IP: Divided Congress May Create Perfect Storm for Patent Reform
Both democrats and republicans have a history of ignoring patent reform when they control Congress, but the current divide could lead to action.
November 29, 2010 at 07:00 PM
3 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Law.com
The promise of Patent Reform reminds me a bit of Lucy's perennial football prank on Charlie Brown in the Peanuts comic strip. Every year Congress tees up a reform package designed to cure the ills of the Patent System, patent practitioners and business owners get excited about the first real reform of the patent system in decades and then, like Lucy, Congress yanks the ball away by closing its legislative session without taking action.
This past year was no different. In March, the Senate introduced the Patent Reform Act of 2010. The Act included a number of measures to provide clarity in the patent system and to curb patent litigation abuses. For example, the 2010 Act provided guidance on patent damages, raised the bar for finding willful infringement, discouraged forum shopping and eliminated false marking suits where the plaintiff could not show competitive damage. All in all, the 2010 Act was seen as pro business and a good first step towards much needed systemic change.
The Act also had broad support. In September 2010, a bipartisan group of 25 senators (14 Democrats, 10 Republicans and one Independent) sent a letter to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid encouraging him to bring the Act to the Senate floor for consideration. In making their case, the bipartisan group promoted their view that a well functioning patent system would help stimulate the economy and create jobs. Unfortunately, with a majority in both houses and a Democrat in the White House, Senator Reid had bigger fish to fry. Reid's office issued a statement indicating that while Patent Reform was “an important issue, we have many items to consider before the end of the year and not much time to consider them.”
Senator Reid's failure to take up Patent Reform while the Democrats had control of Congress is not without precedent. In fact, the Republicans failed to pass the Patent Reform Act of 2006 when they had control of both houses and President Bush sat in the Oval Office. If there is a lesson to be learned from these failures, it might be that Patent Reform is just not partisan enough to make it to the top of either party's agenda. If that's the case, the current divided Congress may create the perfect storm for action on Patent Reform.
The Democrats in the new Congress have pledged to work toward bipartisan cooperation to help the economy and create jobs. Both parties agree that Patent Reform meets these goals. The Republicans have also pledged bipartisan cooperation, but have promised to hold their position on hot button topics such as tax cuts, health care and new spending. Patent Reform implicates none of these issues. While most commentators dismiss the promises of bipartisanship and predict nothing but gridlock from the new Congress, Patent Reform would seem to be one issue where Democrats and Republicans can come together.
As luck would have it, the bipartisan group of senators who urged Majority Leader Reid to take up Patent Reform last September have largely survived the recent election. If they can be encouraged to renew their efforts, 2011 could finally be the year when Congress breaks the “Lucy-and-the-football” cycle and enacts Patent Reform.
Mark Scarsi is a partner in the Intellectual Property Group of Milbank, Tweed, Hadley & McCloy, LLP, resident in the Los Angeles office.
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 AllTrump Mulls Big Changes to Banking Regulation, Unsettling the Industry
Newly Public Biotech Startup Hires Life Sciences Veteran as GC
'Big Change': NY Lawyers Eye Upcoming Employer Mandate To Provide Paid Leave for Prenatal Care
Trending Stories
- 1Mental Health Issues Don’t Get a Holiday
- 2'It's Got to Be a Wake-Up Call:' Atlanta Attorney Hopes $16M Verdict Spurs Training Changes at Hotels
- 3FTC Bans 'Junk Fees' in Live-Event Tickets and Short-Term Lodging
- 4California Legal Awards Moving to Mid-Summer Date in 2025, Adds New Categories
- 5Law Student Sues NY Attorney Grievance Officials, Seeking Materials Over Sexual Assault Claims
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