Just a few hours ago, the House of Representatives passed the Patent Reform Act (HR 1908) by a vote of 225-175. The legislation, discussed in previous posts (19 July, 17 May, 19 April), was proposed by Democratic Congressman, Howard Berman, in April this year.
One of the major reforms will be the change from a first-to-invent to a first-to-file system (harmonising US patent law with the rest of the world), as well as mechanisms for more efficient validity challenges and post-grant review.
In particular, the reforms are seen as part of a general response in US patent law (and in the US Supreme Court) to concerns regarding the expansion of patents and a subsequent decline in patent quality. One aspect of HR 1908 attracting much discussion is the codification of the assessment of damages, limiting the court's discretion in making an award.
During the Hearing, HR 1908 was criticised as sector-specific, pushed by the software and computing industries but viewed more critically by the pharmaceutical sector. But more significantly, the White House opposes the damages aspect of HR 1908, suggesting a possible veto in the offing by the President.
But as Thomas Jefferson once said, "Every generation needs a new revolution."
US Patent Reform Act Passed
Reviewed by Johanna Gibson
on
Saturday, September 08, 2007
Rating:
Reviewed by Johanna Gibson
on
Saturday, September 08, 2007
Rating:
Follow the IPKat on LinkedIn 
![[Guest post] Asking ourselves ‘Y’ – Are shape marks shaping complex products’ aftermarkets?](https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhHwE0es_m0lzJpedp0KFtKOYBne_M3YPJ-qwQxiY_YMkHffLAAXkSW9F-pjQFKsy5kJJ-VWScQQkuEVb5-BxnDv10XIMAbYhvgzBSQadD1gdTiIjg9-Oj9Iekll-C3Ca9I76uI3Hh5nCI4QyLosLSNev9VzLq9lF1jM86ungheEDOBKLzGTbE3yw/s72-c/Picture%201.png)
![[Guest post] Flat rates supported by clauses on universality of repertoire in contracts between CMOs and users are anti-competitive, says Spanish Competition Authority](https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhpBg7o3d7DPzH4YqNz3DUV5J5_sS4P7X7ZznFNETyQlLe0gonaSi3eE_jdjHD_aIjbPKhgpvUrkg6tPprYQYdwDGiyuWIXty9BOUlc07wUVbjDxI1bHoVxZA0ZCC9HBPjLXQwUioBSd9e9n-Z3uCeJ9UUgEvtJHLo1AllR20HGJETFdKoovxLBMw/s72-c/images.png)
Posts
As I understand it, the legislation needs to be passed by the Senate, as well as the House of Representatives, before there's any question of a Presidential veto. There's likely to be some haggling yet.
ReplyDeleteOne worrying aspect of the bill (at least as it came out of the report stage - I don't know if it has been amended during the vote) was section 123. This says that the Director of the US Patent Office "shall [not "may"] ... require that applicants submit a search report and other information and analysis relevant to patentability." There is an exception for micro entities.
This looks like an extension of the examination support document proposed under the new rules if you have more than 5 independent claims or more than 25 claims in total. The "analysis" required there includes an element-by-element identification of each limitation of each claim which is present in each prior art document. And a detailed explanation particularly pointing out how each independent claim is patentable over each cited document.
Evidently this would now apply to all applications, not just to ones with large numbers of claims.
There has been concern about the implications of examination support documents. Quite apart from the substantial increase in the cost of obtaining a patent, the "analysis" is something that will be seized upon by defendants during litigation. They will dissect it in minute detail, searching for anything that can be used to suggest that you misled the Examiner and are therefore guilty of inequitable conduct.
Referring to my previous post, I think the language of section 123 was indeed amended during the debate in the House of Representatives, to change "the Director shall require..." to "...may require...".
ReplyDeleteIt seems they also added a new requirement: if the applicant has to produce a search report, it must be done by a US citizen or corporation.
This depends whether I've correctly interpreted various opaque documents on the House of Representatives website. And it may all change as the legislation progresses further.
Thinking it out, what would the language of section 123 actually result in? If the applicant is requested to submit a "search report" performed by a US citizen/company, then the safest option for applicants would probably be to farm the job out (at substantial additional cost) to a company that specialises in doing patent searches. That would ensure the search was done without any bias from the attorney or applicant. Now, call me naive if you like, but isn't doing searches exactly the sort of job that patent offices are supposed to be good at?
ReplyDeleteI was quite sympathetic to the USPTO's problems but the idea that only a US citizen can provide them with a helpful search document is deeply offensive. Nevertheless from other commentary it looks as if the legislative process may have some way to go before it becomes effective.
ReplyDeleteRe. filemot's comment, I rather think the US citizen angle is job protectionism, to prevent outsourcing to low cost countries, and not necessarily wholly related to alleged competence.
ReplyDeleteIt is overstating it to say there is a long way to go. The House of Representatives has now approved the Bill. The Sentate judicary committee ordered the parallel bill (S. 1145) to be reported favourably the Senate. This means the it could be a matter of a single vote before the President has to decide to veto the bill or not.
ReplyDeleteJob protectionism still sounds deeply offensive to me. I wonder if the USPTO will waive the need to file the search report if another office's report is available. If not, where does it leave the patent prosecution highway initiative?
ReplyDeleteOnly European nationals may represent applicants before the European Patent Office. Isn't that protectionism of equal measure?
ReplyDeleteGerontius
See page 17 of the HR Bill. Commencement date for Section 3 : 90 days after the President reports to Congress that the Europeans have implemented a one year grace period. Don't hold your breath until the Americans introduce First to File.
ReplyDeleteWell spotted. It's not going to happen, is it?
ReplyDeleteWell David, it depends what you mean by "it". I should think that Europe is more likely to adopt a grace period than that the reciprocity provision will disappear from this Bill. (Ask DE Govt adviser Heinz Bardehle, or Hall of Fame Prof. Straus). Whereas any US politician unwise enough to suggest striking out the reciprocity clause will instantly be denounced as an unpatriotic wimpy backsliding flip-flopper, so none ever will so suggest, no?
ReplyDeleteIf Europe were ever to adopt a grace period (which I don't think will happen), one only has to look at how long the relatively minor changes in EPC2000 have taken to implement: over seven years from being agreed in 2000 to implementation in December 2007. If there is no chance that the reciprocity provision will disappear from the US legislation, then first to file in the US will simply not happen in the foreseeable future.
ReplyDelete