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. Whether you support "gay marriage" or not is not the issue. The issue is whether the SCOTUS can extract from an unmentionable somewhere the notion that the Constitution forbids government "interference" in the "right" to marry. Just imagine time-traveling to Philadelphia in 1787. Ask James Madison if the document he and his fellows just wrote allowed him- or forbade government to "interfere" with- his "right" to marry George Washington? He would have immediately- and justly- summoned the Sergeant-at-Arms to throw your sorry self out into the street. Far from being a day of liberation, this is a day of capitulation by the Rule of Law to the Rule of What's Happening Now.

  2. With today's ruling, AG Zoeller's arguments in the cases of Obamacare and Same-sex Marriage can be relegated to the ash heap of history. 0-fer

  3. She must be a great lawyer

  4. Ind. Courts - "Illinois ranks 49th for how court system serves disadvantaged" What about Indiana? A story today from Dave Collins of the AP, here published in the Benton Illinois Evening News, begins: Illinois' court system had the third-worst score in the nation among state judiciaries in serving poor, disabled and other disadvantaged members of the public, according to new rankings. Illinois' "Justice Index" score of 34.5 out of 100, determined by the nonprofit National Center for Access to Justice, is based on how states serve people with disabilities and limited English proficiency, how much free legal help is available and how states help increasing numbers of people representing themselves in court, among other issues. Connecticut led all states with a score of 73.4 and was followed by Hawaii, Minnesota, New York and Delaware, respectively. Local courts in Washington, D.C., had the highest overall score at 80.9. At the bottom was Oklahoma at 23.7, followed by Kentucky, Illinois, South Dakota and Indiana. ILB: That puts Indiana at 46th worse. More from the story: Connecticut, Hawaii, Minnesota, Colorado, Tennessee and Maine had perfect 100 scores in serving people with disabilities, while Indiana, Georgia, Wyoming, Missouri and Idaho had the lowest scores. Those rankings were based on issues such as whether interpretation services are offered free to the deaf and hearing-impaired and whether there are laws or rules allowing service animals in courthouses. The index also reviewed how many civil legal aid lawyers were available to provide free legal help. Washington, D.C., had nearly nine civil legal aid lawyers per 10,000 people in poverty, the highest rate in the country. Texas had the lowest rate, 0.43 legal aid lawyers per 10,000 people in poverty. http://indianalawblog.com/archives/2014/11/ind_courts_illi_1.html

  5. A very thorough opinion by the federal court. The Rooker-Feldman analysis, in particular, helps clear up muddy water as to the entanglement issue. Looks like the Seventh Circuit is willing to let its district courts cruise much closer to the Indiana Supreme Court's shorelines than most thought likely, at least when the ADA on the docket. Some could argue that this case and Praekel, taken together, paint a rather unflattering picture of how the lower courts are being advised as to their duties under the ADA. A read of the DOJ amicus in Praekel seems to demonstrate a less-than-congenial view toward the higher echelons in the bureaucracy.

ADVERTISEMENT