U.S. House Passes Patent Reform Act of 2007
The U.S. House passed a bill 220-175 Sept. 7 that could drastically change patent law...
September 10, 2007 at 01:00 PM
4 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Law.com
The U.S. House passed a bill 220-175 Sept. 7 that could drastically change patent law by instituting a “first-to-file” standard and a post-grant review procedure. The bipartisan Patent Reform Act of 2007 (H.R. 1908), sponsored by Rep. Howard Berman (D-Calif.) and Rep. Lamar Smith (R-Texas) and 23 co-sponsors, also aims to limit the venues of patent suits and curb damages.
“The current patent system has become bogged down by delays, prolonged disputes and confusing jurisprudence,” Jonathan Yarowsky, policy counsel and spokesperson for the Coalition for Patent Fairness, said in a statement. “This comprehensive legislation is much needed and will help drive innovation.”
Adoption of the first-to-file system would bring the U.S. in line with most other foreign patent systems. H.R. 1908 would award the patent to the first person to file with the Patent and Trademark Office rather than the first inventor. The first-to-file standard would eliminate the need for long disputes over identifying the first inventor.
The post-grant review process would allow third parties to challenge patent applications they deem unpatentable, thereby avoiding future litigation. When patent litigation does go forward, civil action would be limited to the jurisdiction where either party resides or where the accused has committed the acts of infringement. And if an accused is found to infringe, under the Patent Reform Act, damages may not be based upon the entire market value of the patent.
Lawmakers amended H.R. 1908 following its introduction in April in reaction to strong opposition, especially from the pharmaceutical industry. The Patent Reform Act was introduced in the Senate in April.
In a Sept. 6 Statement of Administration Policy, the White House said, “The Administration strongly supports the passage of patent modernization legislation that fairly balances the interests of all innovators by improving patent quality and reducing patent litigation. … However, the Administration continues to oppose H.R. 1908's limits on the discretion of a court in determining damages adequate to compensate for an infringement.”
The U.S. House passed a bill 220-175 Sept. 7 that could drastically change patent law by instituting a “first-to-file” standard and a post-grant review procedure. The bipartisan Patent Reform Act of 2007 (H.R. 1908), sponsored by Rep. Howard Berman (D-Calif.) and Rep. Lamar Smith (R-Texas) and 23 co-sponsors, also aims to limit the venues of patent suits and curb damages.
“The current patent system has become bogged down by delays, prolonged disputes and confusing jurisprudence,” Jonathan Yarowsky, policy counsel and spokesperson for the Coalition for Patent Fairness, said in a statement. “This comprehensive legislation is much needed and will help drive innovation.”
Adoption of the first-to-file system would bring the U.S. in line with most other foreign patent systems. H.R. 1908 would award the patent to the first person to file with the Patent and Trademark Office rather than the first inventor. The first-to-file standard would eliminate the need for long disputes over identifying the first inventor.
The post-grant review process would allow third parties to challenge patent applications they deem unpatentable, thereby avoiding future litigation. When patent litigation does go forward, civil action would be limited to the jurisdiction where either party resides or where the accused has committed the acts of infringement. And if an accused is found to infringe, under the Patent Reform Act, damages may not be based upon the entire market value of the patent.
Lawmakers amended H.R. 1908 following its introduction in April in reaction to strong opposition, especially from the pharmaceutical industry. The Patent Reform Act was introduced in the Senate in April.
In a Sept. 6 Statement of Administration Policy, the White House said, “The Administration strongly supports the passage of patent modernization legislation that fairly balances the interests of all innovators by improving patent quality and reducing patent litigation. … However, the Administration continues to oppose H.R. 1908's limits on the discretion of a court in determining damages adequate to compensate for an infringement.”
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllRepublican FTC Commissioner: 'The Time for Rulemaking by the Biden-Harris FTC Is Over'
4 minute readSo You Want to Be a Tech Lawyer? Consider Product Counseling
FTC Lauds Withdrawal of Proposed Indiana Hospitals Merger After Leaning on State Regulators
4 minute readHow Qualcomm’s General Counsel Is Championing Diversity in Innovation
6 minute readTrending Stories
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250