Tag: broken patent system

Categories
Biotech Patents Pharma

“No Combination Drug Patents Act” Stalls, but Threats to Innovation Remain

superimposed images from a chemistry labBy Kevin Madigan & Sean O’Connor

This week, the Senate Judiciary Committee was to mark up a bill limiting patent eligibility for combination drug patents—new forms, uses, and administrations of FDA approved medicines. While the impetus was to curb so-called “evergreening” of drug patents, the effect would have been to stifle life-saving therapeutic innovations. Though the “No Combination Drug Patents Act”—reportedly to be introduced by Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC)—was wisely withdrawn at the last minute, it’s likely not the last time that such a misconceived legislative effort will be introduced.

An Exaggerated Response to a Disputed Theory

The bill would have established a presumption of obviousness for drug or biologic patent applications whose invention was a new: dosing regimen, method of delivery, method of treatment, or formulation. While there was a rebuttal provision where the claim covered a new treatment for a new indication or “increase[d] . . . efficacy,” the latter was almost certain to introduce years of uncertainty and litigation. Further, the bill would have covered a broader class than true combination drug patents, in which one active ingredient is combined with another or with a non-drug.

Like many recent legislative efforts, the amendment sought to address a perceived lack of affordability of prescription drugs. After praising the America Invents Act of 2011 and subsequent Supreme Court rulings for strengthening the US patent system, the bill claimed that rising drug prices have outpaced “spending on research and development with respect to those drugs.” In addition to applauding Supreme Court decisions that have injected unquestionable uncertainty into patentable subject matter standards, the amendment went on to blame high drug prices on continually overstated issues related to advanced drug patents.

According to critics, combination drug patents have granted drug makers unearned and extended protection over existing drugs or biological products. But, quite simply, when properly issued by the USPTO under existing patentability standards, these are new patents for new products or processes.

Combination patents have been maligned as anticompetitive, resulting in a “thicket” of patents that impedes innovation through transaction costs and other inefficiencies. Unfortunately, notwithstanding a lack of empirical evidence validating the harm of follow-on innovation patents, patent thicket rhetoric is now being echoed by the media, the academy, courts, and policy makers in a fraught attempt to fix drug pricing.

Reports (see here, here, here, and here) from leading antitrust experts and intellectual property scholars have detailed the value of incremental innovation and challenged the notion that patent thickets are a true threat to competition and innovation. These studies have exposed patent thicket claims—much like the “troll” narrative that for years infected patent law debates—as an empty strawman theory, the repetition of which has led to undue confidence in its accuracy. The reality is that what critics point to as problematic cases of combination patents are in fact infrequent outliers, strategically highlighted to discount evidence of the value of new and innovative drug uses and administrations.

A similar claim by those promoting the patent thicket narrative is that combination patents extend exclusivity on a drug for years beyond an initial patent term, thereby blocking generic entry in the market. But if an underlying drug has gone off patent, no follow-on or combination patent will prevent a generic drug company from producing the underlying formulation—it’s only the new formulation, use, or administration that is protected.

Vague, Yet Oddly Familiar Standards

The language of the Graham amendment asserted that because “numerous” combination patents “contain obvious product developments,” a restructuring of 35 USC 103 is necessary to combat patent thickets and achieve optimal drug pricing. Suggesting that 103 obvious standards for advanced drug development should include a presumption that the covered claimed invention and the prior art to which it relates would have been obvious, the legislation would have undermined a unitary system of patent law in favor of different standards for different fields of technology. It was a bold proposal, and it’s one that ignored the proven value of new drug formulations and methods of treatment.

While the amendment provided for a rebuttal to the presumption of obviousness, the language was ambiguous and likely to render the patent system even more unreliable than it already is. The proposed statute said that an applicant may rebut the presumption of obviousness if the covered claimed invention “results in a statistically significant increase in the efficacy of the drug or biological product that the covered claimed invention contains or uses.” It is unclear what would qualify as “statistically significant,” and proving this vague standard would be nearly impossible.

In order to show a “statistically significant increase in efficacy,” long and costly head-to-head clinical trials would be necessary. To be clear, this is not a standard required by the FDA for new drug approval, let alone patentability.

As if that wasn’t enough reason to reject the Graham amendment, the language was alarmingly similar to that of an Indian patent law statute that has been recognized by the US Trade Representative as a “major obstacle to innovators.” In 2005, in order to comply with the WTO’s Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) agreement, India adopted for the first time patent protection for pharmaceuticals. Despite its recognition of IP rights in pharmaceuticals, India’s Act contains a troubling ambiguity in its Section 3(d), which requires an “enhanced efficacy” for known drugs in addition to the standard novelty, inventive step, and industrial applicability requirements.

India’s Section 3(d) has been invoked to reject patent protection for life-saving drug innovations, including Novartis’ landmark leukemia drug, Gleevec. Drug companies, government agencies, and policy makers have all recognized the threat to innovation that India’s patent law poses. In 2013, not long after the Novartis ruling, a bipartisan group of 40 Senators signed a letter to then Secretary of State John Kerry urging the state department to take action against India’s “deteriorating IP environment,” citing its willingness to “break or revoke patents for nearly a dozen lifesaving medications.”

Despite the widespread condemnation of India’s Section 3(d), the Graham amendment proposed adopting similarly indefinable standards to US patent law. While the language differed slightly—replacing “enhanced efficacy” with “increase in the efficacy”—it was no clearer, and implementation of this type of standard would only cause more confusion.

Protecting and Incentivizing Medical Innovation

Like most forms of innovation, the development of medicines and therapeutics is a process by which one builds and improves upon previous discoveries and breakthroughs. Sometimes those improvements are major advancements, but often they are incremental steps forward. In the pharmaceutical field, incremental or follow-on innovation frequently results in new therapeutic uses for existing drugs, which address serious challenges related to adverse effects, delivery systems, and dosing schedules. While they might not sound like medical breakthroughs on par with the discovery of penicillin, these advancements in the administration and use of pharmaceuticals improve public health and save lives.

Additionally, follow-on innovations are—and should remain—subject to the same patentability standards as any other technologies. Patents reward advancements that are novel, useful, and nonobvious, and our patent system has long recognized that patent claims are to be presumed patentable and nonobvious. The Graham amendment would have turned this established standard on its head, creating a separate and ill-defined hurdle for certain advancements in medicine.

The benefits of incremental innovation to public health and patients cannot be overstated. New formulations of malaria drugs, dosing regimens and delivery systems for AIDS patients, more efficient administrations of insulin for the treatment of diabetes, and developments in the treatment of cognitive heart disease have all been possible because of incremental innovation.

Imposing unjustified restrictions on the patentability of advancements like these would be disastrous for drug development, as the incentives that come with patent protection would be all but eliminated. Without the assurance that their innovative labor would be supported by intellectual property protection, pioneering drug developers would shift resources away from improving drug formulations and uses. The development of more effective treatments of some of the most devastating diseases would stall, as innovators would be unable to commercialize their products, recoup losses, or fund future research and development.

As critics continue to target myopically the patent system for a broader issue of drug prices in the American health care system, it’s likely not the last time that language like this will be proposed. In order to avoid the implementation of such ill-conceived standards into our patent laws, understanding what’s at stake is critical. The future of medical innovation depends on it.

Categories
Innovation Legislation Patent Law Patent Litigation Uncategorized

Law Professors & Economists Urge Caution on VENUE Act in Letter to Congress

Today, 28 law professors, economists, and political scientists from across the nation submitted a letter to Congress expressing serious concerns about the recent push for sweeping changes to patent litigation venue rules, such as those proposed in the VENUE Act. The letter is copied below, and it can be downloaded here: http://ssrn.com/abstract=2816062

Although proponents for the VENUE Act argue that the concentration of patent cases in a few federal district courts is bad for the patent system, this letter explains that the VENUE Act does not solve this problem. Studies show that similar restrictions on venue would only shift this concentration from the Eastern District of Texas to a couple other judicial districts – the District of Delaware and the Northern District of California. These two other districts are recognized as more friendly to defendants, such as the high-tech companies and retailers lobbying heavily for the VENUE Act. The letter also explains that Congress also should be wary of acting, because the rates and patterns in patent litigation are very fluid. For example, the percentage of patent lawsuits filed in the Eastern District of Texas relative to other districts is now declining substantially.

For these reasons, among others detailed in the letter, these academics conclude that Congress should adopt a wait-and-see approach on the VENUE Act. In the very least, until the patent-weakening effects of the America Invents Act’s new PTAB proceedings and recent Supreme Court decisions are better understood, Congress should be reluctant to enact legislation that will further weaken patent rights and potentially harm our innovation economy.

Read the letter below or download it here: http://ssrn.com/abstract=2816062

Letter to Congress from 28 Law Professors
& Economists Urging Caution on the VENUE Act

Dear Chairman Grassley, Ranking Member Leahy, Chairman Goodlatte, and Ranking Member Conyers:

As legal academics, economists, and political scientists who conduct research in patent law and policy, we write to express our concerns about the recent push for sweeping changes to patent litigation venue rules, such as those proposed in the VENUE Act.[1] These changes would vastly restrict where all patent owners could file suit—contrary to the general rule that a plaintiff in a civil lawsuit against a corporate defendant can select any court with jurisdictional ties to the defendant.[2]

Given the recent changes in the patent system under the America Invents Act of 2011 and judicial decisions that have effectively weakened patent rights,[3] we believe that Congress should adopt a cautious stance to enacting additional changes that further weaken patent rights, at least until the effects of these recent changes are better understood.

Proponents of amending the venue rules have an initially plausible-sounding concern: the Eastern District of Texas handles a large percentage of patent infringement lawsuits and one judge within that district handles a disproportionate share of those cases. The reality is that the major proponents of changing the venue rules are primarily large high-tech companies and retailers with an online presence sued in the Eastern District of Texas that would rather litigate in a small number of more defendant-friendly jurisdictions.

Indeed, the arguments in favor of this unprecedented move to restrict venue do not stand up to scrutiny. Specifically:

  • Proponents for the VENUE Act argue that “[t]he staggering concentration of patent cases in just a few federal district courts is bad for the patent system.”[4] As an initial matter, data indicates that filings of patent lawsuits in the Eastern District of Texas have dropped substantially this year—suggesting a cautious approach until trends have stabilized.[5]
  • Contrary to claims by its proponents, legislative proposals like the VENUE Act would not spread lawsuits throughout the country. In fact, these same proponents have found that restricting venue in a manner similar to the VENUE Act would likely result in concentrating more than 50% of patent lawsuits in just two districts: the District of Delaware (where most publicly traded corporations are incorporated) and the Northern District of California (where many patent defendants are headquartered).[6] Instead of widely distributing patent cases across numerous districts in order to promote procedural “fairness,” the VENUE Act would primarily channel cases into only two districts, which happen to be districts where it is considered much more difficult to enforce patent rights.[7]
  • Proponents for the VENUE Act have argued that the Eastern District of Texas is reversed more often by the Federal Circuit than other jurisdictions, claiming that in 2015 the Federal Circuit affirmed only 39% of the Eastern District of Texas’s decisions but affirmed over 70% of decisions from the Northern District of California and District of Delaware.[8] These figures are misleading: they represent only one year of data, mix trials and summary judgment orders, and fail to take into account differences in technology types and appeals rates in each district. In fact, a more complete study over a longer time period by Price Waterhouse Coopers found that the Eastern District of Texas affirmance rate is only slightly below the national average for all districts.[9]
  • The Federal Circuit recently confirmed in In re TC Heartland (Fed. Cir. Apr. 29, 2016) that 28 U.S.C. § 1400(b) provides that a corporate defendant in a patent case—like corporate defendants in nearly all other types of cases—may be sued in any district in which personal jurisdiction lies. Constitutional due process requires a “substantial connection” between the defendant and forum.[10] Thus, contrary to its title and the claims of its proponents, the VENUE Act does not re-establish a “uniform” litigation system for patent rights by requiring substantial ties to the forum. Instead, the Act thwarts the well-established rule that plaintiffs can bring suit in any jurisdiction in which a corporate defendant has committed substantial violations of the law.[11]
  • The VENUE Act would raise costs for many patent owners by requiring them to litigate the same patent against multiple defendants in multiple jurisdictions, increasing patent litigation overall. In recent years, the America Invents Act’s prohibition on joinder of multiple defendants in a single lawsuit for violating the same patent has directly resulted in increased lawsuits and increased costs for patent owners.[12] Moreover, the VENUE Act would also result in potentially conflicting decisions in these multiple lawsuits, increasing uncertainty and administration costs in the patent system.
  • The VENUE Act encourages the manipulation of well-settled venue rules across all areas of law by the self-serving efforts of large corporate defendants who seek to insulate themselves from the consequences of violating the law. By enacting the VENUE Act, Congress would send a strong signal to corporate defendants that they can tilt the substantive playing field by simply shifting cases to defendant-friendly jurisdictions.

Innovators and their investors have long been vital to a flourishing innovation economy in the United States. Startups, venture capitalists, individual inventors, universities, and established companies often rely heavily on patents to recoup their extensive investments in both R&D and commercialization. We urge you to exercise caution before enacting further sweeping changes to our patent system that would primarily benefit large infringers to the detriment of these innovators and, ultimately, our innovation economy.

[1] Venue Equity and Non-Uniformity Elimination Act, S.2733, 114th Cong. (2016),
https://www.congress.gov/114/bills/s2733/BILLS-114s2733is.pdf.

[2] See 28 U.S.C. § 1391(c)(2). See generally Ferens v. John Deere Co., 494 U.S. 516, 527 (1990) (“a plaintiff . . . has the option of shopping for a forum with the most favorable law”).

[3] These include, among others: (1) administrative procedures for invalidating patents created by the America Invents Act, which have had extremely high invalidation rates, leading one former federal appellate judge to refer to these procedures as “death squads,” and (2) several decisions by the Supreme Court and the Federal Circuit that have drastically curtailed patent rights for many innovators. See Adam Mossoff, Weighing the Patent System: It Is Time to Confront the Bias against Patent Owners in Patent ‘Reform’ Legislation, WASHINGTON TIMES (March 24, 2016), http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/mar/24/adam-mossoff-weighing-the-patent-system/.

[4] Colleen Chien & Michael Risch, A Patent Reform We Can All Agree On, WASH. POST (June 3, 2016), https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/in-theory/wp/2015/11/20/why-do-patent-lawyers-like-to-file-in-texas/.

[5] See Michael C. Smith, “Hot But No Longer Boiling“ – EDTX Patent Case Filings Down almost Half; New Case Allocation and Procedures (No More Letter Briefing for SJ motions), EDTexweblog.com (July 21, 2016), http://mcsmith.blogs.com/eastern_district_of_texas/2016/07/edtx-patent-case-filing-trends-new-case-allocation-andprocedures.html.

[6] Colleen Chien & Michael Risch, What Would Happen to Patent Cases if They Couldn’t all be Filed in Texas?, PATENTLY-O (March 11, 2016), http://patentlyo.com/patent/2016/03/happen-patent-couldnt.html. This study also finds that 11% of cases would continue to be filed in the Eastern District of Texas, concentrating nearly two-thirds of all cases in three districts. See id. The authors of this study are presently expanding their investigation to an enlarged data set, which will also capture additional aspects of the VENUE Act. Neither the data nor their results are available yet. However, we have no reason to believe that the expanded data or analysis will produce results other than what has already been shown: a high concentration of patent cases in a small number of districts.

[7] See PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP, 2015 Patent Litigation Study (May 2015) (“PWC Study”), http://www.pwc.com/us/en/forensic-services/publications/assets/2015-pwc-patent-litigation-study.pdf.

[8] Ryan Davis, EDTX Judges’ Love of Patent Trials Fuels High Reversal Rate, LAW360 (Mar. 8, 2016), http://www.law360.com/articles/767955/edtx-judges-love-of-patent-trials-fuels-high-reversal-rate.

[9] See PWC Study, supra note 7 (finding an average affirmance rate of 48% for all districts, compared to an affirmance rate of 42% for the Eastern District of Texas).

[10] See Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462, 475 (1985).

[11] See generally Gulf Oil Corp. v. Gilbert, 330 U.S. 501, 508 (1947) (“[T]he plaintiff’s choice of forum should rarely be disturbed.”).

[12] See Christopher A. Cotropia, Jay P. Kesan & David L. Schwartz, Unpacking Patent Assertion Entities (PAEs), 99 MINNESOTA LAW REVIEW 649 (2014), http://www.minnesotalawreview.org/wpcontent/uploads/2015/02/REVISEDSchwartzetal_MLR.pdf.

Categories
Biotech High Tech Industry History of Intellectual Property Innovation Intellectual Property Theory Inventors Legislation Patent Law Patent Litigation Patent Theory Patentability Requirements Software Patent Supreme Court Uncategorized

Federal Circuit Brings Some Clarity and Sanity Back to Patent Eligibility Doctrine

By Adam Mossoff and Kevin Madigan

closeup of a circuit boardFollowing the Supreme Court’s four decisions on patent eligibility for inventions under § 101 of the Patent Act, there has been much disruption and uncertainty in the patent system. The patent bar and most stakeholders in the innovation industries have found the Supreme Court’s decisions in Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank (2014), AMP v. Myriad (2013), Mayo Labs v. Prometheus (2012), and Bilski v. Kappos (2010) to be vague and doctrinally indeterminate. Given the moral panic about the patent system that has been created as a result of ten years of excessive lobbying in D.C. for legislation that weakens patent rights, judges have responded to the excessive discretion they have under these cases by invalidating whole swaths of patented innovation in the high-tech, biotech, and pharmaceutical industries. The Patent Office is also rejecting patent applications at record levels, even for traditional inventions outside of high-tech and life sciences directly affected by the recent § 101 case law.

In Sequenom v. Ariosa, the Supreme Court had the opportunity to bring some clarity to the law of patent eligibility and to reign in some of the judicial and Patent Office excesses, but unfortunately it rejected this opportunity when it denied Sequenom’s cert petition this past June. Fortunately, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit is now taking the lead in providing some much-needed legal guidance on patent eligibility to the inventors and companies working in the innovation industries. In two recent decisions, Enfish v. Microsoft and Rapid Litigation Management v. CellzDirect, the Federal Circuit has set forth some important doctrinal guideposts for defining what counts as a patent-eligible invention. Not only do these two decisions bring some reason and clarity back to the law of patent eligibility under § 101, they provide important doctrinal insights on how stakeholders may wish to address this problem if they ultimately choose to seek relief in Congress.

Enfish and the Patentability of Computer-Implemented Inventions (a/k/a “Software Patents”)

At the time it was decided, some commentators believed that the Alice decision was a directive from on high that most, if not all, computer software programs were not patentable inventions. This was a surprising claim if only because the Alice Court did not once use the phrase “software” in its entire opinion. Of course, “software patent” is not a legal term in patent law; the proper term is “computer-implemented invention,” as used by the Alice Court, and so the Court may have been only avoiding vague rhetoric from the patent policy debates. More important, though, this claim about Alice contradicts the Court’s opinion in Bilski just four years earlier, when the Court warned the Federal Circuit not to adopt a bright-line rule that limited § 101 to only physical inventions of the “Industrial Age,” because this created unnecessary and innovation-killing “uncertainty as to the patentability of software.”

Unfortunately, the ambiguities in Alice and in the Court’s prior patentable subject matter decisions, such as Mayo, left enough discretionary wiggle room in applying the generalized patent-eligibility test to permit judges and patents examiners to wage war on computer-implemented inventions. They thus made real again in the twenty-first century Justice Robert Jackson’s famous observation in 1949 that “the only patent that is valid is one which this Court has not been able to get its hands on.” Jungersen v. Ostby & Barton Co., 335 U.S. 560, 572 (1949) (Jackson, J., dissenting). As one commentator remarked several months after Alice was decided, “It’s open season on software patents.” The data over the next several years has borne out the truth of this statement.

The key argument against patents on computer-implemented inventions, such as key components of word processors, programs that run internet searches (like the patented innovation that started Google), and encryption software, is that such inventions are inherently “abstract.” The judicial interpretation of § 101 has long maintained that abstract ideas, laws of natural, and natural phenomena are unpatentable discoveries. In Alice, for instance, the Court held that a complex software program for extremely complex international financial transactions was an “abstract idea” and thus unpatentable under § 101. But beyond claims that something long known is “abstract,” the Court has failed to define with precision what it means for a discovery to be abstract. With little to no specific guidance from the Alice Court, it is no wonder that judges and examiners have succumbed to the recent moral panic about patents and declared “open season” on patents covering computer-implemented inventions.

In this context, the Federal Circuit’s decision in Enfish v. Microsoft is extremely important because it ends the unreasoned, conclusory “I know it when I see it” rejections of patents as “abstract” by judges and examiners.

In Enfish, the Federal Circuit reversed a trial court’s summary judgment that a patent on a computer-implemented invention was an unpatentable abstract idea. The patent covered a type of database management system on computers, a classic incremental innovation in today’s digital world. In its decision, the trial court dissected the invention down into the most basic ideas in which all inventions can be reframed as representing; for example, methods of using internal combustion engines can easily be reframed in terms of the basic laws in thermodynamics. In this case, the trial court asserted that this patent on a computer-implemented invention covered merely the “abstract purpose of storing, organizing, and retrieving” information. The trial court thus easily concluded that the invention was merely “abstract” and thus unpatentable.

The Federal Circuit rejected the trial court’s conclusory assertion about the invention being “abstract” and further held that such assertions by courts are a legally improper application of § 101. With respect to the patent at issue in this case, Judge Todd Hughes’ opinion for the unanimous panel found that

the plain focus of the claims is on an improvement to computer functionality itself, not on economic or other tasks for which a computer is used in its ordinary capacity. Accordingly, we find that the claims at issue in this appeal are not directed to an abstract idea within the meaning of Alice.

More important, the Enfish court cautioned courts against the methodological approach adopted by the trial court in this case, in which “describing the claims at such a high level of abstraction and untethered from the language of the claims all but ensures that the exceptions to § 101 swallow the rule.” The court recognized that adopting a “bright-line” rule that computer-implemented inventions—the “software patents” decried by critics today—are necessarily “abstract” runs counter to both § 101 and the recent Supreme Court cases interpreting and applying this provision: “We do not see in Bilski or Alice, or our cases, an exclusion to patenting this large field of technological progress.”

Further confirming that Enfish represents an important step forward in how courts properly secure technological innovation in the high-tech industry, the Federal Circuit relied on Enfish in its recent decision in BASCOM Global Services Internet Inc v AT&T Mobility LLC. Here, the Federal Circuit again rejected the trial court’s dissection of a patent claim covering a software program used on the internet into an “abstract” idea of merely “filtering content.” The BASCOM court emphasized that courts must assess a claim as a whole—following the Alice Court’s injunction that courts must assess a patent claim as “an ordered combination of elements”—in determining whether it is a patentable invention under § 101. As numerous patent scholars explained in an amicus brief filed in support of Sequenom in its failed cert petition before the Supreme Court, requiring a court to construe a “claim as a whole” or “the invention as a whole” is a basic doctrinal requirement that runs throughout patent law, as it is essential to ensuring that patents are properly evaluated both as to their validity and in their assertion against infringers.

CellzDirect and the Patentability of Discoveries in the Bio-Pharmaceutical Industry

The high-tech industry is not the only sector of the innovation industries that has been hit particularly hard by the recent §101 jurisprudence. The biotech and pharmaceutical industries have also seen a collapse in the proper legal protection for their innovative discoveries of new therapeutic treatments. One recent study found that the examination unit at the Patent Office responsible for reviewing personalized medicine inventions (art unit 1634) has rejected 86.4% of all patent applications since the Supreme Court’s decision in Mayo. Anecdotal evidence abounds of numerous rejections of patent applications on innovative medical treatments arising from extensive R&D, and the most prominent one was the invalidation of Sequenom’s patent on its groundbreaking innovation in prenatal diagnostic tests.

In this light, the decision on July 5, 2016 in Rapid Litigation Management v. CellzDirect is an extremely important legal development for an industry that relies on stable and effective patent rights to justify investing billions in R&D to produce the miracles that comprise basic medical care today. In CellzDirect, the trial court found unpatentable under § 101 a patent claiming new methods for freezing liver cells for use in “testing, diagnostic, and treating purposes.” The trial court asserted that such a patent was “directed to an ineligible law of nature,” because scientists have long known that these types of liver cells (hepatocytes) could be subjected to multiple freeze-thaw cycles.

In her opinion for a unanimous panel, Chief Judge Sharon Prost held that the method in this case is exactly the type of innovative process that should be secured in a patent. Reflecting the same methodological concern in Enfish and BASCOM, the CellzDirect court rejected the trial court’s dissection of the patent into its foundational “laws of nature” and conventional ideas long-known in the scientific field:

The claims are simply not directed to the ability of hepatocytes to survive multiple freeze-thaw cycles. Rather, the claims of the ’929 patent are directed to a new and useful laboratory technique for preserving hepatocytes. This type of constructive process, carried out by an artisan to achieve “a new and useful end,” is precisely the type of claim that is eligible for patenting.

In other words, merely because a patentable process operates on a subject matter that constitutes natural phenomena does not mean the patent improperly claims either those natural phenomena or the laws of nature that govern them. To hold otherwise fails to heed the Mayo Court’s warning that “all inventions at some level embody, use, reflect, rest upon, or apply laws of nature, natural phenomena, or abstract ideas,” and thus to dissect all patents down into these unpatentable foundations would “eviscerate patent law.” The CellzDirect court was explicit about this key methodological point in evaluating patents under § 101: “Just as in [the industrial process held valid by the Supreme Court in] Diehr, it is the particular ‘combination of steps’ that is patentable here”—the invention as a whole.

Conclusion

The U.S. has long prided itself as having a “gold standard” patent system—securing to innovators stable and effective property rights in their inventions and discoveries. As scholars and economic historians have long recognized, the patent system has been a key driver of America’s innovation economy for more than two hundred years. This is now threatened under the Supreme Court’s § 101 decisions and the “too broad” application of the Court’s highly generalized patent-eligibility tests to inventions in the high-tech and bio-pharmaceutical sectors. The shockingly high numbers of rejected applications at the Patent Office and of invalidation of patents by courts, as well as the general sense of legal uncertainty, are threatening the “gold standard” designation for the U.S. patent system. This threatens the startups, new jobs, and economic growth that the patent system has been proven to support. Hopefully, the recent Enfish and CellzDirect decisions are the first steps in bringing back to patent-eligibility doctrine both reason and clarity, two key requirements in the law that have been sorely lacking for inventors and companies working in the innovation economy.

Categories
Innovation Inventors Patent Law Statistics Uncategorized

Do As I Say, Not As I Do: Google’s Patent Transparency Hypocrisy

dictionary entry for the word "innovate"It is common today to hear that it’s simply impossible to search a field of technology to determine whether patents are valid or if there’s even freedom to operate at all. We hear this complaint about the lack of transparency in finding “prior art” in both the patent application process and about existing patents.

The voices have grown so loud that Michelle K. Lee, Director of the Patent Office, has made it a cornerstone of her administration to bring greater transparency to the operations of the USPTO. She laments the “simple fact” that “a lot of material that could help examiners is not readily available, because the organizations retaining that material haven’t realized that making it public would be beneficial.” And she’s been implementing new programs to provide “easy access by patent examiners to prior art” as a “tool to help build a better IP system.”

We hear this complaint about transparency most often from certain segments of the high-tech industry as part of their policy message that the “patent system is broken.” One such prominent tech company is search giant Google. In formal comments submitted to the USPTO, for instance, Google asserts that a fundamental problem undermining the quality of software patents is that a “significant amount of software-related prior art does not exist in common databases of issued patents and published academic literature.” To remedy the situation, Google has encouraged the Patent Office to make use of “third party search tools,” including its own powerful search engines, to locate this prior art.

Google is not shy about why it wants more transparency with prior art. In a 2013 blog post, Google Senior Patent Counsel Suzanne Michel condemned so-called “patent trolls” and argued that the “PTO should improve patent quality” in order to “end the growing troll problem.” In comments from 2014, three Google lawyers told the Patent Office that “poor quality software patents have driven a litigation boom that harms innovation” and that making “software-related prior art accessible” will “make examination in the Office more robust to ensure that valid claims issue.” In comments submitted last May, Michel even proposed that the Patent Office use Google’s own patent search engines for “streamlining searches for relevant prior art” in order to enhance patent quality.

Given Google’s stance on the importance of broadly available prior art to help weed out vague patents and neuter the “trolls” that wield them, you’d think that Google would share the same devotion to transparency when it comes to its own patent applications. But it does not. Google has not mentioned in its formal comments and in its public statements that even using its own search engine would fail to disclose a substantial majority of its own patent applications. Unlike the other top-ten patent recipients in the U.S., including many other tech companies, Google keeps most of its own patent applications secret. It does this while at the same time publicly decrying the lack of transparency in the patent system.

The reality is that Google has a patent transparency problem. Not only does Google not allow many of its patent applications to be published early or even after eighteen months, which is the default rule, Google specifically requests that many of its patent applications never be published at all. So while Google says it wants patent applications from around the world to be searchable at the click of a mouse, this apparently does not include its own applications. The numbers here are startling and thus deserve to be made public—in the name of true transparency—for the first time.

Public Disclosure of Patent Applications

Beginning with the American Inventors Protection Act of 1999 (AIPA), the default rule has been that a patent application is published eighteen months after its filing date. The eighteen-month disclosure of the patent application will occur unless an applicant files a formal request that the application not be published at all. An applicant also has the option to obtain early publication in exchange for a fee. Before the AIPA, an application would only be made public if and when the patent was eventually granted. This allowed an applicant to keep her invention a trade secret in case the application was later abandoned or rejected.

The publication of patent applications provides two benefits to the innovation industries, especially given that the waiting time between filing of an application and issuance of the patent or a final rejection by an examiner can take years. First, earlier publication of applications provides notice to third parties that a patent may cover a technology they are considering adopting in their own commercial activities. Second, publication of patent applications expands the field of publicly-available prior art, which can be used to invalidate either other patent applications or already-issued patents themselves. Both of these goals produce better-quality patents and an efficiently-functioning innovation economy.

Separate from the legal mandate to publish patent applications, Google has devoted its own resources to creating greater public access to patents and patent applications. From its Google Patent Search in 2006 and its Prior Art Finder in 2012 to its current Google Patents, Google has parlayed its search expertise into making it simple to find prior art from around the world. Google Patents now includes patent applications “from the USPTO, EPO, JPO, SIPO, WIPO, DPMA, and CIPO,” even translating them into English. It’s this search capability that Google has been encouraging the Patent Office to utilize in the quest to make relevant prior art more accessible.

Given Google’s commitment to patent transparency, one might expect that Google would at least be content to allow default publication of its own applications under the AIPA’s eighteen-month default rule. Perhaps, one might think, Google would even opt for early publication. However, neither appears to be the case; Google instead is a frequent user of the nonpublication option.

Google’s Secrecy vs. Other Top-Ten Patent Recipients

After hearing anecdotal reports indicating that Google was frequently using its option under the AIPA to avoid publishing its patent applications, we decided to investigate further. We looked at the patents Google received in 2014 to see what proportion of its applications was subject to nonpublication requests. To provide context, we also looked at how Google compared to the other top-ten patent recipients in this regard. The results are startling.

Unfortunately, there’s no simple way to tell if a nonpublication request was made when a patent application was filed using the USPTO’s online databases—nonpublication requests are not an available search field. The same appears to be true of subscription databases. The searches therefore have to be done manually, digging through the USPTO’s Public PAIR database to find the application (known in patent parlance as the “file wrapper”) for each individual patent that includes the individual application documents. Those interested in doing this will find startling numbers of patent applications kept secret by Google, both in terms of absolute numbers but also as compared to the other top-ten recipients of U.S. patents.

By way of example as to what one needs to look for, take the last three patents issued to Google in 2014: D720,389; 8,925,106; and 8,924,993.

For the first patent, the application was filed on December 13, 2013, and according to the application data sheet, no request was made to either publish it early or not publish it at all:

Publication Information: Box One: Request Early Publication (Fee required at time of Request 37 CFR 1.219). Box Two: Request Not to Publish. I hereby request that the attached application not be published under 25 U.S.C. 122(b) and certify that the invention disclosed in the attached application has not and will not be the subject of an application filed in another country, or under a multilateral international agreement, that requires publication at eighteen months after filing.

Since no such request was made, the application would normally be published eighteen months later or upon issuance of the patent. Indeed, that is what happened in due course—this patent issued just over one year after the application was filed, as it was concurrently published and issued in December of 2014.

For the second patent in our small set of examples, the application was filed on April 20, 2012. In this case, Google requested nonpublication by including a letter requesting that the application not be published:

Google thus opted out of the default eighteen-month publication rule, and the application was not published until the patent issued in December of 2014, some twenty months later.

Finally, for the third patent, the application was filed on November 10, 2011, and the application data sheet shows that Google requested the application not be published:

Publication Information: Box One: Request Early Publication (Fee required at time of Request 37 CFR 1.219). Box Two (which is selected here): Request Not to Publish. I hereby request that the attached application not be published under 25 U.S.C. 122(b) and certify that the invention disclosed in the attached application has not and will not be the subject of an application filed in another country, or under a multilateral international agreement, that requires publication at eighteen months after filing.

Google here again opted out of the default publication rule, and the application was not published until the patent issued in December of 2014—more than three years after the application was filed.

We applied this methodology to a random sample of 100 patents granted to each of the top-ten patent recipients in 2014.

In 2014, Google was one of the top-ten patent recipients, coming in sixth place with 2,649 issued patents:

2014 Top-Ten patent Recipients. X-axis: IBM, Samsung, Canon, Sony, Microsoft, Google, Toshiba, Qualcomm, LG, Panasonic. Y-axis: 0 through 8000, at increments of 1000.

SOURCES: USPTO PatentsView Database & USPTO Patent Full-Text and Image Database

We randomly sampled 100 patents for each of the top-ten patent recipients for 2014. We reviewed the file wrapper for each to determine the proportion of nonpublication requests in each sample.

Our results revealed that Google is an extreme outlier among top-ten patent recipients with respect to nonpublication requests. Eight of the top-ten patent recipients made zero requests for nonpublication, permitting their patent applications to be published at the eighteen-month deadline. The eighth-ranking patent recipient, Qualcomm, requested that one application not be published. By contrast, Google formally requested that 80 out of 100—a full 80%—of its applications not be published.

The following chart shows these results:

2014 Nonpublication Rates of Top-Ten Patent Recipients. X-axis: IBM, Samsung, Canon, Sony, Microsoft, Google, Toshiba, Qualcomm, LG, Panasonic. Y-axis: 0% through 90%, increments of 10%. Google goes to about 80%, Qualcomm shows about 1-2&, and the others show nothing.

SOURCE: USPTO Public PAIR Database

Conclusion

Based on this result, Google deliberately chooses to keep a vast majority of its patent applications secret (at least it did so in 2014). This secrecy policy for its own patent applications is startling given both Google’s public declarations of the importance of publication of all prior art and its policy advocacy based on this position. It is even more startling when seen in stark contrast to the entirely different policies of the other nine top patent recipients for 2014.

It is possible that 2014 was merely an anomaly, and that patent application data from other years would show a different result. We plan to investigate further. So, stay tuned. But for whatever reason, it appears that Google doesn’t want the majority of its patent applications to be published unless and until its patents finally issue. This preference for secrecy stands in contrast to Google’s own words and official actions.

As one of the top patent recipients in the U.S., you’d think Google would want its applications to be published as quickly as possible. The other top recipients of U.S. patents in 2014 certainly adopt this policy, furthering the goal of the patent system in publicly disclosing new technological innovation as quickly as possible. The fact that Google does otherwise speaks volumes.

Categories
Administrative Agency Economic Study FTC Innovation Inventors Law and Economics Legislation Uncategorized

Acknowledging the Limitations of the FTC’s PAE Study

dictionary entry for the word "innovate"The FTC’s long-awaited case study of patent assertion entities (PAEs) is expected to be released this spring. Using its subpoena power under Section 6(b) to gather information from a handful of firms, the study promises us a glimpse at their inner workings. But while the results may be interesting, they’ll also be too narrow to support any informed policy changes. And you don’t have to take my word for it—the FTC admits as much. In one submission to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), which ultimately decided whether the study should move forward, the FTC acknowledges that its findings “will not be generalizable to the universe of all PAE activity.” In another submission to the OMB, the FTC recognizes that “the case study should be viewed as descriptive and probative for future studies seeking to explore the relationships between organizational form and assertion behavior.”

However, this doesn’t mean that no one will use the study to advocate for drastic changes to the patent system. Even before the study’s release, many people—including some FTC Commissioners themselves—have already jumped to conclusions when it comes to PAEs, arguing that they are a drag on innovation and competition. Yet these same people say that we need this study because there’s no good empirical data analyzing the systemic costs and benefits of PAEs. They can’t have it both ways. The uproar about PAEs is emblematic of the broader movement that advocates for the next big change to the patent system before we’ve even seen how the last one panned out. In this environment, it’s unlikely that the FTC and other critics will responsibly acknowledge that the study simply cannot give us an accurate assessment of the bigger picture.

Limitations of the FTC Study

Many scholars have written about the study’s fundamental limitations. As statistician Fritz Scheuren points out, there are two kinds of studies: exploratory and confirmatory. An exploratory study is a starting point that asks general questions in order to generate testable hypotheses, while a confirmatory study is then used to test the validity of those hypotheses. The FTC study, with its open-ended questions to a handful of firms, is a classic exploratory study. At best, the study will generate answers that could help researchers begin to form theories and design another round of questions for further research. Scheuren notes that while the “FTC study may well be useful at generating exploratory data with respect to PAE activity,” it “is not designed to confirm supportable subject matter conclusions.”

One significant constraint with the FTC study is that the sample size is small—only twenty-five PAEs—and the control group is even smaller—a mixture of fifteen manufacturers and non-practicing entities (NPEs) in the wireless chipset industry. Scheuren reasons that there “is also the risk of non-representative sampling and potential selection bias due to the fact that the universe of PAEs is largely unknown and likely quite diverse.” And the fact that the control group comes from one narrow industry further prevents any generalization of the results. Scheuren concludes that the FTC study “may result in potentially valuable information worthy of further study,” but that it is “not designed in a way as to support public policy decisions.”

Professor Michael Risch questions the FTC’s entire approach: “If the FTC is going to the trouble of doing a study, why not get it done right the first time and a) sample a larger number of manufacturers, in b) a more diverse area of manufacturing, and c) get identical information?” He points out that the FTC won’t be well-positioned to draw conclusions because the control group is not even being asked the same questions as the PAEs. Risch concludes that “any report risks looking like so many others: a static look at an industry with no benchmark to compare it to.” Professor Kristen Osenga echoes these same sentiments and notes that “the study has been shaped in a way that will simply add fuel to the anti–‘patent troll’ fire without providing any data that would explain the best way to fix the real problems in the patent field today.”

Osenga further argues that the study is flawed since the FTC’s definition of PAEs perpetuates the myth that patent licensing firms are all the same. The reality is that many different types of businesses fall under the “PAE” umbrella, and it makes no sense to impute the actions of a small subset to the entire group when making policy recommendations. Moreover, Osenga questions the FTC’s “shortsighted viewpoint” of the potential benefits of PAEs, and she doubts how the “impact on innovation and competition” will be ascertainable given the questions being asked. Anne Layne-Farrar expresses similar doubts about the conclusions that can be drawn from the FTC study since only licensors are being surveyed. She posits that it “cannot generate a full dataset for understanding the conduct of the parties in patent license negotiation or the reasons for the failure of negotiations.”

Layne-Farrar concludes that the FTC study “can point us in fruitful directions for further inquiry and may offer context for interpreting quantitative studies of PAE litigation, but should not be used to justify any policy changes.” Consistent with the FTC’s own admissions of the study’s limitations, this is the real bottom line of what we should expect. The study will have no predictive power because it only looks at how a small sample of firms affect a few other players within the patent ecosystem. It does not quantify how that activity ultimately affects innovation and competition—the very information needed to support policy recommendations. The FTC study is not intended to produce the sort of compelling statistical data that can be extrapolated to the larger universe of firms.

FTC Commissioners Put Cart Before Horse

The FTC has a history of bias against PAEs, as demonstrated in its 2011 report that skeptically questioned the “uncertain benefits” of PAEs while assuming their “detrimental effects” in undermining innovation. That report recommended special remedy rules for PAEs, even as the FTC acknowledged the lack of objective evidence of systemic failure and the difficulty of distinguishing “patent transactions that harm innovation from those that promote it.” With its new study, the FTC concedes to the OMB that much is still not known about PAEs and that the findings will be preliminary and non-generalizable. However, this hasn’t prevented some Commissioners from putting the cart before the horse with PAEs.

In fact, the very call for the FTC to institute the PAE study started with its conclusion. In her 2013 speech suggesting the study, FTC Chairwoman Edith Ramirez recognized that “we still have only snapshots of the costs and benefits of PAE activity” and that “we will need to learn a lot more” in order “to see the full competitive picture.” While acknowledging the vast potential benefits of PAEs in rewarding invention, benefiting competition and consumers, reducing enforcement hurdles, increasing liquidity, encouraging venture capital investment, and funding R&D, she nevertheless concluded that “PAEs exploit underlying problems in the patent system to the detriment of innovation and consumers.” And despite the admitted lack of data, Ramirez stressed “the critical importance of continuing the effort on patent reform to limit the costs associated with some types of PAE activity.”

This position is duplicitous: If the costs and benefits of PAEs are still unknown, what justifies Ramirez’s rushed call for immediate action? While benefits have to be weighed against costs, it’s clear that she’s already jumped to the conclusion that the costs outweigh the benefits. In another speech a few months later, Ramirez noted that the “troubling stories” about PAEs “don’t tell us much about the competitive costs and benefits of PAE activity.” Despite this admission, Ramirez called for “a much broader response to flaws in the patent system that fuel inefficient behavior by PAEs.” And while Ramirez said that understanding “the PAE business model will inform the policy dialogue,” she stated that “it will not change the pressing need for additional progress on patent reform.”

Likewise, in an early 2014 speech, Commissioner Julie Brill ignored the study’s inherent limitations and exploratory nature. She predicted that the study “will provide a fuller and more accurate picture of PAE activity” that “will be put to good use by Congress and others who examine closely the activities of PAEs.” Remarkably, Brill stated that “the FTC and other law enforcement agencies” should not “wait on the results of the 6(b) study before undertaking enforcement actions against PAE activity that crosses the line.” Even without the study’s results, she thought that “reforms to the patent system are clearly warranted.” In Brill’s view, the study would only be useful for determining whether “additional reforms are warranted” to curb the activities of PAEs.

It appears that these Commissioners have already decided—in the absence of any reliable data on the systemic effects of PAE activity—that drastic changes to the patent system are necessary. Given their clear bias in this area, there is little hope that they will acknowledge the deep limitations of the study once it is released.

Commentators Jump the Gun

Unsurprisingly, many supporters of the study have filed comments with the FTC arguing that the study is needed to fill the huge void in empirical data on the costs and benefits associated with PAEs. Some even simultaneously argue that the costs of PAEs far outweigh the benefits, suggesting that they have already jumped to their conclusion and just want the data to back it up. Despite the study’s serious limitations, these commentators appear primed to use it to justify their foregone policy recommendations.

For example, the Consumer Electronics Association applauded “the FTC’s efforts to assess the anticompetitive harms that PAEs cause on our economy as a whole,” and it argued that the study “will illuminate the many dimensions of PAEs’ conduct in a way that no other entity is capable.” At the same time, it stated that “completion of this FTC study should not stay or halt other actions by the administrative, legislative or judicial branches to address this serious issue.” The Internet Commerce Coalition stressed the importance of the study of “PAE activity in order to shed light on its effects on competition and innovation,” and it admitted that without the information, “the debate in this area cannot be empirically based.” Nonetheless, it presupposed that the study will uncover “hidden conduct of and abuses by PAEs” and that “it will still be important to reform the law in this area.”

Engine Advocacy admitted that “there is very little broad empirical data about the structure and conduct of patent assertion entities, and their effect on the economy.” It then argued that PAE activity “harms innovators, consumers, startups and the broader economy.” The Coalition for Patent Fairness called on the study “to contribute to the understanding of policymakers and the public” concerning PAEs, which it claimed “impose enormous costs on U.S. innovators, manufacturers, service providers, and, increasingly, consumers and end-users.” And to those suggesting “the potentially beneficial role of PAEs in the patent market,” it stressed that “reform be guided by the principle that the patent system is intended to incentivize and reward innovation,” not “rent-seeking” PAEs that are “exploiting problems.”

The joint comments of Public Knowledge, Electronic Frontier Foundation, & Engine Advocacy emphasized the fact that information about PAEs “currently remains limited” and that what is “publicly known largely consists of lawsuits filed in court and anecdotal information.” Despite admitting that “broad empirical data often remains lacking,” the groups also suggested that the study “does not mean that legislative efforts should be stalled” since “the harms of PAE activity are well known and already amenable to legislative reform.” In fact, they contended not only that “a problem exists,” but that there’s even “reason to believe the scope is even larger than what has already been reported.”

Given this pervasive and unfounded bias against PAEs, there’s little hope that these and other critics will acknowledge the study’s serious limitations. Instead, it’s far more likely that they will point to the study as concrete evidence that even more sweeping changes to the patent system are in order.

Conclusion

While the FTC study may generate interesting information about a handful of firms, it won’t tell us much about how PAEs affect competition and innovation in general. The study is simply not designed to do this. It instead is a fact-finding mission, the results of which could guide future missions. Such empirical research can be valuable, but it’s very important to recognize the limited utility of the information being collected. And it’s crucial not to draw policy conclusions from it. Unfortunately, if the comments of some of the Commissioners and supporters of the study are any indication, many critics have already made up their minds about the net effects of PAEs, and they will likely use the study to perpetuate the biased anti-patent fervor that has captured so much attention in recent years.

Categories
Innovation Inventors Legislation Patent Law Patent Litigation Uncategorized

Changes to Patent Venue Rules Risk Collateral Damage to Innovators

dictionary entry for the word "innovate"Advocates for changing the patent venue rules, which dictate where patent owners can sue alleged infringers, have been arguing that their remedy will cure the supposed disease of abusive “trolls” filing suit after suit in the Eastern District of Texas. This is certainly true, but it’s only true in the sense that cyanide cures the common cold. What these advocates don’t mention is that their proposed changes will weaken patent rights across the board by severely limiting where all patent owners—even honest patentees that no one thinks are “trolls”—can sue for infringement. Instead of acknowledging the broad collateral damage their changes would cause to all patent owners, venue revision advocates invoke the talismanic “troll” narrative and hope that nobody will look closely at the details. The problem with their take on venue revision is that it’s neither fair nor balanced, and it continues the disheartening trend of equating “reform” with taking more sticks out every patent owner’s bundle of rights.

Those pushing for venue revision are working on two fronts, one judicial and the other legislative. On the judicial side, advocates have injected themselves into the TC Heartland case currently before the Federal Circuit. Though it has no direct connection to the Eastern District of Texas, advocates see it as a chance to shut plaintiffs out of that venue. Their argument in that case is so broad that it would drastically restrict where all patentees can sue for infringement—even making it impossible to sue infringing foreign defendants. Yet they don’t mention this collateral damage as they sell the “troll” narrative. On the legislative side, advocates have gotten behind the VENUE Act (S.2733), introduced in the Senate last Thursday. This bill leaves open a few more venues than TC Heartland, though it still significantly limits where all patent owners can sue. Advocates here also repeat the “troll” mantra instead of offering a single reason why it’s fair to change the rules for everyone else.

With both TC Heartland and the VENUE Act, venue revision advocates want to change the meaning of one word: “resides.” The specific patent venue statute, found in Section 1400(b) of Title 28, provides that patent infringement suits may be brought either (1) “in the judicial district where the defendant resides” or (2) “where the defendant has committed acts of infringement and has a regular and established place of business.” On its face, this seems fairly limited, but the key is the definition of the word “resides.” The general venue statute, found in Section 1391(c)(2) of Title 28, defines residency broadly: Any juridical entity, such as a corporation, “shall be deemed to reside, if a defendant, in any judicial district in which such defendant is subject to the court’s personal jurisdiction with respect to the civil action in question.” Taken together, these venue statutes mean that patent owners can sue juridical entities for infringement anywhere the court has personal jurisdiction over the defendant.

The plaintiff in TC Heartland is Kraft Foods, a large manufacturer incorporated in Delaware and headquartered in Illinois that runs facilities and sells products in Delaware. The defendant is TC Heartland, a large manufacturer incorporated and headquartered in Indiana. TC Heartland manufactured the allegedly-infringing products in Indiana and then knowingly shipped a large number of them directly into Delaware. Kraft Foods sued TC Heartland in Delaware on the theory that these shipments established personal jurisdiction—and thus venue—in that district. TC Heartland argued that venue was improper in Delaware, but the district court rejected that argument (see here and here). TC Heartland has now petitioned the Federal Circuit for a writ of mandamus, arguing that the broad definition of “reside” in Section 1391(c)(2) does not apply to the word “resides” in Section 1400(b). On this reading, venue would not lie in Delaware simply because TC Heartland did business there.

TC Heartland mentions in passing that its narrow read of Section 1400(b) is favorable as a policy matter because it would prevent venue shopping “abuses,” such as those allegedly occurring in the Eastern District of Texas. Noticeably, TC Heartland doesn’t suggest any policy reasons why Kraft Foods should not be permitted to bring an infringement suit in Delaware, and neither do any of the amici supporting TC Heartland. The amicus brief by the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) et al. argues that Congress could not have intended “to permit venue in just about any court of the patent owner’s choosing.” But why is this hard to believe? The rule generally for all juridical entities is that they can be sued in any district where they chose to do business over matters relating to that business. This rule has long been regarded as perfectly fair and reasonable since these entities get both the benefits and the burdens of the law wherever they do business.

The EFF brief goes on for pages bemoaning the perceived ills of forum shopping in the Eastern District of Texas without once explaining the relevancy to Kraft Foods. It asks the Federal Circuit to “restore balance in patent litigation,” but its vision of “balance” fails to account for the myriad honest patent owners like Kraft Foods that nobody considers to be “trolls.” The same holds true for the amicus brief filed by Google et al. that discusses the “harm forum shopping causes” without elucidating how it has anything to do with Kraft Foods. Worse still, the position being urged by these amici would leave no place for patent owners to sue foreign defendants. If the residency definitions in Section 1391(c) don’t apply to Section 1400(b), as they argue, then a foreign defendant that doesn’t reside or have a regular place of business in the United States can never be sued for patent infringement—an absurd result. But rather than acknowledge this collateral damage, the amici simply sweep it under the rug.

The simple fact is that there’s nothing untoward about Kraft Foods filing suit in Delaware. That’s where TC Heartland purposefully directed its conduct when it knowingly shipped the allegedly-infringing products there. It’s quite telling that venue revision advocates are using TC Heartland as a platform for changing the rules generally when they can’t even explain why the rules should be changed in that very case. And this is the problem: If there’s no good reason for keeping Kraft Foods out of Delaware, then they shouldn’t be advocating for changes that would do just that. Keeping patent owners from suing in the Eastern District of Texas is no reason to keep Kraft Foods out of Delaware, and it’s certainly no reason to make it impossible for all patent owners to sue foreign-based defendants that infringe in the United States. Advocates of venue revision tacitly admit as much when they say nothing about this collateral damage. This isn’t fair and balanced; it’s another huge turn of the anti-patent ratchet disguised as “reform.”

The same is true with the VENUE Act, which copies almost verbatim the venue provisions of the Innovation Act. This bill would also severely restrict where all patent owners can sue by making it so that a defendant doesn’t “reside” wherever a district court has personal jurisdiction arising from its allegedly-infringing conduct. To its credit, the VENUE Act does include new provisions allowing suit where an inventor conducted R&D that led to the application for the patent at issue. It also allows suit wherever either party “has a regular and established physical facility” and has engaged in R&D of the invention at issue, “manufactured a tangible product” that embodies that invention, or “implemented a manufacturing process for a tangible good” in which the claimed process is embodied. Furthermore, the bill makes the same venue rules applicable to patent owners suing for infringement and accused infringers filing for a declaratory judgment, and it solves the problem of foreign-based defendants by stating that the residency definition in Section 1391(c)(3) applies in that situation.

While the proposed changes in the VENUE Act aren’t as severe as those sought by venue revision advocates in TC Heartland, they nevertheless take numerous venues off of the table for patentees and accused infringers alike. But rather than acknowlede these wide-sweeping changes and offer reasons for implementing them, advocates of the VENUE Act simply harp on the narrative of “trolls” in Texas. For example, Julie Samuels at Engine argues that the “current situation in the Eastern District of Texas makes it exceedingly difficult for defendants” to enforce their rights and that we need to “level the playing field.” Likewise, Elliot Harmon at the EFF Blog suggests that the VENUE Act will “finally address the egregious forum shopping that dominates patent litigation” and “bring a modicum of fairness to a broken patent system.” Yet neither Samuels nor Harmon explains why we should change the rules for all patent owners and accused infringers—especially the ones that aren’t forum shopping in Texas.

The VENUE Act would simply take a system that is perceived to favor plaintiffs and replace it with one that definitely favors defendants. For instance, an alleged infringer with continuous and systematic contacts in the Eastern District of Virginia can currently be sued there, but the VENUE Act would take away this option since it’s based on mere general jurisdiction. Likewise, the current venue rules allow suits anywhere the court has specific jurisdiction over the defendant—potentially in every venue for a nationwide enterprise—yet the VENUE Act would make dozens of these venues improper. Furthermore, patentees can now bring suits against multiple defendants in a single forum, saving time and money for all involved, but the VENUE Act would make this possibility much less likely to occur.

The “troll” narrative employed by venue revision advocates may sound appealing on the surface, but it quickly becomes clear that they either haven’t considered or don’t care about how their proposed changes would affect everyone else. If we’re going to talk about abusive litigation practices in need of revision, we should talk about where they’re occurring across the entire patent system. This discussion should include the practices of both patent owners and alleged infringers, and we should directly confront the systemic collateral damage that any proposed changes would cause. As it stands, there’s little hope that the current myopic focus on “trolls” will lead to any true reform that’s fair and balanced for everyone.

Categories
Innovation Inventors Legislation Patent Law Uncategorized

No Consensus That Broad Patent ‘Reform’ is Necessary or Helpful

Here’s a brief excerpt of an op-ed by Adam Mossoff & Devlin Hartline that was published in The Hill:

Two recent op-eds published in The Hill argue that broad patent legislation—misleadingly labeled “reform”—is needed because the U.S. patent system is fundamentally broken. In the first, Timothy Lee contends that opponents “cannot with a straight face” argue that we don’t need wide-sweeping changes to our patent system. In the second, Michele Boldrin and David K. Levine maintain that there is “consensus among academic researchers” that the system is “failing.”

Both op-eds suggest that there are no principled reasons, whether legal or economic, to object to the overhaul of the patent system included in the Innovation Act. Both op-eds are wrong.

To read the rest of this op-ed, please visit The Hill.

Categories
Economic Study Innovation Inventors Legislation Patent Law Uncategorized

How Patents Help Startups Grow, Innovate, and Succeed

Many academic studies of the patent system focus on the negative, extrapolating from anecdotes about a few bad actors to make the case that our patent system is broken and to bolster cries for legislation weakening patent rights. Precious few studies focus on the countless honest and hardworking patent owners whose inventive labors benefit us all. But understanding how patents support inventive enterprises is a crucial part of the equation, especially at a time when Congress is considering legislation that would make it extremely difficult for startups and individual inventors to enforce their patent rights.

In a newly-published working paper, The Bright Side of Patents, CPIP Edison Fellow Deepak Hegde, along with co-authors Joan Farre-Mensa and Alexander Ljungqvist, take a look how patents help startups grow. They show that, contrary to the claims made by several academics and activists, startups are not victims of the patent system. On the contrary, patents help startups become more successful and innovative.

The study finds that “patent approvals help startups create jobs, grow their sales, innovate, and eventually succeed.” When a startup’s first patent application is approved, its employment growth increases by 36% and its sales growth increases by 51% on average over the next five years. First-patent approval also has a strong causal effect on a startup’s continued ability to innovate, increasing the number of subsequent patent grants by 49% and increasing the quality of those patents by 27%. In fact, a startup with first-patent approval is twice as likely to end up listed on a stock exchange—a common indication of success for a startup.

Negatively affecting startups are delays in the patent application process and ultimate application rejections. For every year an ultimately-approved patent application is delayed, the startup’s employment growth decreases by 21% and its sales growth decreases by 28% on average over the following five years. Furthermore, each year a patent application is delayed, the average number of subsequent patents granted decreases by 14% while the quality of those patents decreases by 7%. And for each year of delay, the probability that a startup will go public is cut in half.

One big reason why patents help startups is that they make it easier to access capital from external investors. The authors find that patents serve to mitigate frictions in information between potential investors and startups. Patents play an important role by alleviating startups’ concerns about having their inventions misappropriated by investors and by alleviating investors’ concerns about the credibility, quality, and monetary future of the startups. Having access to capital in turn sets startups on a path of growth where they can turn ideas into products and services, generate jobs, increase revenue, and undertake further innovation.

What makes this study unique is its unprecedented access to the USPTO’s internal databases, which allowed the authors to evaluate detailed review histories of both approved and rejected patent applications. Prior studies only focused on approved applications, thus making it impossible to accurately separate out the economic and innovative effects. The authors here are able to demonstrate the direct benefits of patent protection with causal evidence from a large-sized sample—45,819 first-time patent applications filed by startups.

There is a surprising amount of criticism of the patent system today. Some claim that patents are a waste of time and resources for startups, useful only for defensive purposes. Others claim that patents actually harm startups. The authors here show that startups that secure patent protection are in fact more likely to succeed. As Congress considers yet another round of large-scale patent legislation, lawmakers need to understand the role that enforceable patent rights play in enabling startups to grow and succeed. This study is a great step in adding some much needed clarity to the ongoing patent policy debates.