Senate Panel Backs Patent Overhaul Bill

mvar writes "A bill to reduce the likelihood of massive damage awards in patent disputes took a step forward with approval by the Senate Judiciary Committee. The committee voted 15-0 to back the legislation that would give judges a major role in determining how important a particular patent is to a product, so that infringing minor patents would not lead to huge damages. The bill (PDF) also gives patents to the first inventor to file, rather than the first to invent, making the patent application process easier for companies who apply for patents in multiple countries. This year, Microsoft, the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America and the Biotechnology Industry Organization support the patent legislation, while Dell, Cisco and others oppose it." Microsoft's blog post in support of patent reform calls for a quick review period for newly-granted patents and the acceptance of prior art submissions from third parties.

Comments

WTF?

[Cyberax]

"The bill (PDF) also gives patents to the first inventor to file, rather than the first to invent"

WTF?

Re:WTF?

[a_n_d_e_r_s]

Perfect now big companies can steal ideas from other countries and patent them in the USA. And the smaller damages means it won't cost as much for Microsoft and other big companies when they are convicted of infringing on others patents. This is really good for big companies that like to infringe on smaller companies patents.

Re:WTF?

[Svartalf]

That only benefits the big companies... Filing is friggin' expensive. Tens of thousands of dollars are involved with the filing of a Patent. First to file means whomever has the resources will get to it first. That's NOT reform.

Re:WTF?

[Sonny Yatsen]

Well, there are two major reasons why a first-to-file system may be advantageous. First, the United States is unique among the nations of the world in having a first-to-invent system. This means an inventor can gain priority over another inventor who filed before the first inventor if he can prove that they invented something first. Every single other country in the world uses a first-to-file system. To change US law to permit the first-to-file system would harmonize US law with every single other country's laws, simplifying the matter for inventors. It also gets rid of weird results like a family of patents that protect in every other country but the US.

Secondly, it's cheaper for all parties. A first-to-file system can determine who gains priority in a patent by simply looking at the dates. On the other hand, a first-to-invent system almost always devolves into massive lumbering multi-million dollar litigation suits where hundreds of attorneys and document reviewers pour though millions of pages of notes to prove one party reduced something to practice before another party. It also takes years to go through the courts, which is not helped by the already heavy backlog of cases in the Federal Courts. Plus, while a first-to-file system doesn't help the small inventor, a 102(g) fight priority fight in the courts REALLY doesn't help small inventors. They can't afford the potential millions of dollars that may be lost permanently if they lose such a case, or even to settle.

Re:WTF?

[Cyberax]

I'm reading it and it's horrible.

For comparison, Russia has a 'first-to-file' patent system. However there's a clause that earlier inventors receive an automatic license to use the patent, and it also could lead to patent's invalidation. I don't see anything like this in the new bill.

Re:WTF?

[Yvanhoe]

But after 3 years of UK success, the UK manufacturer wants to compete in US. "No" says the patent troll, you got to pay the "foreigner tax" first.

Having to pay a license to lawyers to be authorized to sell your own invention is not really what the patent system is supposed to be.

Re:WTF?

[coldfarnorth]

I disagree, this also helps the little people. If you file a patent for a cool idea, and IBM files for the same idea two days later (Keep in mind that the important date here is the postmark), you win. There's no expensive and lengthy court case (where you can lose by running out of money) to determine who invented it first. The debate will be over the day that they look at the postmarks. Keep in mind that prior art applies here also: if you publish a patent in another country, that is prior art, and you can use it to invalidate patents that are filed at a later date in the USA.

Now, if you want to stick with a system where a court case is necessary to determine who gets the patent, I guarantee that will primarily benefit the side with the most cash available for lawyers.

Food for thought, the rest of the world uses a first-to-file system, and it does not appear to have destroyed society yet.

Oh, one more thing: if you, as a "small entity", are willing to do the legwork and write up the patent application yourself, you can have a patent of reasonable length for less than $1000. The current fee schedule is available here:

http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/ac/qs/ope/fee2009september15.htm

Re:code for "death to prior art"

[ThosLives]

"First to file" doesn't eliminate the "novel, useful, unobvious" requirements on a patent. If an invention is already in the field and in use, first to file won't be the thing that locks it up. Instead, it will be the same thing that happens today when people get patents on obvious or preexisting "inventions".

First to file simply eliminates the fights over who invented things first. Of course, I'm of the opinion that if there is a "who invented it first" fight then the patent under question should immediately be invalidated or rejected, because near-enough simultaneous development by disparate parties means the invention is "obvious to those skilled in the art" QED.

First to file is very bad for academia.

[seeker_1us]

You need to be able to publish your stuff in academia as fast as possible, once you have good results. Waiting for the patent filing process (just the filing) can delay it badly. If you have first to invent, you can do your invention, then publish while you are doing the patent filing.

This will cripple innovation in America's Universities as researchers are forced to choose between publishing and patenting.

Re:Prior Art is No More

[Java Pimp]

First-to-file does not negate or eliminate prior art. First-to-file applies to parties independently coming up with the same invention (without existing public knowledge of such an invention) and granting the patent to the first to file.

Prior art can still be used to show that the first to file didn't actually do the inventing.

Interestingly enough, the Microsoft blog linked to in the article specifically mentions and endorses the use of prior art in countering patents.