*NEWS*CONGRESS MOVES TO RE-DO PATENT LAWS

[Anonymous]

Congress Moves to Rewrite Patent Laws
JULY
2007-WASHINGTON – Crustless peanut-butter-and-jelly sandwiches, a way
to move sideways on a swing, a technique for exercising cats using a
laser pointer – these are among the inventions patented in the United
States over the years. Now Congress is trying to cut down on
poor-quality or downright ridiculous patents, and at the same time
adapt the patent system to a high-tech era in which computers and other
electronic devices may contain thousands of patentable parts.

Rather
than the patent system being the incentive for “so much of our
innovation, it has become a constraint on innovation,” said Rep. Howard
Berman, D-Calif., author of a sweeping patent reform bill that passed
the House Judiciary Committee on July 18.The Senate Judiciary Committee
passed similar legislation the following day. The full House could take
up the issue before leaving for summer recess Friday, though it’s more
likely to be considered in the fall.Disputes between the high-tech
industry, drug companies and other interest groups have stalled patent
reform attempts in the past, and legislation introduced during the last
session of Congress never made it out of committee.Patents give holders
ownership rights to their inventions for 20 years. That can mean
hundreds of millions of dollars to companies, research universities and
individual inventors.

Although not everyone believes the patent
system needs to be changed, critics cite various problems.There’s a
backlog of 750,000 patent applications at the U.S. Patent and Trademark
Office, which is recovering from years of underfunding and hopes to
nearly double the number of patent examiners on staff, currently about
5,300.

Patent applications have shot up in recent decades with
the boom in the high-tech industry, and they have gotten more complex.
There’s been a corresponding increase in patent infringement lawsuits,
which the tech industry blames on so-called “patent trolls” who get
patents for products they never plan to make, just so they can sue for
infringement if a company does turn out something similar.That was the
issue in a May Supreme Court ruling in favor of eBay Inc. in a lawsuit
by a small Virginia patent-holding company, MercExchange. The ruling
established that judges have flexibility in deciding whether to issue
court orders barring continued use of a technology after juries find a
patent violation.

Tech companies still complain that under
current law, damages in patent infringement lawsuits can be wildly
excessive because they can be based on the value of an entire product,
not just whatever small component of that product is in dispute.Often
cited is a $1.53 billion jury verdict earlier this year in favor of
Alcatel-Lucent SA in a dispute against Microsoft Corp. over two patents
for MP3 encoding and decoding tools.”The current patent litigation
system is unbalanced in a way that it forces our companies to spend
more time in the courtroom and less time innovating,” said Josh Ackil,
vice president of government relations for the Information Technology
Industry Council.

The most controversial provision in the bills
before Congress would make it easier for courts to focus damage
calculations more narrowly, probably resulting in smaller damage
awards. The measure is applauded by high-tech companies but strenuously
opposed by universities, small inventors and pharmaceutical and
manufacturing companies, which typically produce products with fewer
patents and rely in part on the prospect of heavy damages to protect
their intellectual property.”If this stuff passes as it is it will
lower the value of patents by two to three orders of magnitude,” said
Ronald J. Riley, president of the Professional Inventors Alliance. He
predicted small-time inventors would be forced out of the field because
it would no longer be worth their while to sue to protect their
inventions.

Because of the controversy, prospects for the
legislation advancing are uncertain, especially in the Senate, where
opposition from just a few lawmakers can kill a bill.
However,
negotiations are ongoing, and there’s wider support for other
provisions in the bills, which would represent the first major changes
to patent law since 1999. These include:Awarding a patent to the first
person to file for it, rather than the first to invent it. This would
put the U.S. in line with international standards and eliminate some
time-consuming disputes between inventors.Allowing third parties
greater ability to challenge patents once they’ve been issued. This is
meant to produce stronger patents and allow patent challenges to be
dealt with by patent officials rather than in court, though some say
the Senate language in particular could allow patents to be endlessly
contested.In a change sought by the patent office, requiring inventors
to provide more information in their applications about how their
inventions differ from existing products or ideas.

[Author]

July 30, 2007 at 11:34 AM