ILNews

U.S. sees most significant patent reform in decades

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
Indiana Lawyer Focus

Sweeping patent reforms became law Sept. 16 when President Barack Obama signed the America Invents Act, the most significant patent reform legislation in six decades. The AIA incorporates many changes and harmonizes U.S. practices with systems in place around the world, according to some Indiana lawyers. Some believe the revisions are more symbolic than practical, while others believe the changes will impact every aspect of how patent lawyers do their jobs.

“It changes how you go about getting a patent, defend or challenge a patent infringement case, when to file, the internal procedures for documenting patentable inventions … basically there’s a lot that has been affected and it influences all companies, start-ups and individuals big or small,” said IP attorney Todd Vare with Barnes & Thornburg in Indianapolis.
 

Todd Vare Vare

The U.S. House of Representatives passed the bill 304 -117 in June, and in early September the Senate voted 89-9 in favor of it. Research universities, technology firms and various business groups supported the changes, while most of the opposition came from small businesses that worried the reforms favored large firms with access to more capital.

Some changes will go into effect in 2011, while other aspects of the legislation will become effective in 12 or 18 months.

Specifically, the bill streamlines the patent process to eliminate the backlog of 680,000 patent applications and reduces the time it takes for a patent to be approved, currently three years. Reforms are also designed to reduce litigation and costs associated with challenging or defending a patent.

Most notably, the reforms bring the nation’s patent system into conformity with laws observed throughout the world by granting patent protection to the first person to file a patent rather than the current “first-to-invent” process.

Before the change, the existing first-to-invent standard used to determine patent ownership involved an inventor being able to demonstrate that he or she came up with an idea first. The requirements of that process involved steps patent holders and seekers frequently described as burdensome and full of delays in obtaining a patent. The “first-to-file” system gives priority in deciding who owns an invention’s patent to the first person or entity to file for the patent, regardless of the date of invention.


rost-stephen-mug.jpg Rost

Some Indiana attorneys think this new first-to-file process will create a race to the U.S. Patent & Trademark Office in order to obtain patent protection first. Stephen Rost with Taft Stettinius & Hollister said smaller companies will be under more pressure to file a patent application for each new development and invest more upfront to get that done, without knowing the potential for actually obtaining the patent.

Baker & Daniels attorney Adam Cox of Ft. Wayne isn’t sure if the new first-to-file system will have a practical impact, but he finds the change troubling.

“In the U.S., we’ve always valued individual rights and the image of the garage inventor is very pertinent in our culture,” he said, mentioning iconic inventors like Thomas Edison, Henry Ford, Bill Gates and Steve Jobs. “The thought of the garage inventor who invents first but delays filing and eventually loses to the big company who invents later but files faster is troubling. That is one reason we’ve always operated under the first-to-invent system, and this flips that notion on its head.”

But small individual inventors are often passionate and motivated to file quickly, so Cox says the impact may be less than critics expect. Rost said patent lawyers and patent agents may be asked to draft more patent applications because companies will be under increased pressure to file quickly. The number of provisional patent applications will likely skyrocket because they can be used as place holders until an actual patent can be officially requested, he said.

Other notable changes to U.S. patent laws include:

• Third parties are given the opportunity to challenge the patent office’s decision to grant a patent.

• Third parties may cite prior art to the patent office during prosecution of a patent application.

• Business method strategies to reduce taxes are not patentable.

• Only the government and those suffering a competitive injury will be allowed to sue for false patent marking.

• Failure to obtain the advice of counsel cannot be used to prove willful infringement.

• Creates a mechanism by which the patent office will reevaluate and possibly invalidate previously issued business method patents.

• Eliminates the requirement that inventors describe the “best mode” of making and using the invention as a basis for challenging the validity of a patent.

• Allows individual inventors or very small companies to file patent applications at significantly lower fees, allowing those small companies and inventors to afford filing a patent application where they might not otherwise be able to afford such an application.

The changes were designed to give the patent office more resources so it will do a better job of assessing patent applications, with the idea that rejecting bad patents will head off some litigation. The AIA has been promoted by the president as a job creator and a way to speed up the patent application process and end delays.

Half of the patents challenged in court are invalidated. The new law will allow anyone – including a company’s rivals – to scrutinize newly granted patents and give the patent office evidence to show why it should not be allowed.

“Whether these changes are viewed positively or negatively may actually depend on the type of client one represents,” Rost said.

More legal time will be needed to follow competitors’ filed patent applications and monitor those issues, Rost said, and that will increase the workload IP and patent-focused attorneys will have. Vare added on the flipside that companies won’t have to spend as much internally to document the invention process as they did in the first-to-intent system, compiling detailed lab notebooks and records.

“Anybody and everybody has an opinion about it being good or bad, but it is what it is,” Vare said. “As an attorney, you need to take advantage of the provisions you need and know what you might get burned by.”•
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Living in South Bend, I travel to Michigan a lot. Virtually every gas station sells cold beer there. Many sell the hard stuff too. Doesn't seem to be a big deal there.

  2. Mr. Ricker, how foolish of you to think that by complying with the law you would be ok. Don't you know that Indiana is a state that welcomes monopolies, and that Indiana's legislature is the one entity in this state that believes monopolistic practices (such as those engaged in by Indiana Association of Beverage Retailers) make Indiana a "business-friendly" state? How can you not see this????

  3. Actually, and most strikingly, the ruling failed to address the central issue to the whole case: Namely, Black Knight/LPS, who was NEVER a party to the State court litigation, and who is under a 2013 consent judgment in Indiana (where it has stipulated to the forgery of loan documents, the ones specifically at issue in my case)never disclosed itself in State court or remediated the forged loan documents as was REQUIRED of them by the CJ. In essence, what the court is willfully ignoring, is that it is setting a precedent that the supplier of a defective product, one whom is under a consent judgment stipulating to such, and under obligation to remediate said defective product, can: 1.) Ignore the CJ 2.) Allow counsel to commit fraud on the state court 3.) Then try to hide behind Rooker Feldman doctrine as a bar to being held culpable in federal court. The problem here is the court is in direct conflict with its own ruling(s) in Johnson v. Pushpin Holdings & Iqbal- 780 F.3d 728, at 730 “What Johnson adds - what the defendants in this suit have failed to appreciate—is that federal courts retain jurisdiction to award damages for fraud that imposes extrajudicial injury. The Supreme Court drew that very line in Exxon Mobil ... Iqbal alleges that the defendants conducted a racketeering enterprise that predates the state court’s judgments ...but Exxon Mobil shows that the Rooker Feldman doctrine asks what injury the plaintiff asks the federal court to redress, not whether the injury is “intertwined” with something else …Because Iqbal seeks damages for activity that (he alleges) predates the state litigation and caused injury independently of it, the Rooker-Feldman doctrine does not block this suit. It must be reinstated.” So, as I already noted to others, I now have the chance to bring my case to SCOTUS; the ruling by Wood & Posner is flawed on numerous levels,BUT most troubling is the fact that the authors KNOW it's a flawed ruling and choose to ignore the flaws for one simple reason: The courts have decided to agree with former AG Eric Holder that national banks "Are too big to fail" and must win at any cost-even that of due process, case precedent, & the truth....Let's see if SCOTUS wants a bite at the apple.

  4. I am in NJ & just found out that there is a judgment against me in an action by Driver's Solutions LLC in IN. I was never served with any Court pleadings, etc. and the only thing that I can find out is that they were using an old Staten Island NY address for me. I have been in NJ for over 20 years and cannot get any response from Drivers Solutions in IN. They have a different lawyer now. I need to get this vacated or stopped - it is now almost double & at 18%. Any help would be appreciated. Thank you.

  5. I am in NJ & just found out that there is a judgment against me in an action by Driver's Solutions LLC in IN. I was never served with any Court pleadings, etc. and the only thing that I can find out is that they were using an old Staten Island NY address for me. I have been in NJ for over 20 years and cannot get any response from Drivers Solutions in IN. They have a different lawyer now. I need to get this vacated or stopped - it is now almost double & at 18%. Any help would be appreciated. Thank you.

ADVERTISEMENT