makes sense because you don't have to go to court to prove that fact. That's in favor of the small inventors.
Q: How would the reform affect patent attorneys, considering the reforms are aimed at cutting down a lot of patent litigation?
A: Our ultimate goal is the best interest of our clients, and we believe the best interests of our clients are served with a minimum of litigation.
There will always be some litigation, but minimizing litigation is in everyone's best interest. We hope this system is more accessible and more people will hire patent attorneys and file patent applications.
-->Press release from Shawn Bullard of The Professional Inventors Alliance USA, August 1, 2005:
An intellectual property rights bill that was expected by many earlier this year to easily glide through Congress has stalled. Since the Patent Reform Act (HR 2795) has failed to meet expectations, a handful of the bill's early supporters are suggesting the bill die in committee.
Authored by Rep. Lamar Smith (R-Texas), the chairman of the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Intellectual Property, the bill has had the opposite effect than members of Congress had originally intended. When the bill was introduced on June 8 it was heralded by Rep. Smith as a silver bullet, designed to enhance the nation's patent system. Opponents of the controversial bill argued the bill would dull America's intellectual edge, disadvantage the nation's small businesses, cost Americans jobs and stifle individual ingenuity.
"Behind closed doors, businesses, small and large are fighting tooth and nail to either gut or kill this controversial bill," said Ron Riley, president of the Professional Inventors Alliance. "Many industries directly or indirectly affected by patents, such as high-tech, pharmaceuticals, bio-tech and independent inventors would rather see the legislation die on the vine or heavily gutted."
In an effort to keep the controversial bill moving as scheduled in Congress, Sen. Orin Hatch (R-Utah) held an odd and impromptu one-man Judiciary Committee Hearing on July 26. Following the weak showing of interest for the bill in the Senate, rumors circulated on Capitol Hill that Rep. Smith planned to hold a quick mark-up of the bill on Friday July 29, just hours before Congress' annual August Recess vacation, but he failed to muster support.
"In an attempt to save the highly controversial and heavily crippled bill, instead of a mark up, the House subcommittee is back-tracking. It is reported to be planning a hearing around the first part of September," said Riley. "Committee's often abruptly cancel congressional mark ups, such as in this case and instead schedule hearings in an attempt to regain support for a bill."
--> from the Houston Chronicle, July 27, 2005:
Reporter Purva Patel spoke with patent attorney Jonathan P. Osha about the proposal.
Q: Who will the reforms benefit?
A: We believe everybody will benefit.
Currently the system is quite inefficient in the United States because there is so much litigation.
By making the system more predictable, we believe everyone will benefit.
Q: How will the reforms affect the global economy?
A: There's a lot of inefficiency globally in the patent system because patent offices in all countries are duplicating their efforts instead of sharing information. The more we can harmonize these systems, the better off the global economy will be. The first to file versus the first to invent systems could be analogized to driving on the right side of the road or the left side of the road. Each system is fine by itself.
Because the economy has become more globalized, we've built more and more bridges where the left side of the road meets the right side of the road and it's having a disastrous effect.
Changing our system to be like the rest of the world's, we believe, will make the world economy more efficient.
Q: Who are the main opponents?
A: There are some minor specific points that are highly contentious. The primary opponents of the bill as a whole are the small inventors' groups. There is a fear, which is quite understandable, that the change will move the balance in favor of big companies and big interests. I believe, however, when you looked at the picture as a whole, the bill actually presents a better balance for everyone.
Q: There's been talk about reform for 10 years. Do you think Congress will make changes this year?
A: It's hard to predict. The amazing thing is there's an enormous consensus in support of the principal objects of this patent reform bill.
The first being the change to the first-to-file system and the second is the introduction of an opposition period, meaning a limited time within which the public can contest the patent. This patent reform will introduce an opposition period of nine months where any member of the public can say "Dear patent office, you messed up and that patent shouldn't have been issued and here's why." That makes sense because you don't have to go to court to prove that fact. That's in favor of the small inventors.
Q: How would the reform affect patent attorneys, considering the reforms are aimed at cutting down a lot of patent litigation?
A: Our ultimate goal is the best interest of our clients, and we believe the best interests of our clients are served with a minimum of litigation.
There will always be some litigation, but minimizing litigation is in everyone's best interest. We hope this system is more accessible and more people will hire patent attorneys and file patent applications.
-->Press release from Shawn Bullard of The Professional Inventors Alliance USA, August 1, 2005:
An intellectual property rights bill that was expected by many earlier this year to easily glide through Congress has stalled. Since the Patent Reform Act (HR 2795) has failed to meet expectations, a handful of the bill's early supporters are suggesting the bill die in committee.
Authored by Rep. Lamar Smith (R-Texas), the chairman of the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Intellectual Property, the bill has had the opposite effect than members of Congress had originally intended. When the bill was introduced on June 8 it was heralded by Rep. Smith as a silver bullet, designed to enhance the nation's patent system. Opponents of the controversial bill argued the bill would dull America's intellectual edge, disadvantage the nation's small businesses, cost Americans jobs and stifle individual ingenuity.
"Behind closed doors, businesses, small and large are fighting tooth and nail to either gut or kill this controversial bill," said Ron Riley, president of the Professional Inventors Alliance. "Many industries directly or indirectly affected by patents, such as high-tech, pharmaceuticals, bio-tech and independent inventors would rather see the legislation die on the vine or heavily gutted."
In an effort to keep the controversial bill moving as scheduled in Congress, Sen. Orin Hatch (R-Utah) held an odd and impromptu one-man Judiciary Committee Hearing on July 26. Following the weak showing of interest for the bill in the Senate, rumors circulated on Capitol Hill that Rep. Smith planned to hold a quick mark-up of the bill on Friday July 29, just hours before Congress' annual August Recess vacation, but he failed to muster support.
"In an attempt to save the highly controversial and heavily crippled bill, instead of a mark up, the House subcommittee is back-tracking. It is reported to be planning a hearing around the first part of September," said Riley. "Committee's often abruptly cancel congressional mark ups, such as in this case and instead schedule hearings in an attempt to regain support for a bill."
posted by Lawrence B. Ebert at 4:18 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home