How the House Judiciary Committee Made Killing Patent Trolls a 2013 Priority

The bill, designed to rein in abusive patent-litigation practices, passed the House 325-91 with sweeping bipartisan support.

WASHINGTON, DC - JULY 25: (R-L) Rep. Blake Farenthold (R-TX), Rep. George Holding (R-GA), Rep. Ron DeSantis (R-FL) and Rep. Jason Smith (R-MO), join othermembers of the House Courts, Intellectual Property and the Internet Subcommittee in wearing 3D glasses while watching a demonstration of 3D technology on Capitol Hill July 25, 2013 in Washington, DC. The subcommittee, a part of the House Judiciary Committee, heard testimony on the topic of 'Innovation in America: The Role of Copyrights.'
National Journal
Fawn Johnson and Dustin Volz
Add to Briefcase
See more stories about...
Fawn Johnson Dustin Volz
Dec. 11, 2013, 3:04 p.m.

In a year that will go down as his­tor­ic­ally fruit­less even by the low stand­ards of Con­gress, the House Ju­di­ciary Com­mit­tee’s six-week push for the In­nov­a­tion Act from in­tro­duc­tion to floor pas­sage of­fers a rare ex­ample of a pro­duct­ive le­gis­lat­ive pro­cess in ac­tion.

The bill, de­signed to rein in ab­us­ive pat­ent-lit­ig­a­tion prac­tices, passed the House 325-91 on Dec. 5 with sweep­ing bi­par­tis­an sup­port, and it now awaits judg­ment in the Sen­ate. It’s a ser­i­ous bill, too: It makes pro­ced­ur­al changes in­ten­ded to lim­it the ad­verse im­pact of pat­ent trolls, or com­pan­ies that profit by buy­ing up pat­ents and us­ing them to tar­get in­vent­ors with in­fringe­ment law­suits.

The In­nov­a­tion Act would re­quire plaintiffs to be more spe­cif­ic in their law­suits, in­crease trans­par­ency of pat­ent own­er­ship, re­duce the costs of dis­cov­ery, and pro­tect end users, such as cof­fee shops that might pur­chase a pat­ent-pro­tec­ted item from a vendor. It also makes it easi­er for those who suc­cess­fully de­fend them­selves against a pat­ent law­suit to re­cov­er leg­al costs.

So how did a bill of sub­stance sneak through the 113th Con­gress? Chair­man Bob Good­latte, R-Va., cites pat­ent trolls for rap­idly step­ping up their ab­uses, which are es­tim­ated to cost the U.S. eco­nomy tens of bil­lions of dol­lars an­nu­ally. In par­tic­u­lar, pat­ent trolling has ex­ploded in the soft­ware in­dustry.

“The is­sue has be­come much more high pro­file,” Good­latte said. “Be­fore, it was an is­sue that the tech com­munity was very con­cerned about. Now all the tech com­munit­ies’ cus­tom­ers, which is ba­sic­ally every busi­ness in Amer­ica, is con­cerned. And that makes a dif­fer­ence.”

But there’s more to the story. Backed by a co­hort of bi­par­tis­an co­spon­sors, Good­latte in­tro­duced the In­nov­a­tion Act in late Oc­to­ber, after so­li­cit­ing in­put on two dis­cus­sion drafts. His bill joined a crowded field of a half-dozen oth­er pat­ent-re­form meas­ures in­tro­duced this year. But while oth­er bills stood mo­tion­less, Good­latte man­aged to co­alesce enough stake­hold­ers around his bill to cre­ate a ter­min­al ve­lo­city of mo­mentum to ad­dress a grow­ing prob­lem in the lit­ig­a­tion world.

Cred­it that mo­mentum to both good tim­ing and Good­latte’s keen un­der­stand­ing of the tech­nic­al world.

For much of the year, im­mig­ra­tion was the cause célèbre of the tech lobby, with pat­ent re­form a not­able but dis­tant second. And gov­ern­ment-sur­veil­lance dis­clos­ures be­gin­ning in the sum­mer left pat­ent re­form po­ten­tially on the chop­ping block for the year’s le­gis­lat­ive agenda. But the In­nov­a­tion Act was in­tro­duced a week after the gov­ern­ment shut­down, when im­mig­ra­tion re­form ap­peared on ex­treme life sup­port. Frus­trated tech groups, from large play­ers like Google and Cisco to act­iv­ist groups like the Elec­tron­ic Fron­ti­er Found­a­tion, saw the bill as the best shot at get­ting something — any­thing — ac­com­plished in this year’s Con­gress, and im­me­di­ately launched a soph­ist­ic­ated and co­ordin­ated cheer­lead­ing cam­paign.

And al­though no one, in­clud­ing Good­latte, con­siders the bill per­fect, power­ful stake­hold­ers found enough good things in the bill to sup­port it after some of­fend­ing sec­tions were cut out.

One of the less no­ticed lob­by­ing wins for the pat­ent-bill spon­sors in­volved Phar­ma­ceut­ic­al Re­search and Man­u­fac­tur­ers of Amer­ica, which rep­res­ents drug com­pan­ies. Any move to re­strict pat­ent lit­ig­a­tion al­ways makes the phar­ma­ceut­ic­al in­dustry nervous, be­cause they spend a great deal of time and money de­fend­ing their most suc­cess­ful drug pat­ents.

PhRMA made clear its con­cerns about the pat­ent bill last month in a let­ter to Good­latte, out­lining sev­er­al ways in which the meas­ure un­in­ten­tion­ally un­der­mined le­git­im­ate drug pat­ents.

Be­cause PhRMA didn’t threaten to op­pose the bill out­right — a stance that would have made it dif­fi­cult for some Re­pub­lic­ans to vote for it — Good­latte was will­ing to listen. A few tweaks here and there to the le­gis­la­tion got PhRMA about half the changes it sought. The res­ult was this: “PhRMA com­mends the House of Rep­res­ent­at­ives for its work to curb ab­us­ive pat­ent lit­ig­a­tion,” Seni­or Vice Pres­id­ent Matt Ben­nett said in a state­ment. He ad­ded that the group still has con­cerns but looks for­ward to ad­dress­ing them in the Sen­ate ver­sion.

The same strategy was em­ployed by a num­ber of large tech firms, most not­ably Apple, Mi­crosoft, and IBM, to pres­sure Good­latte to nix a con­tro­ver­sial pro­vi­sion from his bill that would have strengthened the U.S. Pat­ent and Trade­mark Of­fice’s abil­ity to re­ject cer­tain in­fringe­ment claims made on low-qual­ity pat­ents. Lead­ing up to the bill’s com­mit­tee markup, IBM un­leashed an ag­gress­ive pub­lic-re­la­tions cam­paign seek­ing to kill the pro­vi­sion on grounds it would “di­min­ish U.S. com­pet­it­ive­ness by de­valu­ing a class of U.S. pat­ents and in­vit­ing our trad­ing part­ners to do the same.”

Chris Pa­dilla, IBM’s vice pres­id­ent of gov­ern­ment­al pro­grams, told Na­tion­al Journ­al Daily that the In­nov­a­tion Act would “move ahead very ex­ped­i­tiously” and cre­ate a “kum­baya mo­ment” among the dis­par­ate stake­hold­ers if the pat­ent-qual­ity pro­vi­sion was re­moved. He prom­ised full-throated op­pos­i­tion from IBM and oth­ers if it stayed.

The gam­bit worked, and Good­latte craf­ted a man­ager’s amend­ment that struck the pro­vi­sion. Many pat­ent-re­form ad­voc­ates cursed the de­cision be­hind closed doors but largely held their tongues in pub­lic, de­cid­ing to fight for the ex­pan­sion an­oth­er day.

Good­latte’s shep­herd­ing of his In­nov­a­tion Act — and his de­sire to build a broad con­sensus even at the ex­pense of some is­sues he cares about — re­calls the pas­sage of the 2011 Amer­ica In­vents Act, con­sidered the most sub­stan­tial up­date to the pat­ent sys­tem since the 1950s. The AIA, au­thored by pre­vi­ous Ju­di­ciary Com­mit­tee Chair­man Lamar Smith, R-Texas, changes the pat­ent sys­tem from “first to in­vent” to “first in­vent­or to file.”

“Some of the things that are in the In­nov­a­tion Act are things that we tried to write in that bill and couldn’t get done,” Good­latte said. “These are things that couldn’t get done be­fore and now can be­cause of both changed cir­cum­stances here and changed cir­cum­stances out­side, par­tic­u­larly pat­ent trolls send­ing let­ters to every­body and their broth­er.”

What We're Following See More »
TRUMP CONTINUES TO LAWYER UP
Kasowitz Out, John Dowd In
2 days ago
THE LATEST

As the Russia investigation heats up, "the role of Marc E. Kasowitz, the president’s longtime New York lawyer, will be significantly reduced. Mr. Trump liked Mr. Kasowitz’s blunt, aggressive style, but he was not a natural fit in the delicate, politically charged criminal investigation. The veteran Washington defense lawyer John Dowd will take the lead in representing Mr. Trump for the Russia inquiry."

Source:
ALSO INQUIRES ABOUT PARDON POWER
Trump Looking to Discredit Mueller
2 days ago
THE LATEST

President Trump's attorneys are "actively compiling a list of Mueller’s alleged potential conflicts of interest, which they say could serve as a way to stymie his work." They plan to argued that Mueller is going outside the scope of his investigation, in inquiring into Trump's finances. They're also playing small ball, highlighting "donations to Democrats by some of" Mueller's team, and "an allegation that Mueller and Trump National Golf Club in Northern Virginia had a dispute over membership fees when Mueller resigned as a member in 2011." Trump is said to be incensed that Mueller may see his tax returns, and has been asking about his power to pardon his family members.

Source:
INCLUDES NY PROBE INTO MANAFORT
Why Yes, Mueller Is Looking into Trump Businesses
2 days ago
THE LATEST

In addition to ties between Russia and the Trump campaign, Robert Mueller's team is also "examining a broad range of transactions involving Trump’s businesses as well as those of his associates, according to a person familiar with the probe. FBI investigators and others are looking at Russian purchases of apartments in Trump buildings, Trump’s involvement in a controversial SoHo development in New York with Russian associates, the 2013 Miss Universe pageant in Moscow, and Trump’s sale of a Florida mansion to a Russian oligarch in 2008, the person said. The investigation also has absorbed a money-laundering probe begun by federal prosecutors in New York into Trump’s former campaign chairman Paul Manafort."

Source:
Mueller Expands Probe to Trump Business Transactions
2 days ago
THE DETAILS

Special Counsel Robert Mueller's team is "is examining a broad range of transactions involving Trump’s businesses as well as those of his associates", including "Russian purchases of apartments in Trump buildings, Trump’s involvement in a controversial SoHo development with Russian associates, the 2013 Miss Universe pageant in Moscow and Trump’s sale of a Florida mansion to a Russian oligarch in 2008."

Source:
ANALYSIS FROM CBO
32 Million More Uninsured by 2026 if Obamacare Repealed
2 days ago
THE LATEST

"A Senate bill to gut Obamacare would increase the number of uninsured people by 32 million and double premiums on Obamacare's exchanges by 2026, according to an analysis from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office. The analysis is of a bill that passed Congress in 2015 that would repeal Obamacare's taxes and some of the mandates. Republicans intend to leave Obamacare in place for two years while a replacement is crafted and implemented."

Source:
×
×

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.

Login