Senators: Slow Hunt of Patent Trolls Isn’t Gridlock. It’s Genius.

As stakeholders ramp up their lobbying efforts, the Senate Judiciary Committee promises it is on the precipice of a grand compromise on how to best slay patent trolls.

National Journal
Add to Briefcase
Dustin Volz
April 3, 2014, 9:16 a.m.

When fight­ing pat­ent trolls, it’s bet­ter to wait for a clean open­ing than to rush in­to a messy mel­ee.

That was the mes­sage con­veyed by sev­er­al mem­bers of the Sen­ate Ju­di­ciary Com­mit­tee on Thursday, as the pan­el took up pat­ent re­form for the second time in as many weeks — only to again delay markup of any le­gis­la­tion un­til at least next Tues­day.

Chair­man Patrick Leahy said dur­ing the com­mit­tee’s ex­ec­ut­ive busi­ness ses­sion that con­cerns over strik­ing the right bal­ance on the is­sue per­sist, but that he is hope­ful he is in the “fi­nal stages of ham­mer­ing out a man­ager’s amend­ment that is the res­ult of true com­prom­ise.”

The Ver­mont Demo­crat ad­ded that ne­go­ti­ations are in full swing on how to best curb the prob­lem of trolls — com­pan­ies that buy cheap pat­ents and use them for profit by threat­en­ing in­fringe­ment suits against oth­ers in hopes of set­tling — and that he wants to broker an agree­ment by the end of the week for full con­sid­er­a­tion next week.

Leahy gave some in­dic­a­tion of what a le­gis­lat­ive com­prom­ise might look like. He men­tioned fee-shift­ing, which would re­quire the loser to pay the win­ner’s leg­al fees in an in­fringe­ment case, as an im­port­ant meas­ure that has “mer­it” spe­cific­ally in pat­ent cases, but he noted that judges should main­tain a role in de­term­in­ing when to en­force it. The chair­man also men­tioned a pro­vi­sion from Sen. Or­rin Hatch that tar­gets shell com­pan­ies as one that is im­port­ant but re­mains com­plic­ated.

But while some of Thursday’s dis­cus­sion gave a peek at the be­hind-the-scenes saus­age-mak­ing, much of it in­volved law­makers de­fend­ing their slow ap­proach, which stands in stark con­trast to the House’s quick pas­sage of an om­ni­bus pat­ent bill, the In­nov­a­tion Act, late last year with large bi­par­tis­an sup­port.

“You are wise to delay,” Sen. Chuck Schu­mer told Leahy. “Get­ting a good bill is bet­ter than just get­ting a bill,” a phrase that Leahy and Chuck Grass­ley, the pan­el’s top Re­pub­lic­an, echoed.

Sen. Dick Durbin, mean­while, urged con­tin­ued cau­tion, and in­dic­ated the com­mit­tee is still ag­on­iz­ing over the prop­er scope of a num­ber of pro­vi­sions. 

“The House of Rep­res­ent­at­ives passed a bill in a hurry,” Durbin said. “In­tro­duced in one day, and came up for a vote on the House floor 43 days later. I’m not sure they had a thought­ful de­lib­er­a­tion, and I hope we do.”

The Illinois Demo­crat ad­ded that few­er than one in five in­fringe­ment suits is ac­tu­ally levied by a troll, cit­ing 2011 data from the Gov­ern­ment Ac­count­ab­il­ity Of­fice, and he said, “We need to make sure we pre­serve the rights of le­git­im­ate pat­ent hold­ers “¦ and don’t have un­in­ten­ded con­sequences.”

But House Ju­di­ciary Chair­man Bob Good­latte, who sponsored the In­nov­a­tion Act, said the Sen­ate needs to act swiftly, as time may be run­ning out.

“We think it’s im­port­ant that they act on it and they act ex­ped­i­tiously, as this Con­gress is about to close,” Good­latte told Na­tion­al Journ­al on Thursday. “But we also say it’s most im­port­ant that they get it right.”

The Vir­gin­ia Re­pub­lic­an said he doesn’t have a defin­it­ive timeline for when the Sen­ate needs to pass a bill, but ad­ded simply, “The soon­er, the bet­ter.”

Schu­mer, a New York Demo­crat, said earli­er this week that the Ju­di­ciary Com­mit­tee needed to act in April or May at the latest to have a chance of get­ting a pat­ent-re­form bill on the pres­id­ent’s desk this year. After the In­nov­a­tion Act’s pas­sage, many re­form ad­voc­ates had said they had hoped for Sen­ate Ju­di­ciary to pass a bill out of com­mit­tee by Janu­ary or Feb­ru­ary, a peri­od the pan­el oc­cu­pied with a series of edu­ca­tion­al brief­ings on pat­ent lit­ig­a­tion.

One of the reas­ons for the slog has been the in­tense at­ten­tion that pat­ent re­form has drawn from a wide swath of busi­ness in­terests in­clud­ing tech, uni­versit­ies, and re­tail­ers. A flurry of lob­by­ing from all sides has circled the Cap­it­ol this week, as start-ups and oth­er stake­hold­ers are mak­ing fi­nal pushes to keep their favored pro­vi­sions from be­ing left on the cut­ting room floor.

En­gine Ad­vocacy and the Con­sumer Elec­tron­ics As­so­ci­ation, for ex­ample, flew in a dozen founders of tech start-ups this week to meet with a hand­ful of law­makers and pat­ent staffers to plead for a strong anti-troll bill.

But lob­by­ing against sweep­ing re­form pro­vi­sions has also spiked. The Al­li­ance of U.S. Star­tups and In­vent­ors for Jobs and oth­er groups rep­res­ent­ing in­vent­ors met with Hill staffers Wed­nes­day to voice their op­pos­i­tion to a large swath of pro­pos­als on the table, in­clud­ing fee-shift­ing, cus­tom­er-stay, and heightened plead­ing stand­ards. Pil­ing on, about 30 or­gan­iz­a­tions rep­res­ent­ing uni­versit­ies, bi­otech, and med­ic­al sci­ences sent a force­ful let­ter to the Sen­ate Ju­di­ciary prom­ising to op­pose le­gis­la­tion that doesn’t strike the “ap­pro­pri­ate bal­ance” on a num­ber of con­tested pro­vi­sions.

The largest salvo may have come Thursday, as IBM, Mi­crosoft, Apple, and oth­er tech gi­ants joined with phar­ma­ceut­ic­al com­pan­ies and man­u­fac­tur­ers to form the Part­ner­ship for Amer­ic­an In­nov­a­tion to cau­tion law­makers to be ju­di­cious as they wrap up con­sid­er­a­tion of re­form pro­pos­als.

“Des­pite their dif­fer­ences, all of these com­pan­ies are uni­fied be­cause they de­pend on Amer­ica’s world lead­ing pat­ent sys­tem to safe­guard their in­vest­ments,” the the group says on its web­site.

As the lob­by­ing in­tens­i­fies, stake­hold­ers will con­tin­ue to do what they have done for months: wait. At least un­til next week.


Welcome to National Journal!

You are currently accessing National Journal from IP access. Please login to access this feature. If you have any questions, please contact your Dedicated Advisor.