Archive for the ‘Legislation’ Category

« Older Entries
Newer Entries »

Inventor Rights Still Being Threatened

Tuesday, September 5th, 2023

During the 117th Congress (2021-2022), several bills were introduced with the purported purpose of restoring inventors’ rights and fixing some of the problems generated by that Act Leahy–Smith America Invents Act (AIA) of 2011. None of these bills were passed by both the House and Senate, and most didn’t even get out of committee for a vote. A few of these bills would have actually made matters worse, so it was a good thing they didn’t pass. Only one bill was supported by the top inventors’ group, US Inventor.

The bills not supported by US Inventor were:

S.2774 – Pride in Patent Ownership Act was introduced by Senator Patrick Leahy (D-VT) on  09/21/2021.  This bill looked good for either being passed by the Senate separately before Congress recesses for the holidays or passed by being attached to the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA). The NDAA is “must pass” legislation funding the military at a time when there are credible threats of wars around the world. Attaching the Pride in Patent Ownership Act to the NDAA means it would certainly have become law. Fortunately, neither of these predictions came true.

S. 2891, The Restoring the America Invents Act, introduced by and Patrick Leahy (D-VT) into the Senate on September 29 2021 and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary, but was not voted on by the Senate before the end of the 117th Congress.

HR 5902, The Clear Patents Act, introduced by Representative Darrell Issa (R-CA) on 11/05/21 to the House. This bill was also referred to the Committee on the Judiciary, but was not voted on by the House before the final recess at the end of 2022.

S.4734 – Patent Eligibility Restoration Act of 2022  was introduced by Senator Thomas Tillis (R-NC) on 08/02/2022.  This bill was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary, but was not voted on by the Senate before the end of the 117th Congress.

The only bill supported by US Inventor was:

HR 5874, Restoring America’s Leadership in Innovation Act of 2021 (RALIA), was introduced into the House by Representative Thomas Massie (R-KY) on 11/04/2021 and referred to the Subcommittee on Courts, Intellectual Property, and the Internet. US Inventor supported this bill because it was “designed to restore to Americans a patent system “as the Constitution of the United States originally envisioned it.”

Representative Massie’s press release stated, “The RALIA legislation restores to Americans a patent system as the Constitution of the United States originally envisioned it,” said Congressman Massie. “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.’  I am sad to say that this bill was also not voted on by the House before the end of the 117th Congress.

The above bills introduced in 2021 were discussed in more detail in my blog article, “Inventors Rights Must be Restored” published by Made in America Movement in January 2022.

What many people do not realize is that bills not passed by the end of the Congressional session, in this case the 117th, are considered “dead” and must be reintroduced in the session of the next Congress, which is now the 118th Congress (2023-2024).

Thus far, none of these bills have been reintroduced by their sponsors, but one of the bills introduced in the 117th Congress has been re-introduced recently.

S. 2140: Patent Eligibility Restoration Act of 2023  was introduced by Senators Thomas Tillis (R-NC) and Christopher Coons (D-DE) on 6/22/2023. The brief description states, “To amend title 35, United States Code, to address matters relating to patent subject matter eligibility, and for other purposes.”

The need for this bill was provided in the “Findings” section:

  1. “patent eligibility jurisprudence interpreting section 101 of title 35, United States Code, requires significant modification and clarification….
  • the Supreme Court of the United States and other courts created judicial exceptions to the wording of that section, thereby rendering an increasing number of inventions ineligible for patent protection…
  • Efforts by judges of district courts and courts of appeals of the United States to apply the exceptions described in paragraph (2) to specific circumstances have led to extensive confusion and a lack of consistency— throughout the judicial branch of the Federal Government and Federal agencies; and among patent practitioners…
  • Many judges of the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit and of various district courts of the United States have explicitly expressed the need for more guidance with respect to the meaning of section 101 of title 35…”

“Under this Act, and the amendments made by this Act, the state of the law shall be as follows:

(A) All judicial exceptions to patent eligibility are eliminated.

(B) Any invention or discovery that can be claimed as a useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any useful improvement thereof, is eligible for patent protection, except as explicitly provided in section 101 of title 35, United States Code, as amended by this Act, as described in subparagraphs (D) and (E) of this paragraph.”

The statements describing what the bill will do sound good at first reading, but the “devil is in the details” of subparagraphs (D) and (E), as well as the amendments to Section 3 of the bill – Patent Eligibility.

This bill was reviewed in detail during weekly Zoom meetings held by US Inventor for several weeks after the bill was introduced in June.  These reviewers included retired judges, patent attorneys, and inventors.  As a result of this intensive review, US Inventor released a policy paper, titled “PERA Starts by Making Nearly All Inventions Implemented in Software Patent Ineligible:” 

“PERA abrogates all judge-made exceptions, including the abstract idea in its preamble (however,

not in the law), yet it introduces new exceptions disqualifying entire swaths of technology as ineligible for patent protection. An invention is ineligible if:

‘‘(B)(i) Subject to clause (ii), a process that is substantially economic, financial, business, social, cultural, or artistic, even though not less than 1 step in the process refers to a machine or manufacture.’

Nearly any invention can be categorized as economic, financial, business, social, cultural, or artistic. Most inventions implemented in software are claimed as a process. This extraordinarily broad language means that inventions implemented in software are ineligible for patent protection right from the starting gate.” 

According to the U S Inventors end of the year report, “The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) has cancelled claims in 84% of the 2,500+ patents reviewed since 2011 and most inventors do not have a half a million dollars necessary to fund a legal defense.”

This is why US Inventor policy paper states, “PERA Must Remain a Vehicle for Section 101 Debate.

Judge-made law regarding Section 101 eligibility is severely restricting U.S. innovation, allowing our adversaries like China as well as others to take the lead in global innovation. This is severely damaging U.S. national and economic security.

Congress must fix Section 101 correctly. The influence of powerful lobbies must be leveled by arguing the merits of the legislation openly and transparently in Congress.

The authors of PERA must provide a clear and sound public policy justification for making such huge swaths of technologies ineligible for patent protection where there are no similar restrictions in other countries.

Once Congress agrees to a public policy position on Section 101, then the words of PERA must be precisely defined to ensure that the policy is effectuated in legislation, leaving no ambiguity for judge-made law to override it.”

The paper concludes, “For the foregoing reasons, US Inventor opposes PERA as written, but PERA should not die. It presents a valuable opportunity to initiate open and transparent debate in Congress so that the U.S. public policy regarding patent eligibility can be properly formed, and legislation can be crafted to effectuate that public policy.”

If you support patent rights you can sign the Inventors’ rights Resolution here.  You can also join US. Inventors as a supporting member here.  If you have the time, you can also attend US Inventor’s first annual conference in Washington, D.C. on October 19-21, 2023 to celebrate years 10 years of work.  There are over twenty confirmed speakers, and the plan is to bring you an event full of presentations, panel discussions, and plenty of networking opportunities. The tickets include access to all presentations, discussions, and informative opportunities, as well as access to event receptions, breakfasts, and dinner.  More Details and Register: www.usinventor.org/usi-conference

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

How Could we Reduce Inflation and Balance Foreign Trade & the Federal Budget?

Tuesday, August 1st, 2023

We are now nearing the end of the second year of high inflation, and many are wondering why has it been so hard for the Fed to kill inflation.  Could the Fed improve the efficiency of its inflation fighting and avoid causing a recession? Could it do so in a way that balances both foreign trade and the federal budget?

“Yes” is the answer given by one of my fellow members of the Coalition for a Prosperous American, John R. Hansen, PhD, Economic Advisor, The World Bank (retd.) and Founding Director of Americans Backing a Competitive Dollar (ABCD), He wrote me that he believes the Fed could do all of this plus fulfill its mandate of economic growth with stable prices more successfully – and brighten the future for all Americans, both now and for generations to come with only a small policy tweak.”

He explained that “each of America’s ten recessions since the late 1950s has been preceded by inflation and significant increases in the Fed Funds Rate (FFR). Higher interest rates and tighter credit obviously increase costs and reduce demand for American goods resulting in inflation. Reduced demand reduces both output from U.S. producers and growth. By increasing the cost of doing business, higher Fed interest rates force businesses to reduce output and fire workers, leading to recessions.”

In his opinion, “today’s Fed faces a key challenge because when the Fed raises the Fed Funds Rate, inflows of foreign-source money dilute the Fed’s efforts to reduce the availability and increase the cost of capital. This makes it harder for the Fed to control inflation. Also, excessive stocks of domestic credit tend to reduce the Fed’s ability to raise banks’ lending rates by normal margins.

He added, “When foreign speculators buy up dollars, they raise the dollar’s exchange rate. This makes foreign goods cheaper than those produced in America, destroying demand for American products both here and abroad. U.S. producers find it increasingly difficult to compete with foreign-made goods and many may go out of business.”

Dr. Hansen has developed a solution to moderate inflows of foreign money to make the Fed’s traditional inflation-fighting tools more effective. — a Market Access Charge (MAC) “on any purchase of U.S. dollar financial assets by a foreign entity or individual. As a one-time charge, the MAC would discourage short-term investors, overseas private investors, and return-sensitive official investors such as sovereign wealth fund managers from excessive speculation and trading in U.S. dollar assets.”

He believes that the Fed “can efficiently and effectively use the MAC as a tool to fix the undervaluation of foreign currencies against the dollar. Implementing the MAC could eliminate the U.S. budget deficit, sharply reduce the threat of future debt-ceiling crises, and increase resources available for important industrial policy initiatives, especially those related to national security such as chip manufacturing.”

Furthermore, he wrote that “implementing the MAC would markedly increase the Fed’s ability to control inflation with higher interest rates and tighter monetary policies. With the MAC in place, the Fed’s efforts would no longer generate the massive inflows of foreign-source money inflows that today are triggered by high U.S./foreign interest rate spreads.”

The MAC would be a small fee that would be collected by U.S. banks on all foreign-source money seeking entry to America’s financial markets. The fee, which would be adjusted periodically to eliminate the spread between higher average U.S. interest rates and lower average foreign interest rates, would sharply reduce the speculative gains of foreign-source money. Last year, $90 trillion worth came into America’s capital markets, which was about four times GDP!

Dr. Hansen’s latest calculations indicate that “a 2% MAC charge – about half the spread between U.S. and foreign interest rates that is drawing in foreign cash and making U.S. goods and workers too pricy to compete internationally – would generate about $1.8 trillion of new net revenues per year out of the pockets of foreign speculators – enough to eliminate the U.S. budget deficit and to allow America to start paying down its largest-in-the-world national debt.”

Such revenues would have fully covered the $1.4 trillion deficit for FY2022 with $400 billion left over to support important services, cut taxes, and/or pay down the national debt. Fewer Fed interest rate increases would lower the cost of borrowing for the government. Implementing the MAC tomorrow might not save America from defaulting on its debt this year, but doing so would greatly improve America’s fiscal position, sharply reduce the risk of a recession, stimulate economies of scale, reduce inflation, and reduce America’s growing debt.

Here are a few of the many benefits that America would enjoy if Congress were to approve this trade policy initiative – a policy based on 21st century realities, not 18th century theories.

  1. Reduce the incentives of foreign countries like China and Japan to manipulate the value of their currencies against the dollar.
  2. Increase domestic and foreign demand for Made-in-America goods, thereby creating at least 3-5 million well-paying middle-class jobs, mainly in manufacturing and associated sectors.
  3. Trigger domestic and foreign investments in American manufacturing that would increase output and productive efficiency.
  4. Generate about ten times as much Government revenue per year as import duties on merchandise trade currently generate. And unlike import duties, the MAC would be paid by foreigners, not by people living in America.
  5. Be far more effective than tariffs in reducing overall U.S. trade deficits with countries like China. Tariffs can be evaded rather easily with a large number of widely known tricks like shipping through third countries, rebranding, and under-invoicing.
  6. Make it possible for the U.S. Government to implement important national security, infrastructure, environmental protection, and social investments without raising taxes or increasing the public debt.
  7. Reducing America’s debt service burden would further increase the Government’s ability to invest in high priority programs such as skills training, childcare, and other initiatives that would help the average American and increase America’s productivity without increasing the public debt.
  8. By implementing the MAC, America could roughly double its current rate of economic growth. The MAC would stimulate domestic production and exports while reducing our excessive dependence on imports.

Dr. Hansen and the Coalition for a Prosperous America believe that the MAC would be sufficient to discourage foreign inflows of investment with no material impact on foreign direct investment in factories and other directly productive activities. The MAC or something like it is urgently needed. Implementing the MAC would greatly improve America’s fiscal position, sharply reduce the risk of a recession, stimulate economies of scale, reduce inflation, and reduce America’s growing debt.  Our top priority today should be to protect our national security to remain a free country to ensure the well-being and safety of our children and grandchildren in the future.  

Tags:,
Posted in Currency Misalignment/Munipulation, Economy, Legislation, Trade Policy | No Comments »

What Would be The Benefits of the ONSHORE Act of 2023?

Wednesday, July 12th, 2023

The COVID pandemic proved that we cannot rely on imports of products needed to protect the health and welfare of Americans. Offshoring of manufacturing left the U.S. vulnerable to supply chain disruptions. We cannot defend our country if the products needed by the military and defense industry become unavailable because of being sourced offshore, especially in China. It’s time for all Americans to wake up to the dangers of being dependent on other countries for manufacturers goods, especially one that has become a threat to our country.

Strengthening domestic manufacturing capabilities, especially for industries of the future, is critical for economic and national security. We must forge a new path by rebuilding American manufacturing to win the international competition for good jobs, sustained economic growth, and rebuild a strong, secure domestic supply chain if we want to remain a free country.

I am glad to see that Congress is finally paying some attention to this need:  On June 8, 2023, Senator Mark Kelly (D-AZ), Senator JD Vance (R-OH), and Senator Tom Cotton (R-AR) introduced S.1915 – ONSHORE Act of 2023, a bipartisan bill to boost domestic manufacturing and strengthen supply chains that will help bring critical supply chains back to America by assisting communities of all sizes with the site development needed to attract manufacturing facilities. 

The joint press release states: “The U.S. faces a shortage of shovel-ready sites with the necessary infrastructure and workforce for companies to quickly begin construction on new manufacturing facilities. The ONSHORE Act creates a Critical Supply Chain Site Development Grant Program within the Economic Development Administration, which would assist communities, including small towns and tribal communities, with site development to attract manufactures from critical industries to build new facilities in their area.” 

Senator Vance stated, “As our nation takes the necessary steps to reshore critical supply chains and spur innovation, everyone in America should reap the rewards This bill would deploy capital broadly to ensure the foundations of tomorrow’s industry and growth are laid in underdeveloped regions. If enacted, it will deliver good-paying jobs, build vibrant communities, and strengthen supply chains—in Ohio and around the country.” 
 
Senator Kelly stated, “As we work to bring manufacturing supply chains for critical industries from microchips to critical minerals back to America, we have to maximize this opportunity by making sure there are enough sites with the infrastructure and workforce needed for new facilities. For a lot of small towns and tribal communities, the biggest barrier to attracting investment is the cost of getting sites ready for development. We’re working to fix that, which will boost manufacturing and create good-paying jobs in every corner of our states and the country.” 
 
Senator Cotton stated, “We cannot rely on other countries like China for our essential technologies. The technologies of tomorrow should be tested, researched, and made in America. This legislation will help make the necessary investments in our communities to make that possible.”

So far, the OSHORE ACT has received enthusiastic support from the International Economic Development Council (IEDC), the Global Business Alliance, the Greater Phoenix Economic Council, the Arizona Commerce Authority, and JobsOhio..

Nathan Ohle, President & CEO of IEDC said, “The ONSHORE Act will provide communities with essential resources to aid in attracting supply chain manufacturers. Economic developers across the U.S. will welcome this new initiative and IEDC urges the swift passage and implementation of the ONSHORE Act.”

Nancy McLernon, president & CEO of the Global business Alliance, said, “Site readiness is a critical consideration for international companies planning major investments in the United States… and urges all Senators to support this measure and other policies that make it easier to invest in America.”  

Chris Camacho, President & CEO of the Greater Phoenix Economic Council said, “The availability of shovel-ready sites with the necessary infrastructure and skilled workforce is a crucial factor in attracting companies to invest in Greater Phoenix and bolster U.S. supply chains. This program ensures that strategic mega sites and regionally impactful locations are properly prepared for new industrial investment. With enhanced site-readiness, the United States will be better equipped to compete globally, foster the growth of critical industries, and ensure the production of essential products domestically.”

Sandra Watson President & CEO, Arizona Commerce Authority, said, “We applaud Senator Kelly for leading on this important legislation. This ONSHORE Act will significantly strengthen U.S. competitiveness for new manufacturing opportunities, bringing more jobs and investments to Arizona.”

J.P. Nauseef, JobsOhio president and CEO, said, “I applaud the introduction of the ONSHORE Act, which will help Ohio and the rest of the United States more fully capitalize on this generational opportunity by expanding the number of sites that are ready to support major development projects.”

I can see that basic infrastructure, such as road access or water and power utility hookups, is an important factor affecting where a new manufacturing facility is built, but there are so many abandoned manufacturing sites throughout the country that I question the need for the Economic Development Agency’s Critical Supply Chain Site Development Grant Program. There are also large retail stores, such as former K-Mart stores, that could be converted to manufacturing sites by remodeling and changing zoning. The redevelopment of these sites would provide good opportunities to revive the industrial base of states hard hit by offshoring, such as Michigan, Ohio, and North and South Carolina.

In my opinion, there is a greater need for a new type of Small Business Innovation grant program to fund establishing manufacturing plants to manufacture components and systems that are no longer made in the U.S. because of being offshored to China and other Asian countries.  This type of grant would also provide new industrial investment, including in rural and tribal communities, and regions with high unemployment.  These companies would help position the U.S. to compete against adversaries like China, boost domestic manufacturing, and build resilient supply chains. 

Priority for receiving such a grant should be given to proposals that would manufacture critical components and systems needed by our military and defense industrial base.  Semiconductors and batteries are not the only critical products that need to be onshored/reshored.  Components such as capacitors, resistors, inductors, transformers, connectors, and flex circuits also need to be returned to being made in the USA.

This kind of investment will better position the U.S. to compete against international competitors like China and the European Union and ensure more critical products are made in America.  

Tags:, , ,
Posted in Legislation, Made in America, Manufacturing | No Comments »

Congress Must Stop Abuse of De Minimis Imports

Tuesday, June 20th, 2023

When you order a product online without country-of-origin information being provided, the product may be sent directly to you by a company in a foreign country.  If the product is under $800 in value, it isn’t inspected by Customs & Border Protection (CBP) and no duties or tariffs are charged. How does this happen?

A White Paper, titled “Trade and Tariffs” on the website of the Coalition for a Prosperous America explains: “De minimis imports are the gateway for every fly-by-night foreign vendor to ship directly into the United States. When a package receives de minimis treatment, it arrives without the need of a customs broker or bond, without paying any tariffs or taxes, and without meaningful possibility of regulatory oversight.” [“de minimis” is Latin for “too trivial or minor to merit consideration.”]

The de minimis rule was added as Section 321 to the Tariff Act of 1930…The 1938 Congress set low-dollar thresholds for three different importation scenarios, assigning a $5 threshold for bonafide gifts and personal effects travelers brought with them, and a $1 de minimis for any other situation…There are three types of import situations covered by De minimis:

  1. ‘Bona fide gifts’ mailed to Americans from their friends and family abroad
  2. Articles accompanying travelers from abroad for household use
  3. A “catch all” anything else provision to ensure no undue burden was spent.”

The law’s opening line states its purpose: “to avoid expense and inconvenience to the Government disproportionate to the amount of revenue that would otherwise be collected.” It was meant to serve as an administrative tool to ensure that customs officers aren’t forced to do assessments on low-value goods which would end up costing the government more money than they would generate.”

“ For regular imports, the law requires importers to provide Customs & Border Protection (CBP) an advance manifest of the incoming cargo describing it. But de minimis shipments, including millions of e-commerce packages, typically arrive with no advance information. The information scrawled on the packages is often incomplete and unverifiable. CBP has to process a whopping 2 million of these shipments daily and does not have the capability to detect and seize illicit and dangerous goods.” Goods eligible for de minimis treatment enter the U.S. free of duties and taxes.

For most of Section 321’s history, the lowest threshold of $1 only rose to $5 by the 1990s. However, de minimis was increased to $200 by Congress in 1994, and in 2015, Congress raised the de minimis threshold to a whopping $800 after intense lobbying by express consignment companies like FedEx and UPS and e-commerce sites like Amazon and eBay. In comparison, China’s de minimis is 50 yuan, which is less than $8 USD.

The CPA paper states, “The predictable result is a major calamity putting U.S. producers and traditional retailers out of business and destroying jobs. Our permissiveness is also causing lawlessness at the ports, allowing a tidal wave of counterfeit and dangerous goods to flood in.”

Not only are U.S. companies and workers subjected to a new level of job-destroying competition but dangerous illicit drugs, such as fentanyl, and counterfeit goods are shipped directly to US consumers while evading detection.

In 2022, the U. S. had a trade deficit with China of $382.9 billion up from $353.4 billion in 2021, but down from a high of $418.2 billion in 2018. The question is:  If de minimis imports were counted, wouldn’t they increase our trade deficit with China?

The answer is “yes.”  On May 15, 2023, Jeff Ferry, CPA’s Economist, released an analysis that found that the impact of de minimis on the U.S. economy is large and getting larger.  Key findings were:

  • “Our new estimate puts de minimis China revenue last year at $187.9 billion.
  • The uncounted imports increase the actual 2022 U.S. goods trade deficit by 16% from $1.19 trillion to $1.38 trillion, representing some 8.3 million lost U.S. jobs.
  • De minimis imports are deeply damaging to U.S. manufacturing industry and U.S. brick and mortar retailers.
  • With the incursion of Chinese-owned retailers like Shein and Temu into the U.S. market, we may be witnessing a historic shift away from U.S.-owned e-commerce giants like Amazon.”

CPA has been urging Congress to fix the problem of de minimis by lowering the threshold back to $9 ($5, but adjusted for inflation). The good news is that some Senators and Congressional Representatives have listened to CPA’s statement of the problem and introduced bills that would partially rectify the problems caused by de minimis.

On Thursday, June 15, 2023, U.S. Representatives Earl Blumenauer (D-OR) and Neal Dunn (R-FL) introduced  the Import Security and Fairness Act in the House.  U.S. Senators Sherrod Brown (D-OH) and Marco Rubio (R-FL) introduced a companion bill of the same name into the Senate. The purpose of the bills is “to stop China and Russia from exploiting the de minimis threshold and require Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to collect more information on de minimis shipments.”

While these House/Senate companion bills don’t reduce the dollar value of de minimis, they restrict what countries are allowed to ship de minimis shipments.  The Blumenauer/Dunn House Act states:

‘‘(1) IN GENERAL. —An article may not be admitted free of duty or tax under the authority provided by subsection (a)(2)(C) if the country of origin of such article, or the country from which such article is shipped, is—

‘‘(A) a nonmarket economy country (as such term is defined in section 771(18)); and

‘‘(B) a country included in the priority watch list (as such term is defined in section 182(g)(3) of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C.32242(g)(3))).”

According to an article titled, “Is China a Non-Market Economy?” datedApril 2, 2019  by Daniel Griswold and Danielle Parks of the Mercatus Center at George Mason University,  “The US Department of Commerce currently labels 11 countries as NMEs: Belarus, Georgia, the Kyrgyz Republic, the People’s Republic of China, the Republic of Armenia, the Republic of Azerbaijan, the Republic of Moldova, the Republic of Tajikistan, the Republic of Uzbekistan, the Socialist Republic of Vietnam, and Turkmenistan. In the past, some countries designated as NMEs were then converted to market economies (MEs), such as Poland (1993), Russia (2002), and Ukraine (2006).” This means that imports from China would not be admitted free of duty or tax.

With regard to the priority watch list or “Section 182 of the Trade Act of 1974…requires the U.S. Trade Representative to identify countries that deny adequate and effective IP protections or fair and equitable market access to U.S. persons who rely on IP protection.” China is the county that most flagrantly violates U. S. Intellectual Property rights, so is most certainly on the watch list.

On Wednesday, June 14, 2023 Senators Bill Cassidy, (R-LA), Tammy Baldwin (D-WI) and JD Vance (R-OH) introduced the De minimis Reciprocity Act of 2023 “to stop Communist China and other countries from abusing U.S. trade laws that allow small dollar imports into the U.S. duty free.”

Senator Cassidy’s press release states, “The bill would bar Chinese exports from entry via the expedited “de minimis” channel and reduce the threshold for duty-free imports into the U.S. to an amount that matches the threshold our trade partners use, ensuring reciprocity and increasing transparency at our borders.”

Additionally, “The De Minimis Reciprocity Act would also:

  • Exclude untrustworthy countries from using the ‘trusted’ de minimis channel. 
  • Only allow express carriers to facilitate de minimis imports into the U.S. to help better at stop counterfeits and fentanyl at the border.
  • Require more information on every package entering the U.S.
  • Use the revenue proceeds to establish a fund for reshoring industry from China.” 

While China may be the most egregious in taking advantage of de minimis shipments, we also have trade deficits with India, Vietnam, South Korea, and many other countries.  I am sure that uncounted de minimis shipments from these other countries would increase our trade deficits for those countries also.   I personally would like to see a much simpler bill that incorporates CPA’s recommendation of reducing de minimis shipments to $9 for every country.  In my opinion, this is the only fair, long-term solution.    

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

Action on China or Yet Another Charade by Congress?

Tuesday, January 17th, 2023

On January 10, 2023, the House voted to pass a resolution “to create a select committee focused on U.S. competition with China, fulfilling a campaign promise Republicans made in the lead-up to the 2022 midterm elections.”

An article in The Hill, stated: “The select committee, chaired by Rep. Mike Gallagher (R-Wis.), will zero in on the Chinese Communist Party’s economic, technological and security progress and the strategic competition between Beijing and Washington. The resolution tasks the panel with investigating and submitting policy recommendations on those matters.” The Committee will be “made up of seven Republicans and five Democrats” and “has the authority to hold public hearings.”

The question that should be on everyone’s mind is — Will this Committee have any real impact when Congress has not taken any action on recommendations provided by the annual report they have received from the U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission for 20 years?.  Will this Committee just be another “dog and pony” show to demonstrate that Congress is taking the threat China poses to the U.S. more seriously?

For those of you who have never heard of such a Commission, it “was created on October 30, 2000 by the Floyd D. Spence National Defense Authorization Act of 2001, Pub. L. No. 106–398 (codified at 22 U.S.C. §7002) …” This was after China was granted “Most Favored Nation” status, now known as Permanent Normal Trade Relations (PNTR) and allowed to become a member of the World Trade Organization by President Clinton.

The stated “purpose of the Commission is to monitor, investigate, and report to Congress on the national security implications of the bilateral trade and economic relationship between the United States and the People’s Republic of China. “

The main duty of the Commission is to provide an annual report to Congress — “Not later than December 1 each year (beginning in 2002), the Commission shall submit to Congress a report, in both unclassified and classified form, regarding the national security implications and impact of the bilateral trade and economic relationship between the United States and the People’s Republic of China. The report shall include a full analysis, along with conclusions and recommendations for legislative and administrative actions, if any, of the national security implications for the United States of the trade and current balances with the People’s Republic of China in goods and services, financial transactions, and technology transfers…”

Each report was required to include full discussion of key factors of the U.S.-China relationship that are very comprehensive.  The following briefly summarizes the key factors:

(A) “The role of the People’s Republic of China in the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and other weapon systems…”

(B) “The qualitative and quantitative nature of the transfer of United States production activities to the People’s Republic of China, including the relocation of manufacturing, advanced technology and intellectual property, and research and development facilities…”

(C) “The effects of the need for energy and natural resources in the People’s Republic of China on the foreign and military policies of the People’s Republic of China, the impact of the large and growing economy of the People’s Republic of China on world energy and natural resource supplies, prices, and the environment…”

(D) “Foreign investment by the United States in the People’s Republic of China and by the People’s Republic of China in the United States…”

(E) “The military plans, strategy and doctrine of the People’s Republic of China…and the implications of such objectives and trends for the national security of the United States.”

(F) “The strategic economic and security implications of the cyber capabilities and operations of the People’s Republic of China. “

(G) “The national budget, fiscal policy, monetary policy, capital controls, and currency management practices of the People’s Republic of China, their impact on internal stability in the People’s Republic of China, and their implications for the United States.”

(H) “The drivers, nature, and implications of the growing economic, technological, political, cultural, people-to-people, and security relations of the People’s Republic of China’s with other countries, regions, and international and regional entities…”

(I) “The compliance of the People’s Republic of China with its commitments to the World Trade Organization, other multilateral commitments, bilateral agreements signed with the United States, commitments made to bilateral science and technology programs, and any other commitments and agreements strategic to the United States (including agreements on intellectual property rights and prison labor imports), and United States enforcement policies with respect to such agreements.”

(J) “The implications of restrictions on speech and access to information in the People’s Republic of China for its relations with the United States in economic and security policy, as well as any potential impact of media control by the People’s Republic of China on United States economic interests.”

(K) “The safety of food, drug, and other products imported from China…”

The report was also required to “include recommendations for action by Congress or the President, or both, including specific recommendations for the United States to invoke Article XXI (relating to security exceptions) of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994 with respect to the People’s Republic of China, as a result of any adverse impact on the national security interests of the United States. “

The 2022 Annual Report to Congress was submitted on November 15, 2022 to Patrick Leahy
President Pro Tempore of the U.S. Senate and Nancy Pelosi, Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives. “The Commission conducted seven public hearings, taking testimony from 74 expert witnesses from government, the private sector, academia, think tanks, research institutions, and other
backgrounds.”

This report contained the following chapters:

Chapter 1 – CCP Decision-Making and Xi Jinping’s Centralization of Authority

Chapter 2 – U.S.-China Economic and Trade Relations

  • Section 1 – U.S.-China Economic and Trade Relations
  • Section 2 – Challenging China’s Trade Practices
  • Section 3 – China’s Energy Plans and Practices
  • Section 4 – U.S. Supply Chain Vulnerabilities and Resilience

Chapter 3 – U.S.-China Security and Foreign Affairs

  • Section 1 – Year in Review: Security and Foreign Affairs
  • Section 2 – China’s Cyber Capabilities: Warfare, Espionage, and Implications for the United States
  • Section 3 – China’s Activities and Influence in South and Central Asia

Chapter 4 – Taiwan

Chapter 5 – Hong Kong

The report made 39 very specific recommendations for Congressional consideration to address the key factors covered in the above chapters of the report. The Executive Summary states: “The Commissioners agreed that ten of these recommendations, which appear on page 10, are the most important for congressional action.” However, the concluding comment of the Executive Summary states: “There remains a gap between America’s growing recognition of the challenges China presents and our responses to date in dealing with them. The purpose of this report is to assess recent developments and to recommend a set of actions that Congress can consider to help meet the challenges, and seize the opportunities they present.”

Space doesn’t permit considering the ten most important recommendations, but I will at quote the shortest recommendation as an example:

#7. “. Congress create an authority under which the president can require specific U.S. entities or U.S. entities operating in specific sectors to divest in a timely manner from their operations, assets, and investments in China, to be invoked in any instance where China uses or threatens imminent military force against the United States or one of its allies and partners.”

I’ve wondered for years if any Congressional Representative actually read the annual report because I never saw any actions taken by Congress with regard to the recommendations I read in the reports of 2008, 2011 and 2016 when I was writing my three books. It seems to me that the new select Committee on China should review the Commission’s 2022 report and propose legislation to act on the recommendations of the report instead of starting all over with holding hearings.

Our national security is at stake, and we don’t have time to “start from scratch” with a new committee conducting hearings to replicate the work that has already been done by the U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission. It would be a far better service to our country to have Congress actually take action to pass legislation recommended by the Commission to protect our country from the plans of China to destroy our country economically and militarily to become the “super power” of the 21st Century.

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

Inventors’ Rights under Threat Again

Monday, December 12th, 2022

Inventor Rights are being threatened by the Pride in Patent Ownership Act, S.2774, sponsored by Sen. Leahy, Patrick J. (D-VT).  Sen. Leahy was the co-sponsor of the America Invents Act of 2011 that adversely changed the patent system from the best in the world to one that has eroded inventors’ rights.

The bill is looking good for either being passed by the Senate separately before Congress recesses for the holidays or passed by being attached to the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA). The NDAA is “must pass” legislation funding the military at a time when there are credible threats of wars around the world. Attaching the Pride in Patent Ownership Act to the NDAA means it would certainly become law.

“This bill requires disclosure of certain patent-related information, including information about ownership and funding. Under the bill, if a foreign or domestic governmental entity provides funding for fees related to a patent application or for paying an attorney (or patent agent) to prosecute the patent application, the application must disclose the amount and source of such funding.

Similarly, if any governmental entity provides funding for paying a patent’s maintenance fees or for paying an attorney (or patent agent) to submit such maintenance fees, the patent owner must submit a statement disclosing the amount and source of such funding.

The bill also requires patent owners to record information about the ownership of a patent with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO). Patent owners must also update this information when certain rights or interests in the patent have been conveyed to another individual or entity. A patent owner may not receive increased monetary damages for infringement of that patent that occurred while the owner was out of compliance with this ownership information recording requirement.”

This bill doesn’t sound as harmful at first glance, but a closer examination shows just how harmful it is.  As a board member for the San Diego Inventors Forum, I am the liaison between our group and the national organization US Inventor, Inc., an inventor organization in Washington D.C. that advocates strong patent protection for inventors and startups.

Last week’s newsletter stated: “This bill would make gargantuan penalties for not registering a change in patent ownership in a timely enough manner. The patent owner would lose the ability to collect increased damages for willful infringement. Increased damages are about all that remain to discourage the theft of patented technologies.

The bill would also let the infringer off if the mistake in registering is considered to have been done with the intent to deceive, which every opposing attorney will argue and make you spend more time and money that you don’t have. There are other angles on this bill, like giving Big Tech an early heads up on what patents to attack using the PTAB.”

Paul Morinville, former president and founder of US Inventor wrote an article published on October 12, 2022 by IP Watchdog , titled, “The Pride in Patent Ownership Act is Big Tech Boondoggling”

“The Pride in Patent Ownership Act requires those who acquire patents to publicly register their ownership assignments with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) within 120 days. Thus, it serves to identify potential patent infringement plaintiffs.

If the patent holder misses the 120-day deadline, this bill would make gargantuan penalties for not registering a change in patent ownership in a timely enough manner. The patent owner would lose the ability to collect increased damages for willful infringement. Increased damages are about all that remain to discourage the theft of patented technologies.

The bill would also let the infringer off if the mistake in registering is considered to have been done with the intent to deceive, which every opposing attorney will argue and make you spend more time and money that you don’t have. There are other angles on this bill, like giving Big Tech an early heads up on what patents to attack using the PTAB.”

He explains, “Patent infringement is about stealing technology protected by a patent – it is not about who owns the patent. Because patent applications are made public by the USPTO, fair notice is given to would-be-thieves that an invention is protected by a patent.

The patent holder is irrelevant to an infringer’s decision to steal an invention, so identifying the owner can only lead to gamesmanship, especially if the patent holder is too small to defend themselves”

He asks, “Why is Congress pushing the Pride in Patent Ownership Act through by attaching it to the NDAA? His answer: “Identifying future plaintiffs and gaming the system so Big Tech can steal patented inventions unfettered is the real reason behind the Pride in Patent Ownership Act.”

He adds, “What really matters to Big Tech incumbents is that a well-placed invention can disrupt their multibillion dollar markets and that disruption is a threat to their relevance in that market. A little guy with a big idea can truly threaten the very existence of their monopolies. Think back to Google and how their patented search algorithm sent the search icons of the day, Yahoo and Alta Vista, into the dustbin of history.”

He explained that the Supreme Court decision on” eBay v. MercExchange opened the floodgates to willful infringement by effectively eliminating injunctive relief – the ability to take the invention away from an infringer. In eBay’s public interest test, a patent holder must prove that they have a product on the market and the ability to distribute the product at the level of the infringer.

But if Big Tech steals the invention and, by leveraging their huge customer base, existing infrastructure, and endlessly deep pockets, massively commercializes the invention, no small entity will be able to pass the eBay test.

Treble damages stand as the only remaining deterrent to willful infringement. But the Pride in Patent Ownership Act will eliminate treble damages if you make an administrative error.”

Remember that besides changing our patent system from a “first to invent” to a “first to file,” the America Invents Act also created the Patent Trial and Review Board (PTAB) that has nearly destroyed inventors’ rights.  According to the U S Inventors end of the year report, “The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) has cancelled claims in 84% of the 2,500+ patents reviewed since 2011 and most inventors do not have a half a million dollars necessary to fund a legal defense.”

We don’t need another bill taking away the last right that inventors have to protect their patents.

I urge you to take the time to call the Washington office of your Senators and tell them that the Pride in Patent Ownership Act is bad for American innovation, startups, and inventors.

When you call, you could say, “My name is _____ and I am a concerned constituent. The Pride in Patent Ownership Act is bad for American Innovation. It creates an unthinkably huge penalty for a clerical error in registering patent ownership. It provides the attorneys of huge corporations with more arguments to use against American inventors and startups. It creates another barrier for inventors and startups. It will help Big Tech gain more power and will make it harder to compete with China. 

Senator _____ needs to oppose The Pride in Patent Ownership Act including any effort to amend it into the National Defense Authorization Act. This is important for the future of America. Tell your Senators to oppose this bill.”

If they want to know more, tell them to contact the current president of US Inventor, Randy Landreneau at Randy@USInventor.org.”

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

Would H.R.3666 – STRONGER Patents Act of 2019 be Beneficial to Inventors?

Tuesday, March 10th, 2020

On July 10, 2019, H.R. 3666, the “STRONGER Patents Act of 2019,” was introduced in Congress and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary and the Committee on Energy and Commerce. The purpose of the Act is “To strengthen the position of the United States as the world’s leading innovator by amending title 35, United States Code, to protect the property rights of the inventors that grow the country’s economy.”

This bill is a reintroduction of the Stronger Patents Act of 2017 that never got out of committee.  It has a long list of bi-partisan co-sponsors:  Rep. Stivers (R-OH), Rep. Mr. Foster (D-IL), Rep. McClintock (R-CA), Rep. Velázquez (D-NY), Rep. Babin (R-TX), Rep. Burgess (R-TX), Rep. Hill (R-AK), Rep. Huizenga (R-MI), Rep. Joyce (R-OH), Rep. King (R-NY), Rep. Norman (R-SC), Rep. Watson Coleman (D-NJ), Rep. Suozzi (D-NY), Rep. Peters (D-CA), Rep. Gosar (R-AZ), and Rep. Davidson (R-OH).

The “Findings of Congress” in the Act make several points similar to those made in the “Findings of Congress” for H.R. 5478, the Inventor Rights Act, regarding the importance of patents as “the foundation for the exceptional innovation environment in the United States” and “an essential part of the country’s economic success.” It includes reference to the fact that “strong patent protection improves the chances of success for small companies and increases their chances of securing financing from investors.”

Of particular note, the “Findings” state that “unintended consequences of the comprehensive 2011 [America Invents Act] reform of patent laws are continuing to become evident, including the strategic filing of post-grant review proceedings to depress stock prices and extort settlements, the filing of repetitive petitions for inter partes and post-grant reviews that have the effect of harassing patent owners, and the unnecessary duplication of work by the district courts of the United States and the Patent Trial and Appeal Board;”

This “Finding” refers to the abuse of invalidating patents by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board mentioned in my blog article of February 12th about the Inventor Rights Act.

In addition, the “Findings” point out that “efforts by Congress to reform the patent system without careful scrutiny create a serious risk of making it more costly and difficult for legitimate innovators to protect their patents from infringement, thereby weakening United States companies and the United States economy.”

The Stronger Patents Act of 2019 is much more complex that the simple one-page bill for the Inventor Rights Act.  Since I am not a lawyer, I do not have the legal expertise to analyze each of the specific clauses of the Act.  However, I will highlight certain sections that are particularly beneficial to inventor rights and attempt to correct specific problems created by the America Invents Act of 2011.

For example, in “SEC. 102. Inter partes review,” the proposed amendments would help reduce the invalidation of patents that is now occurring in PTAB cases. The bill states:

“(A) each challenged claim of a patent, or claim proposed in a motion to amend, shall be construed as the claim would be construed under section 282(b) in an action to invalidate a patent, including by construing each such claim in accordance with—

(i) the ordinary and customary meaning of the claim as understood by a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains; and

(ii) the prosecution history pertaining to the patent; and

(B) if a court has previously construed a challenged claim of a patent or a challenged claim term in a civil action to which the patent owner was a party, the Office shall consider that claim construction.”

The “Burden of proof.—Section 316(e) of title 35, United States Code, is amended to read as follows:

(1) PRESUMPTION OF VALIDITY.—The presumption of validity under section 282(a) shall apply to a previously issued claim that is challenged during an inter partes review under this chapter.

(2) BURDEN OF PROOF.—In an inter partes review instituted under this chapter, the petitioner shall have the burden of proving a proposition of unpatentability of a previously issued claim by clear and convincing evidence.”

One of the important amendments in Sec. 103. Post Grant Review, adds the following new subsection: “(d) Persons that may petition.—

(2) NECESSARY CONDITIONS.—A person may not file with the Office a petition to institute a post-grant review of a patent unless the person, or a real party in interest or privy of the person, demonstrates—

(A) a reasonable possibility of being—

(i) sued for infringement of the patent; or

(ii) charged with infringement under the patent; or

(B) a competitive harm related to the validity of the patent.”

Two of the amendments to SEC. 104. Composition of post-grant review and inter partes review panels, amend Section 6(c) of title 35, United States Code as follows:

“(1) IN GENERAL.—Each appeal, derivation proceeding, post-grant review, and inter partes review shall be heard by at least 3 members of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, who shall be designated by the Director.

(2) INELIGIBILITY TO HEAR REVIEW.—A member of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board who participates in the decision to institute a post-grant review or an inter partes review of a patent shall be ineligible to hear the review.”

SEC. 105. Reexamination of patents amends the process of requesting a reexamination, while SEC. 106. Restoration of patents as property rights states is amended to provide injunctive relief stating:

“(b) Injunction.—Upon a finding by a court of infringement of a patent not proven invalid or unenforceable, the court shall presume that—

(1) further infringement of the patent would cause irreparable injury; and

(2) remedies available at law are inadequate to compensate for that injury.”

One of the problems that this Act addresses is the diversion of fees paid to the USPTO. Currently funds can be diverted to fund other agencies and cover other government expenses.  By this Act, SEC. 107. Elimination of USPTO fee diversion, clause regarding  (a) Funding.—Section 42 of title 35, United States Code, is amended as follows:

“(1) IN GENERAL.—Fees authorized in this title or any other Act to be charged or established by the Director shall be collected by the Director and shall be available to the Director until expended to carry out the activities of the Patent and Trademark Office.”

Item “(2) ESTABLISHMENT.—There is established in the Treasury a revolving fund to be known as the ‘United States Patent and Trademark Office Innovation Promotion Fund’.”

I particularly support the addition of SEC. 109. Assisting small businesses in the U.S. patent system, which states in part:

“(b) Small Business Administration report.—Not later than 1 year after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Small Business Administration, using existing resources, shall submit to the Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship of the Senate and the Committee on Small Business of the House of Representatives a report analyzing the impact of—

(1) patent ownership by small business concerns; and

(2) civil actions against small business concerns arising under title 35, United States Code, relating to patent infringement.

(c) Expansion of patent pilot program in certain district courts.—

(1) IN GENERAL.—Not later than 180 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Director of the Administrative Office of the United States Courts shall designate not fewer than 6 of the district courts of the United States that are participating in the patent cases pilot program established under section 1 of Public Law 111–349 (28 U.S.C. 137 note) for the purpose of expanding that program to address special issues raised in patent infringement suits against individuals or small business concerns.

(2) PROCEDURES FOR SMALL BUSINESSES.—Not later than 2 years after the date of the enactment of this Act, each district court designated under paragraph (1) shall develop procedures for expediting cases in which an individual or small business concern is accused of patent infringement.

While this bill addresses many of the problems caused for the America Invents Act of 2011, it does not address the most egregious provision of that Act; namely, changing our patent system from a “first to invent” to a “first to file” system.  This change has done the most damage to the individual inventor or small business entity.  While a provisional patent that is good for one year is relatively inexpensive, it is expensive and time consuming to pursue obtaining a non-provisional patent (3-5 years average).  Individual inventors have to be extremely cautious not to reveal information on their technology to prevent others from being first to file a patent for the technology they invented. 

Because of the complexity of this bill, I don’t think it has any greater chance of getting out of committee to be voted on by the whole of Congress this year than the Stronger patent Act of 2017. In fact, it may have less chance in the Democrat-controlled House with many more Republican than Democrat co-sponsors. In my opinion, I think the simple, one-page Inventor Rights Act has a much better chance of being brought to the House floor for a vote this year, and it will restore the rights of inventor to their patents.

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

H.R. 5478 would Protect Inventors Rights

Tuesday, February 11th, 2020

On December 18, 2019, H.R. 5478 was introduced by introduced by Representatives Danny K. Davis (D-IL) and Paul A. Gosar, D.D.S. (R-AZ), and on January 28, 2020, it was referred to the Subcommittee on Courts, Intellectual Property, and the Internet. This Act that would restore patent protection for inventors and mitigate a generation of laws, regulations, and court decisions discouraging innovation by failing to secure to inventors the exclusive rights to their discoveries.

It is crucial that this Act be passed this year because our patent system is in crisis. The text of the Act states “Recent changes to patent laws and procedures and Supreme Court decisions have adversely affected inventors such that the promise of Article 1, section 8 of the Constitution of ‘securing for limited times to inventors the exclusive right to their discoveries’ is no longer attainable.”  The biggest change to the U. S. patent system was made by the America Inventors Act of 2011,  

The Act states that “Inventors are denied the fundamental right to ‘exclude others’ by the Supreme Court’s 2006 decision in eBay Inc. v. MercExchange, LLC.” Thus, inventors have lost their injunctive rights granted by the Constitution.  It also states that “Inventors were stripped of the right to file suit in their own judicial district by the Supreme Court’s 2017 decision in TC Heartland LLC v. Kraft Foods Group Brands LLC.”

Imagine if you invested in a house, moved in, started to enjoy it, and then had squatters arrive, whom you can’t legally kick out. Yes, you could charge them rent, but if you can’t kick them out, they have no incentive to pay! They would just keep squatting and living in your house for free. That’s what has happened to our patent system.

The ability to stop others from infringing on inventor’s patent rights was what helped big tech companies years ago. Amazon never would have existed without Jeff Bezos’ patent for “the one click purchase” that he licensed to Apple to use for their app store.  Amazon and Microsoft ere helped to grow by their patent licensing revenue.

Now, large companies are stealing patents and inventors can’t stop them from using the technology. These large corporations are choosing to spend years in court in a process called “efficient infringement,” by paying legal fees to harm new innovation by inventors instead of paying fair licensing royalties to grow the new innovation. The inventors have to incur extensive legal fees to protect their patents, which often bankrupts them if they can even afford to initiate a lawsuit.

  While American innovation is faltering to grow here, China has out legislated America, (learning from our mistakes by mandatory licensing and punitive damages on intentional infringement to quickly grow innovation. Their strong patent legislation is growing their economy exponentially. They now have a billion dollar start up every three days in crucial fields like AI, 5G, and other new technologies, while in America we have none.

Instead, we only have large USA corporations stealing innovation from small companies, then bankrupting them in Patent Trial and Review Board (PTAB) trials by judges appointed by the USPTO at a rate of around 86%.

For further information on the patent crisis, you may watch the trailer for the documentary Invalidated: The Shredding of the U.S. Patent System  The full version is available on Amazon and iTunes.

Attempts to undo the damage of the America Invents Act of 2011 and Supreme Court decisions isn’t new.  There were three bills related to patents/inventor rights were introduced in the 115th Congress (2017-2018), but they never got out of committee for a vote on the House floor:

H.R.6557, Inventor Protection Act – “To amend title 35, United States Code, to restore patent rights to inventors, and for other purposes.” It was designed to restore patent protection for inventors by reversing a generation of laws and regulations.  (Sponsored by Rep. Dana Rohrbacher, R-CA)

S.1390, Stronger Patents Act of 2017 – A bill to strengthen the position of the United States as the world’s leading innovator by amending title 35, United States Code, to protect the property rights of the inventors that grow the country’s economy. (Sponsored by Sen Chris Coons (D-DE)

H.R.6264 – Restoring America’s Leadership in Innovation Act of 2018 – A bill “to promote the leadership of the United States in global innovation by establishing a robust patent system that restores and protects the right of inventors to own and enforce private property rights in inventions and discoveries, and for other purposes.” (Sponsored by Rep. Thomas Massie (R-KY)

H.R 5478 is a simple bill that would protect inventor’s rights. The main provisions of H.R. 5478 are:

“SEC. 3. Inventor protections.

(a) Inventor-Owned patent. —Section 100 of title 35, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:

(k) The term ‘inventor-owned patent’ means a patent with respect to which the inventor of the invention claimed by the patent or an entity controlled by that inventor—

(1) is the patentee; and

(2) holds all ‘substantial rights.’

(b) Inventor-Owned patent protections.—Chapter 32 of title 35, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new section:

§ 330. Inventor protections

(a) Protection from post issuance proceedings in the united states patent and trademark office. —The United States Patent and Trademark Office shall not undertake a proceeding to reexamine, review, or otherwise make a determination about the validity of an inventor-owned patent without the consent of the patentee.

(b) Choice of venue. —Any civil action for infringement of an inventor-owned patent or any action for a declaratory judgment that an inventor-owned patent is invalid or not infringed may be brought in a judicial district—”

As the findings cited in the Act state, “Inventors have contributed significantly to innovation in the United States and their continued dedication to inventing and sharing solutions to modern technical challenges is essential for the United States to maintain leadership in the global economy.” It is crucial for inventors to be able to have some assurance that the rights to their patents will be reviewed in a consistent manner, so that they will be able to secure investors and get their product into the marketplace.

Josh Malone, volunteer advocate and inventor of top selling Bunch O Balloons emailed me, “Our patent system was intended to incentivize individual inventors but has recently been captured by trillion-dollar corporations. Small businesses have virtually no chance when it costs tens of millions of dollars and takes a decade or more to bring an invention thief to justice. Inventors need to make their voices heard by contacting their Senators and Representatives to tell them to repair our innovation system by passing the Inventor Rights Act.”

In order to ensure that H.R. 5478 gets out of committee review and is voted upon by Congress, more co-sponsors are needed. Please urge your Congressional Representative to co-sponsor H.R. 5478, which would restore patent protection for inventors and mitigate the laws, regulations, and court decisions that have discouraged innovation by failing to secure to inventors the exclusive rights to their discoveries.

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

Baldwin-Hawley Act Would Fix Overvalued U.S. Currency Problem

Tuesday, September 3rd, 2019

The Baldwin-Hawley Senate Bill, S.2357, titled the “Competitive Dollar for Jobs and Prosperity Act” was introduced by Sen. Tammy Baldwin (D-WI) and Josh Hawley (R-MO) on July, 31, 2019. The purpose of the Bill is “To establish a national goal and mechanism to achieve a trade-balancing exchange rate for the United States dollar, to impose a market access charge on certain purchases of United States assets, and for other purposes.”

This Bill is the legislative vehicle for the Market Access Charge (MAC) first proposed in a paper titled, “The Threat of U.S. Dollar Overvaluation: How to Calculate True Exchange Rate Misalignment & How to Fix It” released on July 11, 2017 by the Coalition for a Prosperous America and written by Michael Stumo (CEO), Jeff Ferry (Research Director) and Dr. John R. Hansen, a former Economic Advisor for the World Bank, CPA Advisory Board member, and founding  Editor of Americans Backing a Competitive Dollar (ABCD).

The paper explained the problem of the dollar overvaluation, showed how to accurately calculate the dollar’s misalignment against trading partner currencies, and proposed a solution to this serious threat to America’s future by means of a Market Access Charge (MAC). Dr. Hansen’s proposal was “to initiate the MAC with a 0.5% charge “on any purchase of U.S. dollar financial assets by a foreign entity or individual…As a one-time charge, the MAC will discourage would-be short-term investors, many of whom hold dollars or dollar-denominated securities overnight or even for minutes for the sake of a tiny profit.

The MAC rate would operate on a sliding scale, geared to the value of the trade deficit as a percentage of GDP. The MAC tax would rise if the trade deficit rose, and fall as the trade deficit falls… Most importantly, the MAC would have a substantial impact on the dollar’s value, moving it gradually and safely to a trade-balancing exchange rate and keeping it there, regardless of what other countries do. If the trade deficit goes to zero, so would the MAC.”

In an email to supporters on August 13, 2019, Dr. Hansen wrote, “A major milestone has just been reached in the battle to kill the U.S. trade deficit, stop the offshoring of U.S. industry, and put millions of Americans to work at well-paying jobs…The bill’s presentation to the Senate is indeed a major milestone – but only one of many that lie between where we are today and the bill’s ultimate passage. You support and advice would be most welcome as the process moves forward.”

The Bill’s summary cites the following ”Findings” by Congress:

 “(1) The strength, vitality, and stability of the United States economy and, more broadly, the effectiveness of the global trading system are critically dependent on an international monetary regime of exchange rates that respond appropriately to eliminate persistent trade surpluses or deficits by adjusting to changes in global trade and capital flows.

(2) In recent decades, the United States dollar has become persistently overvalued, in relation to its equilibrium price, because of excessive foreign capital inflows from both public and private sources.

(3) Countries with persistent trade surpluses maintain or benefit from undervalued currencies over a long period of time. As a result, those countries overproduce, underconsume, and excessively rely on consumers in countries with persistent trade deficits for growth. Those countries also export their unemployment and underemployment to countries with persistent trade deficits.

(4) Countries with persistent trade deficits, including the United States, absorb the overproduction of countries with persistent trade surpluses, thereby reducing domestic wages, manufacturing output and employment, economic growth, and innovation.

(5) The United States possesses fiscal and monetary tools to pursue national economic goals for employment, production, investment, income, price stability, and productivity. However, exchange rates that do not adjust to balance international trade can frustrate the achievement of those goals. The United States does not have a tool to manage exchange rates in the national interest.”

The Bill defines a “United States asset” as “(i) a security, stock, bond, note, swap, loan, or other financial instrument—

(I) the face value of which is denominated in United States dollars;

(II) that is registered or located in the United States; or

(III) that is an obligation of a United States person;

(ii) real property located in the United States;

(iii) any ownership interest in an entity that is a United States person;

(iv) intellectual property owned by a United States person; and

(v) any other asset class or transaction identified by the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve as trading in sufficient volume to cause a risk of upward pressure on the exchange rate of the United States dollar.

It excludes:  “(i) a good being exported from the United States; or (ii) currency or noninterest bearing deposits.”

In the above mentioned paper, Dr. Hansen proposed that the MAC to be “a 0.5% charge on any purchase of U.S. dollar financial assets by a foreign entity or individual…As a one-time charge, the MAC will discourage would-be short-term investors, many of whom hold dollars or dollar-denominated securities overnight or even for minutes for the sake of a tiny profit. The MAC rate would operate on a sliding scale, geared to the value of the trade deficit as a percentage of GDP. The MAC tax would rise if the trade deficit rose, and fall as the trade deficit falls…”

The Balwin-Hawyley Bill stipulates that “On and after the date that is 180 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, there shall be imposed a market access charge on each covered buyer in a covered transaction…The Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System shall establish and adjust the rate of the market access charge at a rate that— (A) achieves a current account balance not later than 5 years after the date of the enactment of this Act; and (B) maintains a current account balance thereafter.”

However, under the “ALTERNATE INITIAL MARKET ACCESS CHARGE” clause, “If, on the date that is 180 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Board of Governors has not established the initial rate for the market access charge, the initial market access charge shall be established at the rate of 50 basis points of the value of a covered transaction.”

The bill concludes with a description of how the Market Access Charge should be charged, collected, and reported to the U.S. Treasury.

At the time of the CPA paper cited above, the “The U.S. dollar was calculated at 25.5% overvalued compared to itsFundamental Equilibrium Exchange Rate (FEER). However, in an article titled “Why We Need Baldwin-Hawley Currency Reform Now,” by Jeff Ferry, CPA Chief Economist, published on August 21, 2019, he writes that the Coalition for a Prosperous America estimates “the dollar is overvalued today by 27 percent.” He points out that” that an overvalued currency makes it harder for a nation’s exports to compete in world markets and easier for foreign imports to take share in its domestic market.”

Mr. Ferry explains that “…overvaluation undermines our industrial base, makes our agricultural goods less competitive and tilts the income distribution in favor of the top 10 percent. Instead of an economy built on production and employment, we get growth built on consumption and debt. In fact, the only sector that favors overvaluation is the financial sector, because it helps Wall Street bankers sell stocks and bonds around the world. On Wall Street they like to call overvaluation the ‘strong dollar.’”

He concludes by saying that “Voltaire said the world is like a giant watch: it runs automatically according to an internal mechanism. If one of the settings is wrong, the watch won’t run properly. Our economy is a huge $21 trillion watch. If an exchange rate is set too high, a national economy runs down. If an economy doesn’t invest enough in its own industry, it becomes less competitive…On the international side, the US economy has been underproducing and overconsuming for some 40 years and adjustments are needed. Right now, Baldwin-Hawley is the most crucial adjustment Congress could enact.”

As a sales representative for American manufacturers, I can testify that America’s manufacturing industry is hurt by the overvalued dollar.  It hurts the ability for American companies to export products that are competitive in the world marketplace. It even hurts the ability for American manufacturers to compete against the low prices of Chinese imports in the domestic market.  I firmly endorse the passage of this critically needed bill by Congress in this session to reduce the U.S. dollar’s overvaluation, discourage unwanted investment in the dollar, and significantly reduce America’s trade deficit.

.

Tags:, ,
Posted in Currency Misalignment/Munipulation, Legislation, Trade Policy | No Comments »

Brookings Recommends New Focus for SBA’s Small Business Investment Corp Program

Tuesday, July 9th, 2019

can better support America’s advanced industries.

On June 26, 2019, Mark Muro, Senior Fellow, Brookings Institution Metropolitan Policy Program submitted testimony to the U.S. Senate Committee on Small Business & Entrepreneurship regarding the “Reauthorization of SBA’s Small Business Investment Company Program,” and particularly on how the Small Business Investment Company (SBIC) program.

Mr. Muro’s expertise is in America’s advanced industry sector, which are the high-productivity, high-pay innovation industries that anchor American competitiveness and are critical to America’s prosperity.

In his testimony, Mr. Muro wrote that advanced industries are identified using two criteria and must meet both criteria to be considered advanced.:

  • “industry’s R&D spending per worker must fall in the 80th percentile of industries or higher, exceeding $450 per worker
  • The share of workers in an industry whose occupations require a high degree of STEM knowledge must also be above the national average, or 21 percent of all workers”

He explained, “Based on this definition, the U.S. advanced industries sector encompasses 50 diverse industries, including 3 energy, 35 manufacturing, and 12 service industries. These prime industries include manufacturing industries such as automaking, aerospace, pharmaceuticals, and semiconductors; energy industries such as oil and gas extraction and renewables; and critical service activities such as R&D services, software design, and telecommunications.”

He wrote, Advance industries matter because they “are in many respects the nation’s core sources of prosperity and economic preeminence.” Specifically, the advanced industries sector:

  • Encompasses many of the nation’s most crucial industries
  • Represents a key site of innovative activity
  • Trains and employs much of the nation’s STEM workforce

In addition, “its sizable advanced manufacturing sub-sector—delivers critical, specific, under recognized value to the nation and its people and places:”

  • Employment – “In 2018, the 50 advanced industries in the United States employed 14 million U.S. workers, or nearly 10%of total employment. Of that, the 35 advanced manufacturing industries contributed 5.7million jobs and 4% of U.S. employment.”
  • GDP – “U.S. advanced industries generate $3.7 trillion worth of output annually, or 18.5% of U.S. GDP in 2018…advanced manufacturing was a particularly sizable contributor of $1.4trillion worth of U.S. output.”
  • Productivity – “Each worker generated approximately $260,000 worth of output compared with $120,000 for the average worker outside advanced industries.3For the advanced manufacturing sub-sector the figure is $250,000.”
  • Pay – “In 2018, the average advanced industries worker earned $103,000 in total compensation, double the $51,000 earned by the average worker in other sectors. And real absolute earnings in advanced industries grew by 63 percent between 1975 and 2013, compared with just 17 percent for other workers…”
  • Multipliers – “Every new advanced industry job creates 2.2 jobs domestically—0.8 jobs locally and 1.4 jobs outside of the region…On average in other industries, new jobs create only one additional domestic job—0.4 jobs locally and 0.6 jobs outside the region.”
  • Innovation – “Advanced industries perform 90%of all private-sector R&D and develop approximately 82%of all U.S. patents.”

Muro explained that these advanced industries need government financial support because “there is now abundant evidence that the primacy of America’s advanced industries, and especially its advanced manufacturing sector, is being aggressively contested—and eroding.”

The challenge is succeeding because China and other competitor nations “are accelerating their investments in the key inputs to advanced-sector competitiveness—basic and applied research and development (R&D), STEM worker development, regional supply chain deepening—just as the U.S. commitment has weakened.”

He asserted, “As a result, the future competitiveness of the U.S. advanced industries sector has become uncertain because the United States is losing ground on important measures of advanced industry competitiveness.” In fact, “the U.S. has since 2000 run negative trade balances with both China and the world on advanced technology products, with the deficit continuing to grow.”

“On innovation, for example, the U.S. share of global patenting and R&D is falling much faster than its share of global GDP and population. While the U.S. lost 1.6 percentage points in its share of world populationbetween1981and 2016, its shares of global patenting and R&D spending both fell by over 15 percentage points.”

He pointed out that “when the ‘Made in China 2025’ industrial policy implies direct support to thousands of firms through state funding, low-interest loans, tax breaks, and other subsidies to the tune of hundreds of billions of dollars according to third-party estimates, U.S. advanced manufacturing firms—especially smaller ones—struggle to access affordable capital.”  

He added that “while the United States has the most developed venture capital (VC) system in the world, that system remains difficult to access for manufacturing firms…the natural biases of VC and other capital sources skew the existing small-firm finance system far away from capital-intensive manufacturing enterprises and are leaving them to face a debilitating lack of access to critical finance in the United States.”

Because “innovative firms engaged in complex, advanced manufacturing production require greater capital and more time to make a profit than non-production firms…most existing small-firm finance sources (especially venture capital) default to the low-risk, high-reward nature of digital start-ups and stay away from the longer profit horizons of manufacturing.”

He explained that “Tech” companies, after all, can produce fast-turnaround, consumer-facing products with little-to-no physical infrastructure. Advanced manufacturing firms, by contrast, require much more time, risk, and capital to develop products, bring them to market, and achieve scale, ensuring they get fewer VC opportunities.”

He concluded that “acute capital shortfalls are likely hobbling the ability of smaller advanced manufacturing concerns to grow their operations, contribute to local supply-chain deepening, and enhance U.S. competitiveness, community by community.”

Next, his testimony focused on how the SBIC could offer the ideal tool for assisting advanced manufacturing concerns in the coming years.  However, the current SBIC program has “several limitations that prevent it from investing as helpfully in growth as it might.” He stated that “the lack of sectoral specificity in SBIC loan-making means that public funds are not always channeled toward the highest public benefit—most notably that of advanced industries…[and}

its repayment structure, which begins immediately and is comprised of an SBA annual charge plus interest due semiannually, is not conducive to the nature of the longer-term product development timelines that advanced manufacturing firms require. In general, the SBIC’s offerings are not “patient” enough to optimally support advanced manufacturing business models.”

In order for the SBIC to help fill the void and maximize the program’s benefit to U.S. competitiveness through the support of U.S. advanced industries, he recommended that policymakers should:

  • “Explicitly prioritize advanced manufacturing growth in the SBIC’s equity capital toolbox.”
  • “Encourage robust and patient capital in SBIC funding.”

He explained that these actions are needed because “advanced-sector production enterprises are not specifically mentioned in program policies and criteria. They should be, because as of now they are losing out.” And “currently the program favors low-risk, high-reward, relatively short-term enterprises, which discriminates against advanced manufacturing concerns.

Accordingly, the committee should amend the Small Business Act to create within the existing SBIC a program that will offer preferred financing terms to VC firms that invest in advanced manufacturing firms. To determine eligibility for participation in this funding activity. manufacturers’ ‘advanced’ status could be confirmed by their location in designated NAICS codes, employing the same definitional methodology and industry list as employed in this testimony…Funding, therefore, should be growth-oriented, as much as possible—not time-bound. Changes can include tying repayments to a percentage royalty from sales, as well as denoting full repayment as a multiple of the original loan amount, rather using the current fixed payment-plus-interest model.”

In conclusion, he stated, “American’s medium-and long-term competitiveness and economic prosperity will be determined by success in a few select, but significant, industrial sectors: namely, the nation’s advanced manufacturing, energy, and digital industries. Success or failure there, meanwhile, will be determined by our choices, both what we choose to do and choose not to do, in world of state competition for valuable industries. Fortunately, one tool for which we can make good choices is the SBA’s SBIC program. Given its important role in enterprise finance, it is well worth the time and effort to make sure it is optimized to serve as a tool for national competitiveness. If rigorously targeted to investment in America’s advanced manufacturing sector, it will absolutely help us reassert national competitiveness, support vibrant communities, and promote dignified work.”

I’ve worked in the advanced manufacturing sector my whole career and was part of the team of a startup technology-based manufacturing company in the past. I’ve been a volunteer mentor for startup entrepreneurs for the San Diego Inventors Forum for the past ten years and was also a mentor for entrepreneurs in the CONNECT Springboard program simultaneously for three years. I know how hard it is for entrepreneurs to raise seed capital, but the crowd funding programs such as Kickstarter and IndieGoGo are greatly helping.  I’ve seen entrepreneurs raise all the money they needed to get their product into the marketplace, but it’s raising the funds to scale up to full production that is the problem.  Investors are looking for quick profits or the kind of company that will be able to do an IPO rapidly.  I believe that the Brookings recommendations for expanding the scope of the SBA SBIC program will be beneficial in helping to rebuild America’s advanced manufacturing sector.

Posted in Legislation, Manufacturing | No Comments »

« Older Entries
Newer Entries »