Posts Tagged ‘patent infringement’

U S. Inventors Continue Fight to Restore Patent Rights

Tuesday, August 24th, 2021

September 16, 2021 marks the 10th anniversary of the America Invents Act (AIA) at the Decade of Stolen Dreams Inventor Rally organized by US Inventor, Inc., a non-profit association of inventors devoted to protecting the intellectual property of individuals and small companies. It represents its 13,000 inventor and small business members by promoting strong intellectual property rights and a predictable U.S. patent system through education, advocacy and reform.

There are six locations across the U.S. where inventors plan to make their voices heard about the consequences of the AIA and the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) — Alexandria, VA • Burlington, VT • Dallas, TX • Denver, CO • Detroit, MI • San Jose, CA. Join US. Inventor Inc. on September 16th at a rally near you, and unite against the injustice of the America Invents Act and the PTAB.

The USI website states: “today, inventors are discouraged from pursuing research, development, and commercialization of inventions due to the implementation of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) under the America Invents Act of 2011 (AIA). Rather than helping small businesses as intended, the PTAB is often weaponized by large corporations to block competition from those who created superior technology. PTAB uncertainty, risk, and expense has become an overwhelming burden for entrepreneurs, stifling our ability to innovate and compete.

Having invalidated 84% of the 3,000 patents they have reviewed and destroyed the hopes and dreams of hundreds of inventors – the PTAB is still going strong. Even Chinese companies like Huawei, ZTE, HTC, and TikTok are regularly utilizing the PTAB to invalidate patents of U.S. inventors.”

For those new to the issue of inventors having lost the ability to stop large corporations from just taking valuable, patented technologies, here’s a quick rundown:

1. Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB): The America Invents Act of 2011 (AIA) created an easier way to invalidate (revoke) an issued patent. The PTAB is an administrative court with no jury and much less due process than a real court. Rather than a lifetime-appointed judge, a PTAB trial typically has three attorneys who are called Administrative Patent Judges (APJs).

2. Injunctive Relief (the ability to stop an infringer after you have won your case): The U.S. Supreme Court decided that it was in the “public interest” for a proven infringer to continue infringing because it could serve the market better than a startup (Ebay, 2006). As a result, even if you win your case, you will have to pass a “public interest” test before an injunction can be issued to stop the infringer.

3. Abstract Idea: The U.S. Supreme Court’s Alice decision (2014), put into law that an “abstract idea” cannot be patented, but did not define this term. The result is that a sharp attorney can often convince a judge, who may have little tech experience, that a patent should have not been issued.

Article I, § 8, Clause 8 of the Constitution grants Congress the enumerated power “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.” In my opinion, this makes the invalidating of patents by the PTAB unconstitutional.

A U.S. Patent is supposed to provide the inventor with the exclusive right to his or her invention. Inventors should be able to legally stop any infringer, no matter how large or powerful. They should be able to create a disruptive startup or license their invention at a market rate. This is what provided the incentive to invent that enabled America to lead the world in innovation for over 200 years. This is the right that US Inventor Inc. is fighting to restore.

Josh Malone, Policy Director for US Inventor, Inc. told me that in the 116th Congress (2019-2020) 35 representatives sponsored a bill to end the PTAB – H.R.4792 – Cyber Shield Act of 2019, but it was referred to the Subcommittee on Consumer Protection and Commerce and never got out of committee.

Also, on December 18, 2019, “H.R. 5478 – Inventor Rights Act 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.”

The text of the Act stated “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 Act stated 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.”

Unfortunately, H.R. 5478 also never got out of committee to be voted on by the House. US Inventors is working to have the Inventor Rights Act reintroduced in Congress this year.

On February 8, 2021, US Inventor, Inc. filed suit against the US Patent Office (USPTO) “to stop patent validity challenges at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) until the required, official rulemaking regarding the procedure has been done. The America Invents Act of 2011 (AIA) created an administrative court, the PTAB, for patent validity challenges. Prior to this, an inventor would defend his or her patent in a real court with a jury, lifetime-appointed judge, and a lot of due process. The PTAB has no jury, much less due process, and a panel of attorneys called Administrative Patent Judges (APJs) who have invalidated (revoked) 84% of the patents that have gone through the process. The AIA said that the USPTO Director “shall” involve stakeholders in notice and comment rulemaking that takes into account things like the economic impact of the law and its effect on the reputation of the Patent Office. After ten years, this rulemaking has still not been done, and US Inventor believes this is unlawful as well as unfair and very bad for American inventors and the future of American innovation. A number of inventors were present at the hearing in Marshall, TX on July 1st, 2021.”

US Inventor President, Randy Landreneau stated, “”Our patent system is supposed to enable patent-based startups to compete with entrenched interests. It did this pretty well for 200 years, and America’s leadership in worldwide innovation is the proof. But in recent years, our lawmakers and officials have listened to Big Tech rather than inventors and patent-based startups. The result is the loss of the ability to stop a large corporation from taking a significant, patented invention, which is why American innovation is declining, Big Tech faces little competition and China threatens to take the lead in future technologies. The purpose of this lawsuit was to make our voices heard through the rulemaking process that has been avoided for ten years. The judge decided that we don’t have standing and dismissed our suit. We are appealing, but regardless of the outcome of this suit, US Inventor will continue to fight on many fronts to restore the rights of inventors in America.”

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.

You can help the efforts of US Inventors by signing the Inventor Rights Resolution “to restore patent protection for inventors and mitigate a generation of laws, regulations, and court decisions that have discouraged innovation by failing to secure to inventors the exclusive right to their discoveries.”  Click here to sign.

Tags:, ,
Posted in General | 2 Comments »

Patented Technology is Key to RoadLoK’s Success

Tuesday, July 14th, 2015

There is no lack of ingenuity and innovation in the U. S. today. Each year, thousands of new products are invented, and but most are never produced. Knowing how to use technology to create a product doesn’t mean you know how to manufacture it and get it to market. Obtaining a patent is a key factor in achieving success, but you also need to recognize the limitation of your knowledge and expertise and utilize experts in fields you need, such as product design/engineering, patent/licensing, material/process selection for prototyping and production manufacturing, and marketing.

I recently had the opportunity to interview Adam Xavier, founder and CEO of New Hampton Technologies dba RoadLoK Security, who is an example of an inventor and entrepreneur who successfully got his product patented and into the marketplace.

His company distributes products worldwide under the brand name RoadLoK. The company specializes in the design and production of model-specific vehicle locking systems for motorcycles, scooters and off-road power sports vehicles. The RoadLoK is the only locking system that safely and effectively prevents rollaway theft. The system is designed to be permanently mounted on a motorcycle, thereby eliminating the need for storing the lock while riding. The system’s permanent mounting eliminates all momentum, making it virtually impossible to damage calipers and fenders. This is accomplished while also protecting the rider, should the rider forget to unlock the system before attempting to ride off.

I asked how he got the idea for his product, and Adam said, “My twin brother Eric and I were sitting in the outside seating area of a bar the summer after we graduated from college and saw a man forget to take off his lock and tip over his motorcycle. We started talking about a better idea for a lock and drew a sketch on a napkin. The next day, we searched to see if there was a lock similar to our idea, but didn’t find one. We took our sketch to a CAD designer to turn our idea into a design that could be manufactured. A friend from college, Matt Tomosivitch, who had become a machinist, made our first prototype. Matt is now the chief engineer of our company.

Continuing, Adam said, “We made a video of our lock that showed how it worked. We wrote a comprehensive 60-page business plan. We filed for a provisional patent in July 2005. Then, we sent our video to local investor network group in New York and were kicked down to the group in our area, Orange County. The director contacted us, and we gave our pitch in December 2005. We got our first investment check from the Orange County Capital Development Group on February 16, 2006. This investment was enough to get us to our first trade show in March, the International Motorcycle Show in Atlanta, GA.

Adam said that they set up their first office in Middleton, NY and later moved to Newburgh, NY. They spent two years of R&D to finalize the design and raised another $3 million over three years to get into full production. They used 3D printing to make new prototypes as they improved the design. They received a lot of mentoring and hands-on help from their angel investors.

Their first utility patent was granted on December 23, 2008 after their third attempt at an “office action” at the patent office. They got their second patent in 2010.

When they started the company, Adam said that they wanted to keep everything made in the U. S. They used www.thomasnet.com to find all of their vendors. They have seven major vendors for all of the different parts of their product, and they are located in Illinois, North Carolina, New York, and Texas. Their mission is to produce a high quality product, so all of their vendors are ISO 9001-2008 certified to meet the exacting requirements of their customers.

They later moved to California because they needed to have face-to-face communication with their two biggest customers, one located in Murrieta and one in Corona, CA. California also has the biggest population of motorcycle riders.

The executive offices are now located in Santa Monica, CA, but their product is manufactured in Salisbury, North Carolina and assembled to order at their plant in Torrance, CA. Since the RoadLoK is produced to order, production is not automated and does not utilize any robots. They are looking at doing more vertical integration of parts manufacturing. Their screw-machining vendor in Chicago makes two parts, and the patented design of their locking pin has 5 components made by three different vendors.

They started to implement lean principles in 2009 and changed one component from a square rod to an extrusion, which reduced material waste by 62%. They have been working towards reducing other material waste and time since then.

Their original plan was to focus on after-market sales of the product for the first two years and then license the product to motorcycle manufacturers on a non-exclusive basis similar to how the airbag is licensed to car manufacturers. Now in its 9th year of operations, RoadLoK’s largest customers are KTM Sportmotorcycle and Ducati with others to be announced within the next year.

When asked how his company has been impacted by competition from offshore in Asia, Adam said, “We don’t have any direct competitors offshore, just cheaper substitute locking mechanisms. We are selling in Australia, Japan, and China and recently selected a company to partner with to produce parts in China to sell to the Chinese market. We have started the process to file a patent in China. We need to have manufacturing plant in China to sell to the Chinese market because of the high import duties. Brazil is another county we are looking at to set up a manufacturing plant because of the high import duties. There would be a win/win benefit of jobs to the community and provide a much-needed product for the people.”

I naturally asked how the recession affected his company when they were only a little over two years old when it started in late 2008. Adam said that they were spending about 85% of their time setting up a distributor network and program to sell to dealers utilizing direct sales persons. But, motorcycles are purchased with discretionary income, which dried up during the recession as people lost their jobs. So, their direct sales to motorcycle riders through distributors/dealers dropped drastically. To survive and grow, Adam said, “We had to reduce our direct sales staff and reduce our travel costs. We changed our sales model to online retail sales and direct sales to motorcycle manufacturers. This model has helped us grow and succeed. We have also started R&D on the next generation of vehicle immobilizers to other two or more wheeled vehicles that do not have a transmission.”

Adam had read my article on “Which Patent Reform Bill Doesn’t Destroy the American Patent System?” and said, “Our having a patent pending was key to getting investors and having a patented product has been the key ingredient to our success as a company. Investors want the protection of a patent, but they wouldn’t take the risk of being made personally liable. There is no way that we could have gotten investors if our investors had been personally liable for defending our patent in a patent infringement lawsuit.” Note: Adam was referring to the “Loser Pay’s provision of H. R. 9 and S.1137.

If we want to have more successful companies manufacturing products in America, then we need to protect our American Patent System and stop H.R. 9 and S. 1137 from being passed. Instead, we need to pass the Strong Patents Act of 2015, S. 632, which will “Enact balanced reforms to reduce abuse while sustaining American leadership in innovation.”

 

Tags:, , , , ,
Posted in Innovation, Manufacturing, Patent Reform, Technology | No Comments »

Fight to Stop Fatal Patent Bills Heats up

Tuesday, July 7th, 2015

Thanks to support from inventors and inventor groups all over the country, Randy Landreneau and Paul Morinville of US Inventor and Independent Inventors of America are continuing their fight to stop the bad patent bills: The House’s Innovation Act, H. R. 9, introduced by Rep. Bob Goodlatte (R-VA) on 2/05/2015, with the “Manager’s Amendment” version passed by the House Judiciary Committee on 6/11/2015, and the Senate’s PATENT Act, S.1137, introduced by Senator Grassley (R-IA) 4/29/2015, with the “Manager’s Amendment” version passed by the Senate Judiciary Committee on 6/04/2015.

In the latest email update from Mr. Landreneau, he reports that he held 65 meetings with House Congressional staff in the last two weeks of June to educate them on why H.R. 9 would crush American innovation. He attached his latest paper, The Innovation Act is Fatal to the American Innovation Ecosystem and Mr. Morinville’s latest paper, We’ve Been Googled.

In his paper, Morinville states, “H.R.9 creates a Patent System without Inventors. Over the last decade, Google and others have spent hundreds of millions of dollars to lobby Congress and produce an ingenious ‘patent troll’ narrative, which distorts the reality of invention in America. In this decade long war on inventors, H.R.9 is the Google lobby’s latest accomplishment. Not surprisingly, H.R.9 is not directed to fixing the fictional problem of ‘patent trolls.’ Instead, H.R.9 mounts its considerable damage on the patent system in general, specifically harming inventors and small patent-based businesses.”

Morinville explains, “If this bill becomes law, inventors will not be able to enforce their patent rights against moneyed corporations like Google. However, moneyed corporations like Google will still be able to enforce their patents against small businesses with even more devastating consequences to those small businesses. Patent litigation is about risk and cost versus reward. If risk or cost is too high in relation to reward, a patent cannot be enforced.”

In is paper, Landreneau states, “With presumptive Loser-Pays, regardless of the merit of any case, the party that does not prevail will automatically owe the other side its legal costs, which could exceed $1,000,000. To avoid this, the non-prevailing party will be forced to re-litigate the case to prove each point objectively reasonable.” He further explains that in addition to making every case more expensive, there will be an additional, even more damaging effect on independent inventors.

The independent inventor will almost always require a contingency attorney to stop the theft of his or her property. Under presumptive Loser-Pays, his attorney will have to be willing to go the extra mile, after losing, for no pay. This will cause many independent inventors to not be able to find representation and have any access to justice.”

Why is this important? Because most new technologies, especially break-through or disruptive technologies come from individual inventors who either start a company or license their technology to companies that are more able to take them to the market.

As a director on the board of the San Diego Inventors Forum, I see new consumer products and break-through technology introduced at our monthly meetings, and the best compete of these compete in our annual inventors’ contest for best new consumer product and best new technology. Our next inventors’ contest will be held on August 15th. All contestants must have applied for a patent before they can participate. The future success of their product or technology is contingent upon their having a patent they can protect from infringement. Their ability to raise the financial investment they need to bring their product to the marketplace depends upon their being able to protect their patent. No investor will take the risk of investing in a product or technology that cannot be protected.

I will not repeat a discussion of what is wrong with H. R. 9 and S.1137 that I discussed in a previous article, “Which Patent Reform Bill Doesn’t Destroy the American Patent System?” but suffice it to say that these bills would essentially destroy the American Patent System. The Loser-Pays clause would make it virtually impossible for independent inventors and small businesses to protect a patent and get investors. Only large corporations would be able to absorb the costs of patent infringement litigation. The economic benefits of patents granted in different metropolitan areas of the U. S. could come to a screeching halt if either of these two bad patent bills is passed. Either bill would squash the American innovation that is so essential to our national prosperity and the prosperity of many metropolitan areas.

In a February 2013 Brookings Institution report, “Patenting Prosperity: Invention and Economic Performance in the United States and its Metropolitan Areas,” an analysis of national and metropolitan area invention from 1980 to 2012, revealed:

  • “The rate of patenting in the United States has been increasing in recent decades and stands at historically high levels.
  • Most U.S. patents—63 percent—are developed by people living in just 20 metro areas, which are home to 34 percent of the U.S. population…the metro areas with the highest number per capita are San Jose; Burlington, VT; Rochester, MN; Corvallis, OR; and Boulder, CO.
  • Inventions, embodied in patents, are a major driver of long-term regional economic performance, especially if the patents are of higher quality.
  • Research universities, a scientifically educated workforce, and collaboration play an important role in driving metropolitan innovation.
  • Patents funded by the U.S. government tend to be of especially high quality, and federal small business R&D funding is associated with significantly higher metropolitan productivity growth.”

Of interest to those of us in California is the fact that when comparing the average granted patents per year and the patents per million residents from 2007-2011, California ranks very high. The report states “… a few large metros notably changed their share of U.S patents. At the top, San Jose moved up from ninth to first, and San Francisco moved from seventh to fourth, moving ahead of Chicago, Philadelphia, Detroit, and Boston. Seattle and San Diego moved up 15 and nine places, respectively, to become seventh and eighth. Meanwhile, Austin and Raleigh moved up 41 and 55 places, respectively, to become 11th and 20th. Cleveland fell 10 slots from 13th to 23rd, while Philadelphia fell from fourth to 13th.”

In his paper, “The Innovation Act, H.R.9 is Fatal to the American Innovation Ecosystem, Randy Landreneau explains why H. R. 9 would be harmful, saying, ” A key reason that America has out-innovated the rest of the world for 200 years is the way the unique American Patent System has not only encouraged individuals to innovate, it has also facilitated the flow of capital into the resulting innovations. A key ingredient in this successful recipe has been the ability to stop the theft of the intellectual property represented by a patent, which results in a valuable patent asset that can be used to attract venture capital and build a successful enterprise… An early-stage investor in a start-up that fails often ends up with little more than the patent. If he then has limited patent rights and significantly greater risk in defending the patent, as is being proposed, then the patent asset loses significant investment value. In a scenario that is already high in risk, the changes proposed by The Innovation Act will severely reduce investment, and the incentive for American innovation will be lost. What is being proposed destroys the innovation ecosystem that has enabled America to be the world leader in innovation.”

 

It is expected that the House will vote on H.R.9 the week of July 13th, so it is critical that we add our voices to its opposition now. The Senate’s S. 1137 will be on the Senate floor soon as well. More attention seems to be paid if you call the Washington, D. C. office of your Congressional representatives and senators than their local office. If you don’t know the names of your representative or senators, search online or call the main switchboard number 202-225-3121 and ask for your representative or senators. Tell your representative to oppose H. R. 9 and tell your senators to vote “no” on S.1137. Ask your senators to support the Strong Patents Act of 2015, S. 632. Don’t let them destroy the goose that lays the golden egg ? the American Patent System that fosters American innovation, which provides jobs and prosperity to our country.

 

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

Anti-Inventor Legislation Being Proposed in Congress

Tuesday, February 3rd, 2015

Sometimes it seems we have to play “Whack-a-mole” against well-meaning legislation that would have harmful, unintended consequences. Last year, the Innovation Act, H.R. 3309 passed the House of Representatives by a 325 – 91 vote on December 5, 2013. It seemed like a comparable bill would easily pass the Senate until a concerted effort to defeat this bill was undertaken by Randy Landreneu, Founder of the Independent Inventors of America, and another inventor, Paul Morinville, by visiting key people in the offices of about 60 Senators.

Their efforts were aided by such organizations as CONNECT and Biocom in San Diego, the Biotechnology Industry Group, and the Independent Inventors of America. Because of the opposition by these groups and other groups not cited, the bill ended up being dropped in the Senate.

Why did these organizations oppose this effort on patent reform? Gary Klein, V. P. Public Policy, of San Diego’s CONNECT organization, stated: “A startup company’s main asset is its intellectual property. Most investors’ first question to startups is about how their technology is protected. The Innovation Act that passed the House has several provisions – fee shifting, covered business methods, joinder rules, discovery and customer stay – that will have some very serious adverse consequences for small/startup companies, universities and research institutions, as well as companies who use licensing as a business model.”

Joe Panetta, President and CEO of Biocom, stated “Not only does H.R.3309 fail to adequately address the abusive litigation practices it aims to curb, but it would place burdensome and unnecessary requirements and penalties on all patent holders. The bill is likely to inadvertently harm the world’s greatest innovation system by limiting legitimate patent holders’ ability to assert their rights.”

The Biotechnology Industry Group (BIO) was concerned that it would undermine biotech research and innovation. Daniel Seaton noted on BIO’s Patently Biotech blog, “the Act would ultimately make it more difficult for patent holders with legitimate claims to protect their intellectual property…Provisions in the legislation would erect unreasonable barriers to access justice for innovators, especially small start-ups that must be able to defend their businesses against patent infringement in a timely and cost-effective manner, and without needless and numerous procedural hurdles or other obstacles.”

The Independent Inventors of America against Current Patent Legislation, representing independent inventors and small patent-based businesses across the country, disputed the claim that patent infringement litigation had escalated. They initiated a petition stating “The Government Accounting Office Report required by the America Invents Act finds that there is no ‘patent troll’ problem. Data supporting the claim of billions of dollars of reported cost cannot be verified and actually represent primarily voluntary and court directed license agreements for valid patents. In addition, analysis of patent litigation shows that the number of patent suits relative to the number of patents issued today remains consistent over the 200 plus year history of the patent system with the exception of a short period prior to the Civil War when the rate was higher than it is today. The reports supporting this latest round of legislation are simply not valid.”

They argued that “what is being characterized as a “patent troll,” and the target of the proposed legislation, is really an investor. As individual inventors and small patent-based businesses, we need investors to practice and protect our inventions. A patent is sometimes the sole asset we can leverage to attract that investment. Damaging investors therefore damages inventors.”

The petition stated, “This legislation will levy grave harm upon independent inventors and small patent-based businesses, as well as the investors we need to help commercialize new technologies and to protect our inventions.” They “stand firmly against the proposed legislation and any future legislation that would weaken the American Patent System.” The governing body of the San Diego Inventors Forum, of which I am a member, signed the petition along with many of our members.

The main reasons why inventor organizations opposed the Act were:

Loser Pays – would significantly increase the risk and cost of defending a patent and “could be fatal to a large percentage of inventions.”

“Joinder” clause – allows investors to be personally liable for legal fees if inventor loses lawsuit, so this would severely limit investment in new technologies.

Patent Term Adjustment – eliminates a patent adjustment for a delay in patent issuance caused by the U. S. Patent Office (Note: Patents are granted for 17 years, but if it takes five years to get a patent, the patent term would be only 12 years instead of 17.)

New Bill in the Works

Now, Washington, D. C. insiders are indicating that legislation very similar if not identical to the Innovation Act will be introduced in the House of Representatives as early as February.

Why is a new version of the Innovation Act being proposed? The stated purpose is to curb frivolous lawsuits for patent infringement by so-called “patent trolls,” a derogatory term defined by Wikipedia as “a person or company who enforces patent rights against accused infringers in an attempt to collect licensing fees, but does not manufacture products or supply services based upon the patents in question, thus engaging in economic rent-seeking. Related, less pejorative terms include patent holding company (PHC) and non-practicing entity (NPE).”

Proponents of the Innovation Act said that” in the two years since the AIA was enacted, patent litigation has exploded. More and more firms are acquiring broad patents not to use the technology but rather to extract licensing fees from companies that infringe the patents accidentally…so a number of industry groups that weren’t traditionally involved in patent debates have begun agitating for patent reform.”

However, the Patent Freedom organization states, “NPEs are not all cut from the same cloth. Some inventors choose not to pursue the development, manufacturing, and sales of their inventions. They may lack the resources to do so, or the interest, passion, and commitment that such an effort requires. Instead, they may seek to license their inventions to others who can use them to deliver better products and services, often with the assistance of those with experience in this area. Or they may choose to sell the patents outright…. some entities buy patents with the express purpose of licensing them aggressively. For instance, about 25% of “parent” NPEs tracked by Patent Freedom are enforcing only patents that they had acquired. Another 60% are asserting patents originally assigned to them, and the remaining 15% are asserting a blend of originally assigned and acquired patents”

If new legislation is crafted to be similar to the Innovation Act, it would create additional requirements as part of the legal process associated with patent infringement under United States law. Some of the provisions that were in the Innovation Act are paraphrased below:

  • Requires specificity in patent lawsuits – requires specified details concerning each claim of each patent that was allegedly infringed.
  • Makes patent ownership more transparent with a “Joinder” clause requiring patent plaintiffs to name anyone who has a financial interest in the patent being litigated. This would include investors.
  • Makes the loser pay – “if a losing plaintiff cannot pay, the bill would allow a judge to order others who had a financial stake in the plaintiff’s lawsuit to join the lawsuit and pay the costs of an unsuccessful patent lawsuit.” This could force investors to participate in paying the legal fees, which would discourage investment.
  • Delays discovery to keep costs down – gives time to allow the courts to address legal questions about the meaning of patent claims with the goal of reducing legal costs and allow more frivolous lawsuits to be resolved before defendants have incurred large legal bills.
  • Protects end users – allows technology vendors to step into the shoes of their customers and fight lawsuits against trolls on their customers’ behalf in cases where restaurants, supermarkets, airlines, casinos, real estate agents and other brick-and-mortar businesses are being sued for using technology such as Wi-Fi instead of the manufacturers of the equipment.

Randy Landreneu, Independent Inventors of America, stated: “There were a number of provisions fatal to independent inventors, like Loser Pays (if you sued a corporation for patent infringement and did not prevail, you would be liable for their legal costs, which could be over $1,000,000). The Innovation Act also had the provision that an investor with an interest in your patent would be personally liable for these legal costs. This would have eliminated the ability to defend a patent for the vast majority of inventors, as well as greatly reducing any investment in patent related startups.”

Adrian Pelkus, SDIF President, states, “A new version of the Innovation Act horrifies me in the way that it would allow corporations to beat up on small inventors. Financial ruin for inventors would be extremely easy due to the nature of startups, meaning most inventors could lose their fledgling businesses disputing challenges to issued Intellectual Property. If we increase the risk that their IP will be challenged (perhaps even frivolously just to stop them from progressing to market), innovation will grind to a standstill.

At a time when we need American ingenuity and investors to rebuild our economy, taking steps to diminish our rights as inventors is un-American, economically dumb and intellectually suicidal. Stifling innovation in a technologically based society is a sure path to economic ruin which is why the USPTO system was originally designed to reward not punish the inventor. We are a nation of creators and builders living at a time when science and technology is exponentially enriching our quality of life. Disturbing the evolution of ideas disrupts our development as a society, and changes to our patent laws are doing just that. American inventors create new products and jobs. The more we enable inventors, the more our country prospers and the better our lives become. We can expect only the opposite if we if we stifle inventors by allowing laws to be passed by corporations pressuring our representatives to protect only their interests.”

I urge everyone to contact your Congressional Representative before the new bill hits the floor. Tell them that you are against further weakening of patent rights. Tell them that current efforts at “patent reform” will greatly hurt inventors and innovation in America. We must not stifle innovation if we want to create more American jobs and maintain our technological advantage in the global marketplace.

Tags:, ,
Posted in Economic Development, Innovation | No Comments »