Patent Reform at the PTO
If you follow patent law at all you’re likely aware that Congress is looking to meddle with patent law and practices once again, theoretically to streamline the patent system and make it more “fair”. However, it’s not entirely clear how the proposed changes, which include reducing the ability to force injunctions upon infringers, stricter rules for determining willful infringement, changing to a first inventor to file precedence, and several more major modifications, will be more fair across the board.
Dennis Crouch, in his Patently-O: Patent Law Blog, yesterday summarized the three coalitions he sees supporting changes (or the lack thereof) in patent reform.
These three were large high-tech companies, other large patent holders like Big Pharma, and small inventors/start-ups. He had several comments from others, including some bloggers on his post, which Crouch summarized in another blog entry.
Some of the comments indicate that small inventors would be fine with the proposed patent reform if they simply understood it, but I question that. And this morning, I stumbled across the April 28th testimony of Nathan P. Myhrvold, CEO of Intellectual Ventures, which I think does a good job of explaining things from the perspective of a small inventor, in particular why injunctive relief should not be reduced, how defining a component for export to exclude software is unreasonable, and how the currently proposed reforms would actually increase the complexity and cost of patent litigation.
Mind you, Myhrvold was and is a wunderkind - entering college at 14, and graduating with a doctorate at age 23. Never mind he was the CTO of Microsoft at one point, and now runs a company which is snapping up patents left and right to build an unprecedented portfolio, presumably to license to those making inventions which infringe on that IP. No doubt his current business interest has some bearing on his stated position, but that makes him no different than Microsoft and Intel, for example, which are apparently in full support of any patent reform which might help them avoid liability and damages. From a business perspective, supporting such reform is only good business sense for large companies which frequently find themselves at the defendant’s end of patent litigation.
Stephen Nipper makes this same argument in The Invent Blog today, where he looks at patent reform from the perspective of small inventors.
One issue that seems to be rarely addressed, except by outspoken PTO critics like Greg Aharonian is patent quality. But this is something that Myhrvold does address, albeit in more calm and reasoned measures - he expressly makes the point that what the patent reform on the table does NOT do is improve patent quality, and in fact, due to greater strain on current resources, could even reduce patent quality. And what a tragedy that would be.
Links to various other positions on Patent Reform:
- NAPP (National Association of Patent Practitioners) Position
- IPO (Intellectual Property Owners Assocation) patent reform page
- Microsoft’s Call For Patent Reform














