Archive for the ‘Legislation’ Category

« Older Entries

Has the 119th Congress Passed Legislation to Help Rebuild American Manufacturing?

Tuesday, January 20th, 2026

should pass that fulfills their campaign promise to support President’s Trump goal to Make America Great Again and help rebuild American manufacturing.  This article will examine whether or not Congress passed any of the legislation I recommended.

Impose a Market Access Charge (MAC) as proposed by Dr. John R Hansen, (PhD economist and  Economic Advisor, The World Bank (retd.)  “forcing foreigners to pay a market access charge (MAC) on inflows of all foreign-source money.”

The answer is still “no” as revealed in my article, “Why a Market Access Charge Would Have Greater Benefits Than Tariffs,” dated December 12, 2025. The passage of such a bill would address the problem of the U.S. dollar competing against the undervalued currencies of China, Vietnam, Korea, and Japan.  It would moderate the gross inflows of “trash cash” into the speculative financial market of stocks and bonds and help American products be more competitive in the global marketplace, which would grow our manufacturing industry and create more higher paying jobs.

Pass a Patent Reform Bill to restore inventors’ rights and end abuses by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB). 

As revealed in my November  18, 2025 article, “Legislation Protecting Inventors’ Rights Reintroduced to Congress,” the answer is “yes” as the Restoring America’s Leadership in Innovation Act (RALIA) (H.R. 5811) was introduced in the 119th Congress by Rep. Thomas Massie (R-KY) with Rep. Marcy Kaptur (D-OH) as a key co-lead, with its text filed on October 24, 2025, aiming to overhaul U.S. patent law, including abolishing the PTAB and restoring “first to invent” standards.

Revoke China’s Most Favored Nation Status (aka Permanent Normal Trade Relations (PNTR)

The answer is “no.” The 119th Congress has not yet revoked China’s Permanent Normal Trade Relations (PNTR), but several bipartisan bills have been introduced: H.R. 694, The Restoring Trade Fairness Act, introduced on January 23, 2025 by Rep. John Molenaar (R-MI) and S. 206, The Restoring Trade Fairness Act, introduced by Sen. Tom Cotton (R-AR) on January 23, 2025.

These bills represent a  bipartisan effort to end China’s PNTR, applying Column 2 tariff rates (minimum 35%, strategic goods 100%) and eliminating duty-free de minimis treatment on small shipments. These bills are stalled in their respective committees in the House and Senate.

Reduce the Allowed Value of De Minimis imports

No, Congress hasn’t enacted legislation, but  a White House Fact Sheet states that on April 2, 2025, “President Trump is ending duty-free de minimis treatment for covered goods from the People’s Republic of China (PRC) and Hong Kong starting May 2, 2025.”

“All relevant postal items containing goods that are sent through the international postal network that are valued at or under $800 and that would otherwise qualify for the de minimis exemption are subject to a duty rate of either 30% of their value or $25 per item (increasing to $50 per item after June 1, 2025).”

Them, on July 31, 2025, President Trump signed an executive order suspending duty-free de minimis treatment for low-value shipments. “Effective August 29, imported goods sent through means other than the international postal network that are valued at or under $800 and that would otherwise qualify for the de minimis exemption will be subject to all applicable duties.”

Executive Orders may be revoked by subsequent presidents, so it is important that Congress passes legislation to permanently suspend duty-free de minimis treatment for low-value shipments.

Both :  H.R. 694 the Restoring Trade Fairness Act and S. 206 The Restoring Trade Fairness Act, mentioned above would permanently suspend duty-free de minimis treatment for low-value shipments in addition to revoking China’s PNTR status.  It is important that these bills be approved by their committees to be voted on by the House and Senate.

Reauthorize a Reformed Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA)

The answer is “yes”.  The Bloomberg Government newsletter of September 30, 2025, states “The One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBBA), P.L. 119-21, makes permanent key provisions of the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, including lower individual tax rates, enhanced deductions, a higher estate and gift tax exemption, and the 20% pass-through deduction. Business tax breaks for research and development, property depreciation, and interest expenses are also now permanent…the state and local tax (SALT) deduction cap rises to $40,000 for five years, then reverts to the $10,000 cap… The OBBBA also fulfills several campaign-trail promises with short-term measures, many set to expire after 2028 to limit their cost. These include new deductions for tips, overtime pay, and car loan interest on American-made vehicles, and an additional $6,000 deduction for individuals aged 65 and older.”

The manufacturing industry will also benefit from some of the other provisions of the OBBBA:

  • Authorizes sizable investments in technology and infrastructure
  • Automakers no longer face civil penalties for violations of fleetwide fuel economy standards issued by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
  • Increases the advanced manufacturing tax credit, including for chipmakers, from 25% to 35%.
  • Restores the Federal Communications Commission’s authority (lapsed in 2023) to auction spectrum licenses through 2034
  • Authorizes $1 billion to fund the Defense Production Act
  • Prioritizes fossil fuel development, while renewable energy programs are to be phased out
  • Expands drilling on public land, including four onshore lease sales in nine western states, broader access to all leasable lands, and an extension of drilling permits to four years (up from three)
  • Mandates offshore lease sales in the renamed “Gulf of America,” Alaska’s Cook Inlet, the National Petroleum Reserve–Alaska, and the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge
  • Directs the Interior Department to approve qualified coal leasing applications, offer 4 million acres for coal leasing, and increase annual federal timber sales through 2034
  • Lowers royalty rates on oil, gas, and coal; eliminates royalties on extracted methane; and ends fees for nominating parcels for leasing

Pass Legislation to Address China’s Exploitation of U.S. Capital Markets, Economic Incentives, and Trade Policy

Congress is actively considering the following bills to counter China’s economic influence, targeting capital markets, trade, and technology:

The FIGHT China Act of 2025 (S.1053) was introduced in the Senate by Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX) on March 13, 2025. A sister bill (H.R.3946) was introduced in in the House introduced by Rep. Andy Barr (R-KY). The FIGHT China Act restricts American investment into Chinese Communist Party (CCP) military and surveillance companies and other sensitive technologies of adversarial nations.  The December 17, 2025 press release by Rep. Barr states:  “Today, the FIGHT China Act led by U.S. Congressman Andy Barr (R-KY) and U.S. Senator John Cornyn (R-TX) passed the U.S. Senate…The legislation is the strongest sanctions ever passed by Congress on China…This legislation will make President Donald J. Trump’s America First Investment Policy permanent and prevent American investors from unknowingly bankrolling military and tech companies that threaten U.S. national security.”  Instead of being signed by President Trump as a separate bill, it was added to the 2026 National Defense Authorization Bill mentioned below.

The SAFE Act, Secure America’s Financial Exchanges Act (S.1357)  has five co-sponsors in the Senate: Rick Scott (R),  Marsha Blackburn (R),  Bill Cassidy (R),  Cindy Hyde-Smith (R),  and John Neely Kennedy (R). It “would amend the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 to address the issuance of securities by Chinese entities… would require Chinese companies seeking to list securities on U.S. exchanges to disclose detailed information about their relationship with the Chinese government. Specifically, companies would need to reveal any financial support received from the People’s Republic of China, including subsidies, loans, tax benefits, or procurement policy advantages. They must also describe the conditions attached to such support, such as requirements to meet export targets, purchase from specific entities, use certain intellectual property, or employ Chinese Communist Party members. Additionally, companies would have to disclose the presence and composition of Chinese Communist Party committees within their organization, and provide background on any officers or directors who currently or previously held positions in the Chinese government or Communist Party.”

The TASK Act, Transaction and Sourcing Knowledge Act (S.1358), introduced by Senator Rick Scott on April 8, 2025, aims “to enhance transparency by requiring public companies to report on supply chain due diligence, particularly concerning forced labor in Xinjiang, China, to the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), bolstering investor protection and addressing human rights concerns through mandated disclosure.”

However, there was another bill that became law in late December that has provisions that benefit American manufacturers and helps rebuild American manufacturing.  This is S.1071 – National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2026, which includes significant provisions to benefit American manufacturers by boosting domestic production, funding advanced technologies, creating new networks like the Civil Reserve Manufacturing Network, and focusing on key areas like semiconductors, shipbuilding, and munitions to strengthen the defense industrial base (DIB). Key measures are:

  • Defense Industrial Base Fund Expansion: Broadens allowable spending for materials, equipment, facility construction, and advanced manufacturing investments within the DIB.
  • Civil Reserve Manufacturing Network (CRMN): Establishes a system to rapidly qualify commercial factories to produce defense items during emergencies, increasing surge capacity.
  • Advanced Manufacturing & Technology:
    • Funds R&D for next-gen tech and mandates DoD to adopt advanced methods like additive manufacturing (3D printing).
    • Elevates advanced manufacturing in acquisition governance, co-chairing key groups.
  • Supply Chain Resiliency: Focuses on domestic production for critical items like semiconductors and aims to build advanced manufacturing facilities in the Pacific.
  • Workforce & Skills: Supports upskilling workers and creating pathways for military skills to translate to civilian manufacturing jobs.
  • Targeted Sector Investments: Allocates billions to shipbuilding, munitions, and drones to rebuild stockpiles and capacity. 

Because the OBBBA and the National Defense Authorization bills passed, I am able to give Congress a grade of “B” instead of the “C” they earned because so many of the important bills mentioned above are stalled in their respective Committees.  It is imperative that these bills be voted out of their respective Committees and brought forward into the House and Senate for a vote. My suggestion is to pick one of the above bills that you support and then call your Congressional Representative and Senator to urge them to support that bill.  Remember, “We the People” are the basis for our Constitutional form of government.  If “We the People” are silent and do nothing, then the lobbyists for the multinational globalist corporations and organizations will have the power to influence our elected representatives to support their interests to the detriment of the American people as a whole. 

Tags:, ,
Posted in Legislation, Trade Policy | No Comments »

Why a Market Access Charge Would Have Greater Benefits Than Tariffs

Tuesday, December 9th, 2025

The uproar over President Trump’s tariffs reminded me of another proposed way to balance trade, the Market Access Charge (MAC)  created by John R. Hansen, PhD, Founding Editor of Making America Competitive Again. I met John in 2017 at the annual trade conference of the Coalition for a Prosperous America when he was on CPA’s Advisory Board,, and we have been keeping in touch ever since.

I have written previous articles about the MAC and included a description of the MAC in one of the chapters of my book, Rebuild Manufacturing – the key to American Prosperity. For first-time readers, I explained that the MAC is “a small charge that would be collected on all foreign-source money entering America’s financial markets…which would probably start at two percent and would be collected by U.S. banks receiving foreign money transfer orders via systems like SWIFT.”

I recently connected with John to find out the status of the MAC, and he expanded on the description of the MAC saying, “it is an import tax of probably 1-3% on inflows of all foreign-source money. The MAC would moderate gross inflows of “trash cash, like the trillions of Chinese RMBs and Japanese JPYs, of about $90 trillion per year. This money is “trash cash” because only about two or three percent of these inflows are used to finance real physical investments such as new or updated factories that can be counted as true foreign direct investment (FDI). The remainder goes into America’s “Capital Casino” aka financial sector. We need moderation because speculative portfolio investments such as bonds are money that we do not need and the MAC would reduce the undervaluation of foreign exchange monies relative to U.S. Dollar.

In other articles, I’ve written about how other countries such as China, Vietnam, Korea, and Japan have undervalued their currencies, making their products more competitive in the global marketplace, while our overvalued dollar makes American products more expensive in the global marketplace.  Low exchange rates for foreign currency mean that the dollar prices of foreign goods and services fall relative to the dollar prices of made-in-America goods and services. This makes the dollar prices of foreign-made goods cheaper, hurting the ability of made-in-America goods to compete with foreign-made goods both in domestic U.S. markets and in foreign markets for our exports.

As a result, we import more products than we export, causing the increasingly large trade deficits of the past 25 years. Trade deficits have grown from $451 Billion in the year 2000 to more than double at $918.4 billion for 2024. The increasing dependence on debt from foreign countries causes severe risks for America’s financial, economic, political, and social future.  Our national debt has nearly doubled since 2020 and was $28.1 trillionat the end of 2024.

In contrast, John explained, “The MAC would make America-made goods more competitive against imports in the U.S and against foreign-made products as exports. The MAC would be a “duty on financial imports” that would be set on a quarterly basis — much as the FED sets interest rates. Upon initial implementation, the FED would set the rate to a low non-zero rate if the trade deficit was greater than 1% of GDP. On a quarterly basis, the FED would review trends in the US trade balance (much as it does with interest rates and inflation). If the deficit was greater than 1% of GDP, the MAC rate would be raised by an amount judged to be small enough to not cause a crisis and large enough to move the trade deficit in the right direction.

Conversely, once the trade deficit began to trend downwards towards zero, the MAC rate would be reduced gradually towards zero. The rate would be publicly available on government websites on a 24/7 basis, and at any point in time, only a single rate would apply to all financial inflows, regardless of currency, country of origin, amount, ownership, or intended use.

The MAC would always remain in effect — even at a zero rate. Then, if changing global conditions led to new U.S. trade deficits greater than, for example, 1% of GDP, the FED would simply move the MAC rate back to a non-zero rate and immediately publish the decision. It would be a perfect blend of ‘temporary’ and ‘permanent,’ both required by the IMF for capital flow management tools (CFMs) such as the MAC. The MAC tax would be collected by U.S. banks receiving foreign money transfer orders via systems like SWIFT.”

In our conversation, John clarified a misunderstanding about the word “investment.” He said, “The rich, especially those in the banking community who sponsor America’s “capital casino,” — seem to call all money “investment.” However, this term can be very misleading because it fails to distinguish between money that builds America’s physical productivity and money that the rich use for speculation.

Depending on the year, of America’s roughly $90 trillion of gross annual inflows of “money” from abroad, only 1-3% actually goes into fixed capital formation such as construction or physical improvement of factories, farms, infrastructure, and office automation as defined by BEA.”

He explained, “The vast bulk of the capital inflows — the remaining 97-99% of them — go primarily into portfolio investments such as bonds, non-controlling shares of stock, bank deposits, etc. These speculative financial investments, which have exploded over past decades relative to GDP, make rich speculators even richer (or poorer if they place their bets wrong), increase risk and volatility, increase the risk of massive economic meltdowns for America like the one of 2008, and help drive inflation ever higher. However, such investments do virtually nothing to increase America’s physical productivity or its real GDP.”

He added, “The MAC would target the most important cause of the growing U.S. trade deficits, the decline of U.S. jobs that produce internationally traded goods and services, and the shrinking U.S. budget revenues. Expenditures by foreign direct investors to acquire, establish, or expand U.S. businesses totaled $151.0 billion in 2024, according to preliminary statistics released today by the U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis. Expenditures decreased $24.9 billion, or 14.2 percent, from $176.0 billion (revised) in 2023 and were below the annual average of $277.2 billion for 2014–2023. As in previous years, acquisitions of existing U.S. businesses accounted for most of the expenditures.

I asked John what would be the benefit of the MAC compared to tariffs, and he listed the following:

  • No cost to Americans – the MAC is paid by foreigners
  • Increases exports of goods and services — not just reduce selected imports
  • Increases manufacturing jobs and jobs in wide range of sectors including upstream and downstream suppliers to manufacturers, such as raw materials, agriculture, and transportation.
  • Provides an even playing field – same ratefor all products, producers, countries, etc. instead of the widely varying rates for tariffs.
  • Provides almost zero opportunity for evasion
  • Provides almost zero risk of retaliation
  • Reduces casino capitalism by increasing profitability of real investments in real made-in-America production compared to simply spinning the roulette wheels faster in America’s speculative capital casinos
  • Increases affordability of goods for all Americans
  • Provides Twenty to Thirty times greater fiscal impact as tax base is $90 trillion, not just $3 -$4 trillion
  • End trade deficits by expanding exports, not just reducing imports
  • End budget deficits without raising taxes on Americans

I asked John if there any economists or organizations besides the Coalition for a Prosperous America of which we are both members that support the MAC.  He replied with the following  examples:

  • Economic Policy Institute – Robert Scott
  • Peterson Institute for International Economics – Joe Gagnon
  • American Compass – they published an excellent booklet promoting the MAC
  • Michael Pettis of Carnegie
  • Former U.S. Trade Representative Bob Lighthizer
  • Steve Miran of Hudson Bay Capital/CEA/Fed
  • Financial Times – Martin Wolf and Gillian Tett
  • Harry Moser, The Reshoring Initiative

I next asked what support does the MAC have by members of Congress, and he replied that Sen. Tammy Baldwin (D-WI) and Sen. Josh Hawley (R-MO) have been supportive of the MAC in the past.  In fact, they had introduced S. 2357, The Competitive Dollar For Jobs And Prosperity Act, on July 31, 2019. This bill would have tasked the Federal Reserve with achieving and maintaining a current account balancing price for the dollar within five years by implementing the “Market Access Charge. But as the bill was competing at the time for attention with the Covid pandemic, it died in committee without receiving a vote. John is currently having discussions with other Senators and Representatives in the House to gain support.

I conclusion, I asked what the chances are of the MAC being added to a bill or being a separate bill in the current Congress.  He said the chances are better than ever because it would be a basis for a bi-partisan agreement/compromise that would break the current budget deadlock.

He added, “In contrast to tariffs, the MAC meets the four criteria set by the International Monetary Fund for Capital Flow Management measures (CFMs), criteria which state that such measures must be transparent, temporary, targeted, and non-discriminatory.”  I didn’t know what CFMs were, so he explained that they are temporary measures aimed at stabilizing a country’s economy during crises. They may include capital controls to manage capital flows and protect foreign reserves. CFMs can involve restrictions on foreign exchange transactions to stabilize currency value. These measures are often linked to IMF lending programs and economic reform conditions. CFMs are designed to prevent excessive volatility in financial markets and promote economic stability. They are typically reviewed and adjusted based on the country’s economic recovery progress.

If we want to increase prosperity based on growing productivity, not growing mountains of debt, it’s time to stop the destruction of American industry and innovation, the loss of high-paying manufacturing jobs, and the collapse of communities.  We must stop importing more goods than we export, leaving us deeply indebted to our trading partners. I urge Congress to urgently pass a bill that would implement the Market Access Charge.  Call your Congressman and Senator today to urge them to support the introduction of such a bill.

Tags:,
Posted in General, Legislation, Trade Policy | No Comments »

Legislation Protecting Inventors’ Rights Reintroduced to Congress

Tuesday, November 18th, 2025

Representative Thomas Massie (R-KY4) and co-sponsor Marcy Kaptur (D-OH) introduced bipartisan legislation, HR 5811, the Restoring America’s Leadership in Innovation Act (RALIA). This bill would put a halt to and reverse many of the adverse changes to our patent system that the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act of 2011 established, changing our patent system from being the best in the world to one that has nearly destroyed inventors’ rights. The America Invents Act (AIA) of 2011 was H.R. 1249 in the House and S. 23 in the Senate. The House Judiciary Committee played a significant role in advancing the legislation.

In his press release, Congressman Massie stated, “The RALIA legislation restores to Americans a patent system as the Constitution of the United States originally envisioned it…In Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution, the Founding Fathers gave Congress the authority to protect the discoveries of inventors. Specifically, they created a patent system to ‘promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.’ Regrettably, Congress’s 2011 enactment of the Leahy-Smith ‘America Invents Act’ has worked in concert with several Supreme Court decisions to erode this protection’s strength and value.”

The press release also states: “RALIA affirms that a patent secures private property rights, allows inventors to get injunctions again against intellectual property thieves, restores inventors’ rights to defend their inventions in court by abolishing the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, and ends the automatic publication of patent applications unless a patent is granted. 

Congressman Massie’s RALIA legislation is supported by organizations including AMAC Action, American Policy Center, Americans for Limited Government, Center for American Principles, Conservatives for Property Rights, Eagle Forum Education & Legal Defense Fund, IEEE-USA, Less Government, Let Freedom Ring, 60 Plus Association, the Small Business Technology Council, Taxpayers Protection Alliance, Tea Party Patriots Action, The Committee for Justice, Tradition Family Property Inc., U.S. Business & Industry Council, US Inventor, and Veterans Intellectual Property.”

Rep. Massie first introduced RALIA as H.R.5874 – Restoring America’s Leadership in Innovation Act of 2021  to the 117th Congress (2021-2022) and then as HR 8134, the Restoring America’s Leadership in Innovation Act (RALIA) to the 118th Congress (2023-2024) on April 16, 2024 with  Rep. Marcy Kaptur (D-OH) as co-sponsor. Neither of the above bills was approved by the IP subcommittee to be voted on by the Judiciary Committee to be released for a vote of the full House.

The protocol is for a bill to be introduced to the appropriate subcommittee of the appropriate House Committee.  In the case of legislation related to patents, it would first be introduced to the House Judiciary Committee’s Subcommittee on Courts, Intellectual Property, and the Internet (commonly referred to as the “IP Subcommittee”), which oversees intellectual property matters. The Senate has a similar subcommittee Intellectual Property (IP) Subcommittee of the Judiciary Committee.

Here’s a detailed breakdown based on publicly available Congressional records and official committee rosters for the IP subcommittee:

1. Intellectual Property Subcommittee Members by Congress

A. 117th Congress (2021–2022)

Chair: Hank Johnson (D-GA)
Ranking Member: Darrell Issa (R-CA)

Democratic Members:

  • Hank Johnson (GA, Chair)
  • Jerry Nadler (NY)
  • Zoe Lofgren (CA)
  • Sheila Jackson Lee (TX)
  • Steve Cohen (TN)
  • Karen Bass (CA)
  • Mary Gay Scanlon (PA)
  • Madeleine Dean (PA)
  • Deborah Ross (NC)

Republican Members:

  • Darrell Issa (CA, Ranking)
  • Jim Jordan (OH)
  • Ken Buck (CO)
  • Steve Chabot (OH)
  • Mike Johnson (LA)
  • Tom Tiffany (WI)

B. 118th Congress (2023–2024)

Chair: Darrell Issa (R-CA)
Ranking Member: Hank Johnson (D-GA)

Republican Members:

  • Darrell Issa (CA)
  • Tom Tiffany (WI)
  • Scott Fitzgerald (WI)
  • Ben Cline (VA)
  • Cliff Bentz (OR)
  • Jim Jordan (OH, ex officio)

Democratic Members:

  • Hank Johnson (GA)
  • Mary Gay Scanlon (PA)
  • Deborah Ross (NC)
  • Madeleine Dean (PA)
  • Jerry Nadler (NY, ex officio)

C. 119th Congress (2025–2026)

Chair: Darrell Issa (R-CA)

Ranking Member: Hank Johnson (D-GA)

Republican Members:

  • Darrell Issa (CA)
  • Thomas Massie (KY)
  • Ben Cline (VA)
  • Scott Fitzgerald (WI)
  • Lance Gooden (TX)
  • Kevin Kiley (CA)
  • Laurel M. Lee (FL)
  • Russell Fry (SC)
  • Michael Baumgartner (WA)

Democratic Members:

The biggest problem for getting the RALIA bills approved by the IP Subcommittee and Judiciary Committee of the 117th and 118th Congress is that there were notable Judiciary Committee members who co-sponsored the AIA during the 112th Congress (2011–2012):

  • Lamar Smith (R-TX) – Chairman of the Judiciary Committee; Principal Sponsor of H.R.1249.
  • Bob Goodlatte (R-VA) – Judiciary Committee member; Original co-sponsor.
  • Howard Coble (R-NC) – Judiciary Committee member; Original co-sponsor.
  • Darrell Issa (R-CA) – Judiciary Committee member; Co-sponsor.
  • Mel Watt (D-NC) – Judiciary Committee member; Co-sponsor.

Source: Congress.gov – H.R. 1249 (America Invents Act) Co-sponsors\

Of these co-sponsors, only Congressman Darrell Issa is still on the IP subcommittee, but he has considerable influence as Chair of the subcommittee. 

All three versions of the RALIA bills would repeal the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), inter partes review (IPR) and post-grant review (PGR;) return the patent system to a “first-to-invent” model, rather than first-to-file, and would end automatic publication of patents. Inventor groups such as US Inventor and conservative groups have supported the legislation

The US Inventor website states: “Recent legislation and court decisions have all but destroyed what once was the world’s “gold standard” patent system, established by our Founders within our U.S. Constitution. Unless something is done soon, our Patent System will be pretty much ravaged, and with it, the American Dream.”

Randy Landreneau, President of US Inventor, Inc. stated, “RALIA returns the US Patent System to what it was prior to the negative changes from bad law and Supreme Court decisions that have greatly harmed American inventors and startups. These changes have 1) enabled monopolies by making it infinitely harder for startups to compete and 2) allowed China to threaten to take the lead in almost all key, future technologies. RALIA will not only restore America’s leadership in innovation, it will restore the American Dream for millions.”

Dirk Tomsin, Chief Operating Officer of US Inventor, Inc., stated “Unlike PERA, PREVAIL, and RESTORE—which fall short of addressing the core problems—the Restoring America’s Leadership in Innovation Act uses the correct statutory language to truly fix the problem. If we were to compare the patent system with the PTAB to a patient with a tumor. RALIA is the operation that removes that tumor.”

As a member of US Inventor and a board member of the San Diego Inventors Forum for 11 years, I understand the importance of safeguarding intellectual property and fostering an environment where inventors can thrive and strongly support this legislation. My call to action is, if your Congressman is a member of the current IP subcommittee, contact them to express your support for HR 5811, the Restoring America’s Leadership in Innovation Act (RALIA).

Tags:,
Posted in General, Inellectual Property, Legislation | No Comments »

Does the One Big Beautiful Bill Help Rebuild American Manufacturing?

Tuesday, July 22nd, 2025

In my January article titled, “What Legislation Should Congress Pass to Help Rebuild American Manufacturing?”  I made several recommendations.  Now, we will examine what provisions the One Big Beautiful Bill (OBBB) included that would help achieve the goal of rebuilding American manufacturing.

I asked one of my long-time business colleagues, Bruce Knowlton, to examine what tax benefits the OBBB provides for American manufacturers.  Bruce recently retired from being a long-time partner at Moss Adams LLP in San Diego and will begin teaching tax accounting at San Diego State University this fall.  He provided his analysis of the OBBB provisions with regard to the following tax-related recommendations I made in my article:

1.  Immediate cost recovery for investments in the types of machinery and equipment:

Bruce said “this was enacted and made permanent and called ‘bonus depreciation.’  It also increased the Section 179 expensing for companies that buy assets up from $1 million to $2.5 million.  This is now phased out when assets purchased exceed $4 million.  Please note that Section 179 expensing requires a business tax profit to the extent of the expensing but bonus depreciation does not.  A new provision was added to award manufacturers who build new manufacturing facilities (i.e. building structures) in terms of their “Qualifying Production Property” with 100% depreciation vs. a normal 39-year tax life.  This generally covers facilities used directly in the manufacturing process with construction starting in the U.S. after 1/19/25 and finished by 12/31/28 with a placed in-service date of after July 4, 2025 and before January 1, 2029.”

2. Immediate write-offs for investments in research and development: 

Buce said this was enacted. “The research credits also remain as is.  That said now a manufacturer that has gross revenue of no more than $31 million can go back and amend returns starting with their 2022 return to expense their previously capitalized R&D costs to get refunds.  Further, larger companies can elect to amortize the remaining capitalized R&D costs for 2022-2024 over a one- or two-year period.”

3. Reduce corporate tax rate to 15% from the 21% of the TCJA

Bruce said, “The corporate tax rate remains at 21% as it has been under TCJA. There was a permanent extension of the 20% qualifying business tax deduction which applies to closely held business (nonpublic companies) organized as S corporations or LLCs to continue their top marginal rate at 29.6% versus 37% for their individual U.S. resident owners. 

There was also a change in the business interest expensing rule that limits that deduction to 30% of EBITDA (earnings before income tax, depreciation and amortization) vs. EBIT (earnings before interest and taxes) currently.  Smaller companies with revenue of $31 million or less are still exempt from this rule. There were reductions for international companies as well to potentially lower the overall foreign intangible income tax.”

He added, “There were also a couple of indirect benefits.  One was the carve out reporting of overtime for their employees who receive overtime pay to qualify them for the new tax deduction of overtime pay.  The other was to expand the eligibility for qualified small business stock issued after 7/24/25 and the income exemption amounts on a sale of that stock as well as a shorter vesting period vs. the previous 5-year cliff vesting that was required.”

An article titled, “One Big Beautiful Bill Act” Tax Policies: Details and Analysis,” published on July 4, 2025 by the Tax Foundation stated the  OBBB Act would:

  • Permanently restore immediate expensing for domestic research and development (R&D) expenses; small businesses with gross receipts of $31 million or less can retroactively expense R&D back to after 12/31/21; all other domestic R&D between 12/21/21 and 1/1/25 can accelerate remaining deductions over a one- or two-year period.
  • Permanently reinstate the EBITDA-based limitation on business net interest deductions.
  • Permanently restore 100 percent bonus depreciation for short-lived investments.
  • Temporarily provide 100 percent expensing of qualifying structures, with the beginning of construction occurring after Jan. 19, 2025, and before Jan. 19, 2029, and placed in service before Jan. 1, 2031.
  • Make the Section 199A pass-through deduction permanent; increase phase-in range of limitation by $50,000 for non-joint returns and $100,000 for joint returns; create a minimum deduction of $400 for taxpayers with $1,000 or more of qualified business income (QBI) for material participants.
  • Implement a 1 percent floor on deduction of charitable contributions made by corporations.
  • Eliminate clean electricity production credit (45Y) and investment credit (48E) for projects placed in service after 2027, except for projects that begin construction within 12 months of passage and baseload power sources such as nuclear, hydropower, geothermal, and battery storage; introduce restrictions related to foreign entities of concern (FEOC).
  • Extend the clean fuel production credit (45Z) until 2030 and expand eligibility.
  • Introduce FEOC restrictions for several other credits, including the nuclear production credit (45U), the clean fuel production credit (45Z), the carbon oxide sequestration credit (45Q), and the advanced manufacturing production credit (45X); alter phaseouts and eligibility for 45X and 45Q.
  • Require intangible drilling and development costs to be taken into account for the purposes of computing adjusted financial statement income.
  • Add income from hydrogen storage, carbon capture, advanced nuclear, hydropower, and geothermal energy to qualifying income of certain publicly traded partnerships treated as C corporations.”

It is anticipated that these tax changes will help American manufacturers be more competitive in the global economy, but they do not specifically address the unfair trade practices, currency manipulation, product dumping, and Intellectual Property Theft done by China.  It would take passage of other bills to fulfill some of the other recommendations I made in my January article, namely:

Impose a Market Access Charge (MAC) as proposed by Dr. John R Hansen, (PhD economist and  Economic Advisor, The World Bank (retd.)  “Forcing foreigners to pay a market access charge (MAC) if they want to dump their speculative money into America’s financial markets when US trade deficits show that the global demand for dollars and dollar-based assets like stocks and bonds is already excessive. In addition to encouraging the dollar to move to a more competitive level, thus boosting economic growth and family incomes, the MAC could also generate hundreds of billion dollars of new government revenue per year.

Pass a Patent Reform Bill to restore inventors’ rights and end abuses by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB). 

A new bill similar to HR 8134, the Restoring America’s Leadership in Innovation Act (RALIA), introduced by Rep. Thomas Massie (R-KY) and Rep. Marcy Kaptur (D-OH) in the previous session of Congress would be supported  by the largest inventors’ organization, US Inventors.

Revoke China’s Most Favored Nation Status (aka Permanent Normal Trade Relations (PNTR) that was granted by President Clinton on October 10th, 2000 when he signed the U.S.-China Relations Act of 2000 into law. 

“Passing such a bill should be a major priority for the 119th Congress as soon as possible. Without PNTR status, all products from China would by default be subject to higher tariffs. This would reduce off-shoring by discouraging American investors and corporations from doing business in China. It would increase reshoring and diminish demand for Chinese goods, bolstering the sales of American manufactured products.”

Reduce the Allowed Value of De Minimis imports from the $800 allowed by the Trade Facilitation and Trade Enforcement Act of 2015 to a lower de minimis threshold.

The Coalition for a Prosperous America states: “U.S. companies and workers are subjected to a new level of job-destroying competition. Illicit drugs, such as fentanyl, and counterfeit goods are shipped directly to US consumers while evading detection. The predictable result is a major calamity putting U.S. producers and traditional retailers out of business and destroying jobs.” CPA urges “Congress to lower the de minimis threshold to $9 among other reforms.”

The One Big Beautiful Bill is a first step in passing legislation that would help in rebuilding American manufacturing’s capacity and eliminate dependence on China and other adversarial nations. Passing the other bills recommended by this article would especially help rebuild manufacturing capacity in industries that are critical to U.S. economic and national security. They would stop the destruction of American industry and innovation, the loss of high-paying manufacturing jobs, and the collapse of communities. They would help to create prosperity for our children and grandchildren and ensure that they will continue to live in a free country. 

Tags:
Posted in Legislation, Manufacturing, Taxes/Regulations, Trade Policy | No Comments »

Why Trump’s Tariffs on China Should Become Permanent and How to Make it Happen

Wednesday, June 18th, 2025

It’s been a volatile few weeks for Trump’s tariffs since he announced a 10% tax on all imported products from more than 50 countries, and placed additional duties on items from some of the largest U.S. trading partners, including Canada, Mexico, the European Union, and China.  The additional tariffs have ranged from 25% on Canada, Mexico, and the European Union to 125% and 145% briefly on China.  The imposition of these tariffs brought many countries to the negotiating table in the past two months, resulting in trillions of dollars of proposed investment in the U.S. in an attempt to reduce the additional tariffs.

Trump’s tariffs had an immediate beneficial effect on the U.S. trade deficit, according to an article titled “Goods Trade Deficit Plummets in April,” in the Wall Street Journal on May 30, 2025. The article reported that “The U.S.’s trade deficit for goods shrank substantially in April, as new tariffs weighed on imports.”

  • Goods imports fell by 20% to $276.1 billion while exports rose 3.4% to $188.5 billion.
  • It was the biggest one-month drop in goods imports on record
  • This yielded a goods trade deficit of $87.6 billion, down from $162.3 billion in March”

President Trump has touted trillions of dollars of investments into the U.S. brought about by deals he has negotiated after the imposition of tariffs and threats of higher tariffs.  The White House website provides a partial list published a partial list titled “The Trump Effect,” — which it said demonstrated “his America First economic policies have sparked trillions of dollars in new investment.”

On April 11, 2025, I was interviewed by Conner Lee, a reporter for The Epoch Times, on my opinion of Trump’s tariffs.  The article ran online on April 14th and in the paper for the week of or the week of April 16-22nd in the California section  I was quoted as saying, “Michele Nash-Hoff, president of ElectroFab Sales, a California-based manufacturers’ representative firm, said that businesses will know within the next three to six months whether the tariffs will be long-term.

“The tariffs will be an additional major driver to returning manufacturing to America, especially if the tariffs are not just temporary if they’re long-term,” she told The Epoch Times.

Nash-Hoff thinks the tariffs are not going to have an impact on inflation like some people are fearing. She referenced the 2018 U.S. tariffs on steel, aluminum, and some imports from China, which were followed by only about a 0.5 percent rise in the inflation rate.

She said the latest tariffs will benefit the U.S. economy by creating more American jobs, which means more people paying taxes. That, in turn, will help reduce the country’s annual trade deficit and lower its national indebtedness, she said.”

I believe that another trade deal with China that includes low rates of tariffs won’t work any better than the trade agreement President Trump negotiated in his first term.  China has violated the terms of that agreement just as it did the terms of becoming a member of the World Trade Organization in the year 2000. 

To ensure that China honored the terms of the WTO agreement, the United States–China Economic and Security Review Commission (informally, the U.S.–China Commission, USCC) was established on October 30, 2000.  The USCC has been “responsible for providing recommendations to Congress based on their findings on bilateral trade with the People’s Republic of China, evaluating national security and trading risks in all industries and conducting research on China’s actions.”  The Commission held hearings and submitted an annual report to Congress.

 Year after year, the Commission reported how China violated the WTO agreement, but no punitive actions were taken by Congress for 17 years. The reports repeatedly cited China’s unfair trade policies of intellectual property theft, government subsidies to domestic manufacturers, product dumping at below cost to capture market share of particular industries, fraudulent labeling, trans-shipping, and undervaluing their currency.  I have read several of the reports in the past and wrote articles about the findings. The article I wrote about the 2021 report can be found at this link.

In the May 19, 2025 Epoch Times article titled “Despite Negotiations, China Finds Ways to Circumvent US Tariffs,” Antonio Graceffo wrote “Even as Chinese leader Xi Jinping and President Donald Trump negotiate a new trade agreement, China continues to bypass U.S. tariffs through a global network of loopholes, rerouting schemes, and gray market tactics that keep its exports flowing into the United States despite trade restrictions…exploiting a combination of legal loopholes and gray zone tactics. These include exploiting postal and customs blind spots, rerouting through third countries, forged documentation, offshore assembly, and the creation of overseas distribution hubs that allow Chinese products to be re-exported under neutral labels.”

He explained, “China has also expanded its use of gray zone trade tactics by employing transshipment, committing document fraud, practicing under-invoicing, and utilizing overseas assembly. Chinese exporters are routing goods through Vietnam, Malaysia, Indonesia, Thailand, and even the European Union, where products are repackaged or relabeled to obscure their origin.”

However, if the Trump administration wants to seriously tackle the trade deficit with China, they first must handle the half a dozen lawsuits by ten states that are challenging the president’s ability to impose tariffs without the approval of Congress.  On April 23, 2025, AP News reported that “A dozen states sued the Trump administration in the U.S. Court of International Trade in New York on Wednesday to stop its tariff policy, saying it is unlawful and has brought chaos to the American economy.” The lawsuits “challenged Trump’s claim that he could arbitrarily impose tariffs based on the International Emergency Economic Powers Act.”

On Wednesday, May 28, 2025, CNN Business News reported that a three-judge panel at the U.S. Court of International Trade “ruled that President Donald Trump overstepped his authority to impose sweeping tariffs that have raised the cost of imports for everyone from giant businesses to everyday Americans.”  The ruling “stopped Trump’s global tariffs that he imposed citing emergency economic powers,” also “prevents Trump from enforcing his tariffs placed earlier this year against China, Mexico and Canada, designed to combat fentanyl coming into the United States.”

The tariffs have been reprieved from being stopped because, on Wednesday, May 28, 2025, ABC News reported that “The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued an administrative stay of the decision while it considers Trump’s appeal.”

The Coalition for a Prosperous America recommended action that can be taken by Congress to solve this problem in their weekly newsletter, Prosper Weekly.  CPA PRESIDENT JON TOOMEY SAID: “Wednesday’s court ruling underscores the urgent need for Congress to act decisively to implement President Trump’s America First tariff strategy into law. While the administration addresses these legal challenges, Congress must seize this opportunity to legislate the President’s bold vision. Passing legislation to codify the universal 10% tariff would not only secure critical revenue to offset our unsustainable national debt and deficit, but it would also reaffirm America’s commitment to reshoring domestic industries and protecting our economic sovereignty. Without immediate action, Congress will hand China a $10+ billion refund and a receipt for American surrender. Tariffs remain the most strategic tool we have to revitalize American manufacturing, and it’s time for Congress to act.”

CPA Industry Analyst Kenneth Rapoza also recommended that Congress “remove China’s most favored nation status…[which] would immediately put China in the roughly 30% baseline tariff range. The existing Section 301 tariffs, first imposed by Trump in 2018 and extended for four years by the Biden administration in 2024, will stack on top of those, keeping China tariffs at 55%.”

I agree with the recommendation to revoke China’s most favored nation status, as I wrote about in my blog article of  June 2024, titled “Why We Must Revoke China’s Most Favored Nation Status.”  However, if the tariffs on Chinese imports are only temporary and at only a 30-55%% level, they won’t have the lasting effect needed to rebuild America’s industrial base.  In my opinion, the tariffs on China need to be made permanent at a high level (100-125%) to influence CEOs of American companies to decide to reshore manufacturing to America, expand existing plants, and/or build plants in new locations.  This action would truly set the stage to Make America Great Again.

Tags:,
Posted in Legislation, Trade Policy | No Comments »

Would the Benefits of Tariffs Outweigh the Threat of Increased Inflation

Tuesday, March 25th, 2025

On March 12, 2025, President Trump “imposed sweeping 25% tariffs on all steel and aluminum imported into the United States…” causing some economists to warn “that broad-based tariffs threaten to drive up prices on everything from food to new homes.” In answering the question of whether tariffs would increase inflation, we can consider whether or not inflation was increased by the imposition of Section 232 tariffs on steel and aluminum and the 301 tariffs levied on roughly half of U.S. imports from China, and we can consider the benefits achieved from these tariffs in 2018. 

Tariffs have traditionally had a two-fold purpose:  protect American manufacturers from unfair trade practices by mercantilist countries and stimulate domestic production. The Section 232 and 301 tariffs were aimed to protect the domestic steel and aluminum industries from what the government perceived as unfair competition and national security threats. Here are some benefits that were projected from these tariffs:

Section 232 Tariffs:

  1. Protection of Domestic Industries: By imposing tariffs on imported steel and aluminum, the U.S. government intended to protect and support domestic producers of these metals.
  2. Stimulating Job Growth: The tariffs were expected to create and maintain jobs in the U.S. steel and aluminum industries by making imported metals relatively more expensive compared to domestic products.
  3. Infrastructure Development: With a healthier domestic steel and aluminum industry, there was an expectation of increased capacity and capability to supply materials for critical infrastructure projects across the country.

Section 301 Tariffs:

  1. Addressing Intellectual Property Concerns: The Section 301 tariffs targeted imports from China and were aimed at addressing intellectual property theft and unfair trade practices in various industries, including steel and aluminum.
  2. Leveling the Playing Field: By imposing tariffs on Chinese goods, the U.S. sought to level the playing field for domestic steel and aluminum producers who may have been competing against subsidized Chinese products.
  3. Encouraging Fair Trade Practices: The tariffs were intended to push China towards adopting fair trade practices and addressing concerns related to market access, technology transfer, and intellectual property rights.

Here are some specific examples of how the Section 232 and 301 tariffs have benefited the U.S. steel and aluminum industries:

  1. Expanding Existing Plants:
    • Example: Nucor Corporation, a leading steel producer in the U.S., announced plans to invest $1.35 billion to build a new steel plate mill in Kentucky after the implementation of tariffs on steel imports under Section 232. This expansion will not only create more jobs but also increase production capacity, catering to the rising demand for steel products in the country.
  2. Building New Plants:
    • Example: Alcoa, a prominent aluminum producer, decided to restart its aluminum smelter in Evansville, Indiana, following the tariffs imposed on aluminum imports under Section 232. This move signifies a significant investment in building a new plant that will contribute to the growth of the domestic aluminum industry, providing employment opportunities and supporting the local economy.
  3. Adding Employees:
    • Example: U.S. Steel Corporation hired additional employees at its plant in Granite City, Illinois, in response to the tariffs imposed under Section 232. The increased demand for domestic steel prompted the company to bring back workers who were previously laid off and also recruit new talent to support the plant’s operations, showcasing the positive impact of tariffs on job creation within the industry.

Overall, the Section 232 and 301 tariffs have played a crucial role in revitalizing the U.S. steel and aluminum industries by encouraging investments in plant expansions, new construction projects, and workforce expansion, thereby fostering growth and competitiveness in these sectors.

Now, let’s examine whether or not these tariffs increased inflation since going into effect in 2018. The U.S. International Trade Commission (USITC) released the report,  Economic Impact of the Section 232 and 301 Tariffs on U.S. Industries in March 2023.  “It took an in-depth look at the effects of these tariffs on the importing industries and on industries dependent on them…over the years 2019 through 2021. In every one of the ten industries the authors studied, the 301 tariffs led to significant increases in domestic production.”  An article titled “USITC Report Shows Tariffs Boosted U.S. Production” by Jeff Ferry, Chief Economist of the Coalition for a Prosperous America, states that the key points of the report were:

  • “Section 301 and 232 tariffs boosted production in all twelve of the industries studied.
  • Price increases in the product categories targeted with tariffs were very small, in the 3%-4% range, contrary to mainstream media narrative.
  • Most of the tariffs targeted intermediate (industrial) goods. Downstream goods, including consumer goods, saw barely visible tariff-related price increases.
  • Downstream price increases due to steel and aluminum tariffs were estimated to be 0.2%.
  • Section 232 steel tariffs unleashed a huge wave of steel investment, likely creating some 20,000 direct jobs.
  • Tariffs are a valuable tool for generating growth in the U.S. economy.”

Since these tariffs were beneficial for the steel and aluminum industries, additional tariffs would be beneficial to other American manufacturing industries and help reduce our increasing trade deficits.

The Press Release on March 19, 2025 by the Coalition for  Prosperous America  titled:  “Importers Front-Run Global Tariffs; Deficit Expands a Record Breaking 34% in January” by Kenneth Rapoza states:

 “January imports rose 10% to $401.2 billion while exports rose at their usual pace, around 1% to $269.8 billion, according to the Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA)…The January goods deficit is the biggest in years, if not ever.”

The top 10 deficit countries as measured inbillions of dollars were: “China ($29.7), the European Union ($25.5), Switzerland ($22.8), Mexico ($15.5), Ireland ($12.4), Vietnam ($11.9), Canada ($11.3), Germany ($7.6), Taiwan ($7.5) and Japan ($7.4).”

These high trade deficits explain why President Trump is proposing 25% tariffs on imports from China, Canada, and Mexico. 

On March 19, 2025, the Coalition for a Prosperous America released a memorandum titled “CPA Recommendations for Implementing Tariffs Pursuant to the America First Trade Policy” by Charles Benoit as a response to the Presidential Memorandum titled America First Trade Policy President Trump issued on his Inauguration Day.

It states: “CPA is strongly supportive of President Trump’s Trade and Tariff Agenda that seeks to broadly reindustrialize the United States and raise significant revenue as outlined in the America First Trade Policy Memorandum.”

“However, CPA cautions against adopting a reciprocal tariff strategy aimed primarily at negotiating lower foreign trade barriers and more favorable investment conditions abroad. A reciprocal tariff strategy that prioritizes foreign governments’ willingness to reduce their trade barriers or be more receptive to foreign investment is in conflict with the stated goals of the America First Trade Policy Memorandum and undermines the predictability and stability American businesses need to confidently invest in long-term domestic production.”

CPA offers the following recommendations as they relate to the use of tariffs for protection, for revenue, and for reciprocity.

Tariffs for Revenue:

  • CPA fully supports President Trump’s concept of a 10% to 20% supplemental, universal tariff. CPA estimates that even a modest 10% supplemental universal tariff would lead to $728 billion in economic growth and 2.8 million new jobs, while generating $263 billion in new federal revenue to pay for domestic tax cuts.

Tariffs for Protection:

  • Section 232 is an excellent Presidential tool for protecting American producers, and CPA applauds the Trump Administration for already initiating new Section 232 investigations on copper and lumber.
  • CPA believes it is essential that entire supply chains be considered for the successful deployment of tariffs. Conveniently, Sections I through XX (1 through 20) of the Harmonized Tariff System (HTS) are organized in this way. The Trump Administration should consider initiating a Section 232 review for each of Sections 1 through 20 of the HTS.

Tariffs for Reciprocity

Reciprocal tariffshaven’t worked to the benefit of the United States ever since the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) went into effect in 1948.  When the World Trade Organization was established in 1995, “every WTO Member, including the United States, has pledged maximum tariff rates applicable to every other WTO member…Under the WTO system, there’s no single maximum rate, but rather specific maximum rates — known as ‘bound rates’ — itemized across 5,000+ product categories. Bound rates for each WTO country are listed in that country’s ‘Schedules of Concessions,’ which is annexed to the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT.)”

Supposedly level tariff rates haven’t prevented the United States from incurring an ever-increasing trade deficit with its trading partners because of mercantilist practices such as undervalued currency, subsidies to the manufacturing industries of the respective countries, intellectual property theft, and product dumping, among other practices. Thus, CPA concludes: “These reciprocity requirements have all failed while simultaneously pitting American producers against each other.” 

Instead,” CPA calls on the Trump Administration to either withdraw from the World Trade Organization entirely, or to “Unbound” the United States’ Schedule of Concessions to the GATT.”

The Trade and Tariffs page of the CPA website states, “The Coalition for a Prosperous America (CPA) has proposed a model that uses a simple, four-level structure of global tariffs at 0%, 15%, 35% and 55% (explained more in the document). CPA projects that this tariff would create 10 million new producer jobs, increasing real household incomes by 10%, grow the economy by 7% and generate $603 billion in new revenue. This revenue is more than sufficient to eliminate income taxes on the large majority of American wage earners.

The economic benefits of imposing tariffs on all imported goods can be summarized to be:

  1. Protection of domestic industries: Tariffs can protect domestic industries from foreign competition by making imported goods more expensive. This can help prevent job losses in sectors that are unable to compete with cheaper imports.
  2. Revenue generation: Tariffs can generate revenue for the government. The revenue collected from tariffs can be used to fund government programs, infrastructure projects, or reduce budget deficits.
  3. Trade balance improvement: By making imported goods more expensive, tariffs can help reduce imports and improve the trade balance of the country. This can help decrease trade deficits and strengthen the economy.
  4. Encouraging domestic production: Higher tariffs can incentivize businesses to produce goods domestically rather than importing them. This can lead to increased investment in domestic production facilities and create jobs.
  5. National security: Imposing tariffs on certain imported goods can also be used as a strategic tool to protect industries that are deemed critical to national security.

In my opinion, these benefits make tariffs an attractive alternative to the free-trade policies that have dominated the past 70 years of international trade. Protecting and encouraging more domestic production would increase manufacturing’s share of the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) and improve the financial wellbeing of many more Americans.  

Tags:,
Posted in Economy, Legislation, Manufacturing, Trade Policy | No Comments »

Inventors Need Your Help to Protect Their Patent Rights

Tuesday, October 8th, 2024

US Inventor was founded in 2015 after the passage of the America Invents Act of 2011  and the establishment of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) to “restore a solid patent system that ensures small businesses and individual inventors can protect their inventions from theft, regardless of the power and influence of large corporations. Every initiative and action undertaken by US Inventor aims to restore and reinforce the integrity of the American patent system.” US Inventor is the only organization representing small inventors, businesses, and startups to enact change that supports these groups, and it has grown to about 87,000 members over the past couple of years.  If you haven’t already signed the Inventor’s Rights Resolution, you may sign here.

In the past several weeks, US Inventor has been active in opposing two Senate bills that were scheduled for “mark up” by the Judiciary Committee during one of the three committee meetings scheduled in September. The bills are:

S. 2140: Patent Eligibility Restoration Act of 2023 (PERA)

S.2220 – PREVAIL Act

Both bills were introduced during the current Congress in 2023, and I wrote about these bills in a previous blog article, summarizing the reasons why US Inventor is opposed to each bill.  Briefly, US Inventor stated: “PERA must not become law without complete removal of Section 3(b)(1)(B)(i) and (ii) and its support at Section 2(5)(D)(v) and Section 2(5)(E)(i) and (ii).” The full analysis of PERA by US Inventor can be reviewed here.

US Inventor’s position on PREVAIL is that it “could be saved if it had an amendment that “offers inventors the “choice” of not being forced into the unjust PTAB administrative court, but rather being able to choose to face your infringer in a real court with a jury and Due Process.” The full analysis of PREVAIL by US Inventor can be reviewed here.

During the month of September, thousands of USI members called and wrote their Senator expressing their opposition to both bills.  US Inventor also arranged Zoom meetings with staff of the Senators who are members of the Judiciary Committee.  I participated with other California constituents who are inventors in Zoom meetings with the staff of California Senators Butler and Padilla.

When it was my turn to speak, I said that I was a board member of the San Diego Inventors Forum, which is one of the oldest and largest inventor groups in the country with a database of over 600 inventors, entrepreneurs, and service providers. We have noticed that the threat of having the Patent Review and Trial Board (PTAB) invalidate a patent is discouraging inventors from applying for a patent, and they are going to other countries to get their patents. Even China has a more secure patent system, so inventors are giving their technologies to China when they get a patent there. 

It is also causing more inventors to focus on getting licensing agreements instead of starting companies.  The danger is that the some of the large corporations they approach for a licensing agreement steal the technology and dare the inventor to sue them for infringement because they know the case will be handled by PTAB where the inventor’s patent will be invalidated. In addition, the lack of secure patent rights is also hindering the willingness of angel investors to invest in new technologies for startup companies. 

US Inventor held their second annual conference, From Dreamers to Decision-Makers, on September 26th-28th in Washington, D.C. where several inventors shared their stories of having their patents infringed and then invalidated by the PTAB.  The bills mentioned above were discussed in detail during the conference as well as the two new bills introduced last spring:

HR 8134, the Restoring America’s Leadership in Innovation Act (RALIA), introduced by Rep. Thomas Massie (R-KY) and Rep. Marcy Kaptur (D-OH)

HR 8132, the Balancing Incentives Act (BIA) introduced by rep. Marcy Kaptur (D-OH) and Rep. Thomas Massie (R-KY)

Attendees had been encouraged to come a day early to visit the offices of their Senators to express their opinions on patent legislation.  Many were able to make arrangements to meet with the staff of their Senators and express their opinions about the bills.  That same day, Dirk Tomsin of US Inventor hand delivered 7,350 letters to their Senator’s offices, along with petitions signed by over 4,500 signatories.

It appears that as a result of these efforts, the bills were not considered by the Judiciary committee for “mark up” during any of their September meetings. Congress is now in recess until after the election. However, the danger is that Congress will be in session for five weeks before the end of this session of Congress, so these bills could still be scheduled for “mark up” during that brief session.   

 The Senators comprising the Judiciary Committee are:

Chairman, Dick Durbin (D-IL)

Ranking member, Lindsey Graham (R-SC)

Majority Members

Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI)

Amy Klobuchar (D-MN)

Chris Coons (D-DE)

Richard Blumenthal (D-CT)

Mazie Hirono (D-HI)

Cory Booker (D-NJ)

Jon Ossoff (D-GA)

Alex Padilla (D-CA)

Peter Welch (D-VT)

Laphonza Butler (D-CA)

Minority Members

Chuck Grassley (R-IA)

John Cornyn (R-TX)

Mike Lee (R-UT)

Ted Cruz (R-TX)

Josh Hawley (R-MO)

Tom Cotton (R-AR)

John Kennedy (R-LA)

Thom Tillis (R-NC)

Marsha Blackburn (R-TN)

Suppose any of the above Senators are your Senators. In that case, I urge you to contact their offices and express your opposition to PERA and PREVAIL unless PREVAIL is amended as suggested above. You can call the U.S. House switchboard at (202) 224-3121 to connect to your Senator’s office.

Tags:
Posted in Inellectual Property, Legislation | No Comments »

New Patent Reform Legislation Would Protect Inventors’ Rights

Tuesday, May 21st, 2024

Two new bills have been introduced in Congress that would restore our broken patent system. These bills aim to address longstanding issues with the patent system and ensure fair treatment for inventors and small businesses.

Ever since the America Invents Act of 2011 was passed by Congress, our patent system was changed from being the best in the world to one that has nearly destroyed inventors’ rights.

Today, inventors suffer massive predatory infringement by large multinational corporations, including Chinese controlled multinationals, have their patents declared ineligible for patent protection because of being considered an “abstract idea,” and are denied their day in court to sue patent infringers.  This is stifling the innovation engine of the United States.

 During the 116th (2019-2020) and 117th Congress (2021-2022), several bills were introduced with the purported purpose of restoring inventors’ rights and fixing some of the problems generated by the America Invents Act of 2011. None of these bills made it out of committee for a vote by the House or Senate.

Two bills were introduced last year into the current Congress (118th 2023-2024):

  • S. 2140: Patent Eligibility Restoration Act of 2023 (PERA) was introduced by Senators Thomas Tillis (R-NC) and Christopher Coons (D-DE) on 6/22/2023
  • S.2220 – PREVAIL Act introduced by Senator Chris Coons (D-DE) on 7/10/2023

Neither of these bills have made it out of committee as yet for a vote by Congress, but that is good news as neither bill sufficiently restores inventors’ rights.

The two new bills are HR 8134, the Restoring America’s Leadership in Innovation Act (RALIA), introduced by Rep. Thomas Massie (R-KY) and Rep. Marcy Kaptur (D-OH) on 4/16/2024 and HR8132,  the Balancing Incentives Act (BIA) introduced by rep. Marcy Kaptur (D-OH) and Rep. Thomas Massie (R-KY) also on 4/16/2024.

RALIA seeks to revitalize patent protection by restoring injunctive relief, eliminating confusing judicially created eligibility tests, and abolishing the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB). By strengthening patent rights and encouraging innovation across critical technology fields, RALIA will help restore America’s leadership in innovation.

RALIA Reverses the effects of several Supreme Court decisions and of the America Invents Act, largely repairing most of the erosion of US patent rights accumulated over the last several decades. Full details below.

I participated in the weekly conference call with US Inventors members on May 8, 2024 when founder Paul Morinville highlighted some of the key things RALIA would do:

  • “Repeal ‘first to file’ and restore ‘first to invent’ as the criterion for granting a patent
  • Abolish the Patent Trial and Review Board (PTAB)
  • Restore the means of defending a patented invention against infringers: in court.
  • Restores injunctive relief to stop infringers from making and marketing the product being infringed
  • Declares that patents are private property
  • Abolishes inter partes review and post-grant validity proceedings
  • Prohibits publishing patents until issued
  • Eliminates fee diversion from the U.S. Patent Office to the General Fund
  • Fixes the problems with abstract ideas, medical diagnostics, and gene therapy”

He also said that The Balancing Incentives Act (BIA) aims to restore balance to our patent system and promote innovation. “BIA addresses issues with the PTAB, ensuring inventors receive fair treatment and protection of their intellectual property rights. BIA requires the patent owner’s consent for a PTAB review. By adding this fundamental right, the Bill aims to realign the PTAB with its original purpose as an alternative to federal court proceedings and a fair venue for all parties involved, rather than a mechanism incentivized for patent invalidation.”

Congresswoman Kaptur posted a paper, titled “At-A-Glance: Balancing Incentives Act & Restoring America’s Leadership in Innovation Act” that goes into more detail of why these bills are needed and what they would do.

The paper states:

“American innovation is falling behind the rest of the world. In 2018 patents filed per capita fell behind China for the first time since data was first collected in 1980. Much of that is because protections for American inventors is slipping. The time, money, and energy invested in creating an invention that can be marketed and sold or used to create and sell a new product is not worth it if the invention can be easily taken away. Originally, patents were tried in court. In 2011 the Patent Trial and Appeal Board was formed, and cases that challenge patents have since been deferred to that board. In FY23, PTAB completely invalidated 28% (see slide 11) of patents put before them; another 38% settled, were partly invalidated, came to mixed outcomes, or ended in a request for adverse judgement. Only 27% of cases were denied or dismissed, and only 7% determined to be all patentable. For solely those cases in which a written decision was reached, only 17.1% of patent claims were fully upheld – an 82.9% full or partial invalidation rate. (Fully invalidated: 67.5%, partly invalidated 15.4%.”

The paper also describes what a few specific provisions of the bill would do:

  • “Remedy eBay v. MercExchange:
  • Reverse the US Supreme Court’s ruling in Oil States v. Greene’s Energy Group:
  • Restore the pre-America Invents Act one-year grace period.
  • Limit the consideration of information disclosed to the PTO as ‘prior art.’
  • Restore the requirement of naming the best mode or preferred embodiment in a patent application.
  • Remedy adverse effects from Bilski v. Kappos, Association for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Laboratories, and Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank:
  • Restore and clarify patentability of certain scientific discoveries and software inventions.
  • Ensure judicial review and the right to de novo judicial review for patent validity determinations.
  • Remedy Impression Products v. Lexmark International:
  • Clarify property rights in the transferability of patents, including by licensing.
  • Strengthen the presumption that an issued patent is valid and protect patents against claims of invalidity, rather than the other way around”

The paper describes what the Balancing Incentives Act (BIA) would do:

“BIA would not abolish the PTAB as the Restoring America’s Leadership in Innovation Act (“RALIA,” below) would, but instead effectively give patent owners the option to have their patents challenged either in court or at the PTAB. (Relevant USC is amended: “The owner of the patent consents to the filing of the petition.” – Referring to a petition to have a case heard at the PTAB rather than in court.) This will naturally encourage PTAB to demonstrate its legitimacy without micromanaging USPTO or the PTAB. Patent owners will choose to continue to work with PTAB so long as they view it as fair and legitimate. This bill is compatible with RALIA (for which we also advocate sign-on) in that it presents a method to balance the PTAB’s authority with court authority while leaving all other provisions in RALIA untouched.”

On March 12,2024, James Edwards, Executive Director of Conservatives for Property Rights wrote a letter to Rep. Thomas Massie and rep. Marcy Kaptur expressing their support for HR 8134 (RALIA) because of the following:

“The Restoring America’s Leadership in Innovation Act would strengthen private property rights in one’s inventions and discoveries. The bill would broadly reverse the antipatent onslaught of recent years. RALIA would counter the ongoing assault by courts, Congress, the Administrative State, and patent-infringer special interests. The harm done to our patent system is reflected in the fact that global venture capital (VC) invested in the United States has fallen. The U.S. share of VC dropped from 82% in 2004 to 49% in 2021 as the Supreme Court’s eBay ruling spares patent infringers from injunction, the Alice-Mayo framework causes patent-eligible unpredictability, and enactment of the America Invents Act’s (AIA) led to infringers’ greater ability to cancel issued patents, game the litigation system, and disrupt commercialization of inventions. Also, patent licensing royalty rates have dropped over the same period.

In short, our patent system desperately needs the restoration of its traditional strengths…”

This letter was cosigned by the leaders of U.S. business & Industry Council, Tradition, Family, Property Inc., Les Government, Let Freedom Ring, AMAC Action, American for Limited Government, Taxpayers Protection Alliance, 60 Plus Association, Family PAC Federal, Tea Party Patriots Action, The Committee for Justice.

We need your help to enact critical patent reform legislation that will protect inventors’ rights and promote American innovation. As a member of US Inventor and Secretary of the board of the San Diego Inventors Forum, I understand the importance of safeguarding intellectual property and fostering an environment where inventors can thrive. We are calling on you to take action today by contacting your Congressional Representative and asking them to sign on as a co-sponsor and support both HR 8134, the Restoring America’s Leadership in Innovation Act (RALIA), and HR8132, the Balancing Incentives Act (BIA).

If you don’t how who your Congressional Representative is, you can find who he/she is using your zip code at this link. Then, you can call the U.S. House switchboard at (202) 224-3121 to get connected to the office of your Representative.  

Tags:, ,
Posted in Inellectual Property, Legislation | No Comments »

Are We Sufficiently Protecting our National Security?

Tuesday, February 6th, 2024

The answer is a resounding, “No!” For decades, we Americans have blithely ignored the long-term effects of allowing foreign investors or corporations to purchase the assets of our country in the form of companies, land, and mineral resources. We have been selling off our ability to produce wealth by allowing foreign corporations to purchase American companies, real estate, mines, and farm land. It is not just foreign companies buying our assets that is the problem ? it is the state-owned and massively subsidized companies of China that are the danger because China uses its state-owned enterprises as a strategic tool of the state. By pretending they are private companies abiding by free-market rules makes us the biggest chumps on the planet.

We didn’t let the USSR buy our companies, real estate, or farmland during the Cold War. We realized that we would be helping our enemy. This was pretty simple, common sense, but we haven’t had this same common sense when dealing with China.

Most foreign countries don’t allow 100% foreign ownership of their businesses, but sadly, the United States does not exercise the same prudence. We allow sales of U. S. companies to foreign companies unless there are national security issues, such as technologies that are utilized by our military and defense systems. We should be equally protective of our natural resources and farmland to ensure the health and welfare of all Americans.

In theory, we have the means to prohibit certain foreign investors or companies from acquiring U.S. assets that would pose a threat to our national security.  The Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS) is the inter-agency body charged with conducting national security reviews for certain foreign investments in the United States. CFIUS retains the authority to review a transaction that could result in foreign control of any U.S. business and has the power to regulate, approve and deny these acquisitions.  Australia, Canada, New Zealand and the United Kingdom are exempt from CFIUS reviews CFIUS submits an annual report to Congress and the most recent report was submitted on July 31, 2023.However, CFIUS has not been a member of the interagency Committee, so acquisitions of farmland were not reviewed with regard to impacting our national security.   

CFIUS reviews were expanded when the President  Bush signed H.R. 556, Foreign Investment and National Security Act of 2007(FINSA) on July 26, 2007 after the Dubai Ports World transaction passed through CFIUS without a formal investigation, leaving a surprised and angry Congress determined to avoid a repetition of that scenario.

The scope of CFIUS reviews was expanded when the Foreign Investment Risk Review Modernization Act of 2018 was passed by Congress on June 26, 2018. “The FIRRMA-amended CFIUS process maintains the President’s authority to block or suspend proposed or pending foreign “mergers, acquisitions, or takeovers” of U.S. entities, including through joint ventures, that threaten to impair the national security.”  It expanded the jurisdiction of CFIUS to address growing national security concerns over foreign exploitation of certain investment structures which traditionally have fallen outside of CFIUS reviews.

According to the IPM News article of June 27, 2023, “Chinese firms and investors own just over 383,934 acres in the U.S., less than the state of Rhode Island, and far less than how much Canada, Netherlands, Italy, the U.K. and Germany, in that order, each own. China is No. 18 on the list of foreign investors.” Sen. Jon Tester (D-Montana) who is skeptical of Chinese land ownership in the U.S., told NPR, “I don’t know that we know for sure all the foreign land that potentially is owned by Chinese individuals or folks controlled by the Chinese government…Any company and any individual living in China that comes and tries to buy land can be controlled by the Chinese Communist Party because they have that kind of control over their people.” Tester said.

What is enabling Chinese companies to go on a buying spree of American assets? Trade deficits – our ever-increasing trade deficit with China over the past 20 years is transferring America’s wealth to China and making millionaires out of many Chinese. In 1994, our trade deficit with China was $29.5 billion, and it grew to $83.8 by 2001 when China was granted “Most Favored Nation” status and admitted to the World Trade Organization. By 2004, it had doubled to $162.3 billion. After a slight dip in 2009 during the depths of the Great Recession, the trade deficit grew to a high of $418 billion in 2018. It dropped down in $352.8 billion in 2021 and $382 billion in 2022 due to the COVID Pandemic shutdowns and was $257 billion in 2023.

On January 26, 2017, Robert D. Atkinson, President of the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation, testified at a hearing on “Chinese Investment in the United States: Impacts and Issues for Policymakers” before the U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission.  He testified: “For many years, China has recycled the earnings from its large and sustained trade deficit with the United States into U.S. Treasury bills. But the last few years have seen a marked increase in the amount of inward foreign direct investment (FDI) from China to the United States, across a range of industries. While the underlying motivation for some of this investment is commercial, at least one-third is from Chinese state-owned enterprises, and it is likely that considerably more is guided and supported by the Chinese government, specifically targeting sectors that are strategically important for U.S. national security or economic leadership.”

As reported in The China Project article of  November 6, 2023, “Chinese ownership of American farmland came under increased scrutiny at both the national and local level after the Fufeng Group, producer of the flavor enhancer MSG, announced in November 2021 its intentions to invest near Grand Forks, North Dakota…Arkansas, Florida, Louisiana, Montana, North Dakota, Ohio and three more states have since passed legislation that restricts some land ownership for Chinese citizens or companies.

The Florida law, for example, bans Chinese owners from buying land “within 10 miles of any military installation or critical infrastructure facility” such as seaports, airports and wastewater treatment plants. The law doesn’t apply to purchases made before July of 2023, but current owners must register their property with the state by January 2024 or face fines and the risk of state authorities seizing their land.

Montana’s governor in May signed legislation that prohibits Chinese individuals and companies from buying farmland, critical infrastructure, and homes near military facilities. Other states have passed laws that put a cap on the number of acres Chinese buyers may own.”

However, on February 2, 2024, the Epoch Times reported, “A federal appeals court has issued a limited temporary block on a Florida law that bans citizens of China from buying property in the state that Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis said was needed to counteract the “malign influence” of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) in his state.”

It is probable that the prohibition of Chinese investors and companies buying agricultural land will have to be handled at the national level, instead of by states.  On January 5, 2024, the Congressional Research Service issued a brief, titled, “Selected Recent Actions Involving Foreign Ownership and Investment in U.S. Food and Agriculture” stating “Some Members of Congress have introduced a series of bills that would amend existing federal law to impose additional requirements on and review of foreign ownership of U.S. agricultural land and/or foreign investment in the U.S. food and beverage industry…Bills in the 118th Congress that would establish additional restrictions include H.R. 212, H.R. 344, H.R. 683/S. 168, H.R. 809, H.R. 840, H.R. 917/S. 369, H.R. 1448, H.R. 3357/S. 926, S. 684, and S. 1136.”

In addition, the House Select Committee on China released a bipartisan report on U.S.-China economic competition on Dec. 12, 2023 that “includes nearly 150 policy recommendations, of which a majority are supported by bipartisan members of the CSC, geared toward strengthening U.S. economic competitiveness vis-à-vis China.”

I am happy that legislators are finally waking up to the real dangers of our relationship with China. The Communist Chinese government is not our friend. China a geopolitical rival that has a written plan to become the Super Power of the 21st Century. Letting Chinese corporations acquire American companies, especially energy or technology-based companies is the biggest threat to rebuilding American manufacturing. Protecting our food supply is also an important component of protecting our national security. Therefore, we must prohibit Chinese acquisition of American farmland. 

Tags:,
Posted in General, Legislation, National security | No Comments »

US Inventor Conference Was an Amazing Success!

Tuesday, November 14th, 2023

US Inventor’s First Annual Conference was held on October 19th and 20th at the U.S. Patent office facility in Alexandria, VA to celebrate 10 years of work to achieve its mission “to restore the patent system to what it once was and to empower inventors to succeed.”  About 150 people attended all or part of the two-day event.  It was a resounding success and truly a remarkable event!

I had the pleasure of attending this event because I have been a board member of the San Diego Inventors Forum since 2014 and have been the liaison between our club and US Inventor, which is the only organization representing small inventors, businesses, and startups to enact change that supports inventors.

The conference was preceded by a day at the Capital where about 30 of us broke up into small groups to meet with the staff of Congressional Representatives in Congress to discuss how to fix the broken patent system. The afternoon included a networking event held in the Rayburn building Gold Room to which Congressional staffers were invited to see the new documentary, Innovation Race, directed by Luke Livingston.  Mr. Livingston attended the whole USI conference and handled the live streaming and recording of the event.

US Inventor founder, Paul Morinville, began the conference Friday morning by saying that he started walking the halls of Congress to advocate for Inventor Rights in 2013 after his aspirations of achieving both the Inventor’s Dream and the American Dream were cut short by the America Invents Act of 2011 (AIA) and establishment of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB). He was joined by Randy Landreneau in January 2014.  Paul incorporated US Inventor as a 501(c)(4) non-profit corporation on March 17, 2015 to put a stop to H.R. 9, the Innovation Act. After visiting the offices of every senator, the Innovation Act died in committee in  2016 during the 114th Congress (2015-2016). When Josh Malone joined them in 2017, it greatly helped their efforts.

Space doesn’t permit me to give a full recap of the conference, so I am providing highlights from my notes.  The panels both days were interspersed by the stories of inventors who have had their patents infringed or invalidated by the PTAB.  These stores were heartbreaking, and I could mot do justice to them in writing; you had to hear the stories to get the full impact. 

Next, former USPTO Director, Andrei Iancu, discussed “The Importance of Innovation”, saying in part that “patents and inventions ae part of the American fabric. We should stop and think what the world was like before the U.S. patent system…Every change that we use today was backed by a patent…Patents and the right to have patens are incorporated in the Constitution in Article 1, Section 8. He added that “without the patent system, it is very difficult to raise the money needed to produce and market new products.  There is an inextricable link between IP and innovation and without a secure patent system, innovation is stagnating…Inventors have always been the backbone of the American economy and American dream.”

Paul discussed “Where Did our Patent System Go?” He explained that even before the American Invents Act AIA) was passed in 2011, the Supreme Court decision of “Ebay vs. Merexchange” in 2006 “changed Intellectual property from a personal property to a ‘tort’ or “public franchise” and created a “public interest test’ in order for inventors to receive injunctive relief from infringement.” Injunctive Relief stops an infringer from making selling, or using a patent, but it has become difficult for an inventor to pass the “public interest test” against a large corporation that has saturated the market with the product based on the patent they infringed.

The AIA created the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB). It is a nonjudicial administrative tribunal within the USPTO. A panel of lawyers are appointed “Administrative Patent Judges” and granted bonuses to revoke patents.  There is no jury and no due process of law.  The PTAB is funded by fees of the petitioner (usually a large corporation that is infringing the patent they are challenging for review).  Currently, the PTAB is invalidating 84% of the patents they review.  

A panel discussion of “PTAB vs. Federal Court:  Comparing the Two Forums” followed that was moderated by Warren Tuttle.  Panelists were Rob Sterne, Adam Mosoff, and Molly Metz. A few comments were:

Adam Mosoff – “The PTAB hasn’t lived up to its expectations. I had told people that the ‘first to file’ vs. ‘first to invent’ and PTAB would be problematic. The PTAB didn’t put in any protections for inventor’s rights. PTAB was characterized as easier for people and faster, but they set up a system that was ultimately faster to lose rights.

Molly Metz – “I spent over $400,000 and it took four years, so it wasn’t cheaper or faster.” (Molly had share he heartbreaking story of her patent infringement and invalidation after Paul’s introduction.)

Rob Sterne – “We need a system that is really faster and fair for people.  The way PTAB law is applied isn’t anything like the way it was supposed to be.  It has put a real damper on investment and innovation in this country.”

The Friday afternoon session included a discussion of “Bleeding You Dry:  The Court’s Misuse of Injunctive” by Thomas Woolsten, founder of Mercexchange and main inventor of 30 patents. He said, “The current system provides strong incentives for patent infringement.  No patent of importance is going to get to the injunctive stage.”

The highlight of the afternoon was “The Great Debate: PREVAIL, PERA, and New Legislation.” Moderated by Paul Morinville.  The panelists were:  Judge Paul Michel, Scott McKeown, Rudy Fink, and Steve Daniels. Judge Michel said, “About 50% of American venture capital is now going overseas to China and other countries…The anti-patent lobby is very large and well-funded.” He supports PERA because “it takes the courts out of the issue of eligibility and solves 80-85% of the problems with patents.”

S. 2140: Patent Eligibility Restoration Act of 2023 (PERA) introduced by Senators Thomas Tillis (R-NC) and Christopher Coons (D-DE) on 6/22/2023 was discussed in my article “Inventor Rights Still Being Threatened.”

S. 2220: PREVAIL Act was introduced on Jul 10, 2023 by Senator Christopher Coons (D-DE) – “A bill to amend title 35, United States Code, to invest in inventors in the United States, maintain the United States as the leading innovation economy in the world, and protect the property rights of the inventors that grow the economy of the United States, and for other purposes.”

Friday’s event concluded with remarks from Judge Pauline Newman, followed by a networking cocktail reception.

There isn’t enough space in this article to permit a recap of the topics covered at the Saturday event. The following topics were discussed:

“Does ‘Any” mean ‘Any’? Ask Alice” presented by Robert Greenspoon.

Why and How 97% of IP Portfolio Owners Destroy Most of their Portfolios” discussed by panelists Evan Langdon, Jack Lu, and Russ Genet and moderated by Steve Taylor

“How to Survive the Patent System” discussed by Jeff Hardin, Josh Malone and Paul Bartkowski that was moderated by Eli Mazour.

“New Solutions for New Problems:  Freezing Assets of Online Infringers on Amazon, YouTube, Facebook, and the Internet” presented by Joel Rothman.

The afternoon concluded with a discussion of “Advocating for a Stronger Patent System” by panelists Paul Morinville, Molly Metz, Cliff Maloney, Justin Greiss, and Randy Landreneau.

An awards ceremony and dinner took place that evening at the Holiday Inn Carlyle in Alexandria, VA where attendees stayed. Awards presented were:  Michael Kintner: The Inventor; Molly Metz: The Advocate; John Murray: The Warrior; Jeff Hardin: The Veteran.

In closing, Paul said, “We are honored to have such a significant turnout for our first event and incredibly grateful to our members, speakers, and sponsors for making this event possible. We have so much work to do, and I hope the event, discussions, panels, and presentations allowed USI members to feel empowered and motivated to enact change.”

Tags:, ,
Posted in Inellectual Property, Innovation, Legislation, Patent Reform | No Comments »

« Older Entries