Patent reform bill meets opposition during hearing

Efforts in the U.S. Congress to overhaul the nation's patent system are again running into objections from inventors, pharmaceutical companies and small technology companies, which say that current legislation could destroy the value of patents.

Current efforts to reform the patent system are equivalent to a homeowner flooding his house to put out a small fire in a wastebasket, inventor Dean Kamen told the U.S. House Judiciary Committee Thursday. Instead of a far-reaching overhaul that would make it more difficult for patent holders to get large damage awards, Congress should focus on improving the quality of patents by giving more money to the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), said Kamen, inventor of the Segway scooter, an insulin pump and other products.

In some cases, it can take five years for USPTO to approve a patent application, Kamen said. "Whatever you do, make sure the Patent Office has the resources to respond quickly," he said. "You couldn't build houses if you needed five years to get your title to your deed, or after your deed, you had a post-deed review."

Kamen and representatives of Tessera, a semiconductor packaging vendor, and Johnson and Johnson, the health-care products vendor, told lawmakers they are opposed to parts of the Patent Reform Act, introduced in March by members of the House Judiciary Committee. The House version of the bill would expand post-grant challenges to patents, limit the judicial jurisdictions where a patent lawsuit can be filed and limit how judges can determine the value of a patented invention as part of a larger product.

The U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee has approved a similar bill, and is waiting for action on the Senate floor. The House passed a similar bill in September 2007, but the Senate failed to act on it before a new Congress was elected in November 2008.

The House bill's provisions for post-grant review of patents are unnecessary because of several recent court cases that have "significantly tilted the balance in favor of patent users, rather than patent holders," said Bernard Cassidy, Tessera's senior vice president and general counsel.

Current patent re-examination procedure has already become "an instrument of abuse and patent nullification," with specialist law firms advertising that they can create uncertainty about patents, he added.

Sign up for ITworld's Daily newsletter
Follow ITworld on Twitter @IT_world

• Email
• Print
• Share
  • Slashdot
  • Digg
  • Stumble
  • Reddit
  • Newsvine