The House Just Passed Patent Reform. Here’s Why It Matters.

WASHINGTON, DC - APRIL 25: Rep. Bob Goodlatte (R-VA) (R), Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, and Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-SC) speak about immigration during a news conference on Capitol Hill, April 25, 2013 in Washington, DC. The news conference was held to discuss immigration control issues that are before Congress. (Photo by Mark Wilson/Getty Images)
National Journal
Add to Briefcase
Dustin Volz
Dec. 5, 2013, 8:46 a.m.

Fol­low­ing hours of back-and-forth verbal spar­ring, the House passed a bill Thursday aimed at re­du­cing pred­at­ory pat­ent lit­ig­a­tion, mark­ing the first step for­ward for pat­ent-re­form ad­voc­ates since the pas­sage of the 2011 Amer­ica In­vents Act.

The bill, which passed with strong bi­par­tis­an sup­port on a 325-91 vote, makes pro­ced­ur­al changes in­ten­ded to lim­it the ad­verse and chilling im­pact on in­nov­a­tion made by so-called pat­ent trolls, or com­pan­ies that profit by buy­ing up pat­ents and us­ing them to tar­get oth­ers with in­fringe­ment law­suits. The bill 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 who 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.

“This bi­par­tis­an le­gis­la­tion should send a power­ful mes­sage to pat­ent trolls that their con­tin­ued ab­use of the pat­ent sys­tem and ex­tor­tion of Amer­ic­an busi­nesses will not be tol­er­ated,” said Mi­chael Beck­er­man, pres­id­ent and CEO of the In­ter­net As­so­ci­ation, in a state­ment. “We are also en­cour­aged by the White House’s sup­port of the bill and will con­tin­ue to work with the Sen­ate to en­sure the pas­sage of strong and ef­fect­ive le­gis­la­tion that de­ters the ab­us­ive lit­ig­a­tion prac­tices of pat­ent trolls and pro­motes in­nov­a­tion and eco­nom­ic growth.”

Pat­ent-troll lit­ig­a­tion costs the U.S. eco­nomy $80 bil­lion a year, ac­cord­ing to one oft-cited study from Bo­ston Uni­versity. Though some dis­pute those num­bers, nearly every­one agrees that pat­ent trolling is a prob­lem that has bal­looned in re­cent years, par­tic­u­larly in the soft­ware in­dustry.

But the In­nov­a­tion Act also rep­res­ents the first sub­stan­tial vic­tory to some sec­tors of the tech com­munity that have be­come in­creas­ingly frus­trated with Con­gress’s in­ab­il­ity to ad­dress their top con­cerns. Im­mig­ra­tion re­form con­tin­ues to flounder and gov­ern­ment-sur­veil­lance dis­clos­ures con­tin­ue to agit­ate large swaths of the tech com­munity, both big and small.

Des­pite the bill’s easy pas­sage in the House, no one, in­clud­ing Ju­di­ciary Com­mit­tee Chair­man Bob Good­latte, R-Va., thinks the bill is a pan­acea. It was greeted with nearly un­fettered en­thu­si­asm when it landed in late Oc­to­ber, the cul­min­a­tion of months of work and two pub­lic-dis­cus­sion drafts. But the co­ali­tion of large tech firms, start-ups, and soft­ware en­tre­pren­eurs began to show crack as the bill quickly slogged through Con­gress. Op­pon­ents said the bill was strong-armed through the Ju­di­ciary Com­mit­tee.

Ad­di­tion­ally, a con­tro­ver­sial pro­vi­sion cham­pioned by many “small guy” stake­hold­ers that would have strengthened the Pat­ent and Trade­mark Of­fice’s abil­ity to re­ject in­fringe­ment claims made on bad-qual­ity pat­ents was nixed by Good­latte fol­low­ing a do-or-die cam­paign against it waged by large tech firms, in­clud­ing IBM and Mi­crosoft.

“It’s not a per­fect bill, but it’s the closest we’ve ever come to real re­form that would get pat­ent trolls out of the way of in­nov­a­tion, and bring our pat­ent sys­tem near­er to its goal of pro­mot­ing the pro­gress of sci­ence and use­ful arts,” said Ju­lie Samuels, a staff at­tor­ney with the Elec­tron­ic Fron­ti­er Found­a­tion and the Mark Cuban Chair to Elim­in­ate Stu­pid Pat­ents.

Eight amend­ments were brought to the floor Thursday morn­ing, but only four small changes earned ap­prov­al, in­clud­ing one by Rep. Jared Pol­is, D-Colo., re­quir­ing more trans­par­ency in de­mand let­ters, and an­oth­er by Rep. Sheila Jack­son Lee, D-Texas, com­mis­sion­ing a study on the eco­nom­ic im­pact of the bill. A sub­sti­tute amend­ment by Reps. John Con­yers and Mel Watt, which Good­latte re­buked as “a pois­on pill that will kill any at­tempt at mean­ing­ful re­form in Con­gress,” was turned down.

Pat­ent-re­form ad­voc­ates now turn their eyes to the Sen­ate, where Ju­di­ciary Chair­man Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., has sched­uled a Dec. 17 hear­ing for a bill that is sim­il­ar to Good­latte’s but is open to hav­ing oth­er pro­pos­als tacked on. Sens. John Cornyn, Or­rin Hatch. and Chuck Schu­mer have all offered their own bills as well.


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.