Tag: “patent trolls”

Categories
Biotech Patent Law

Forty Years Since Diamond v. Chakrabarty: Legal Underpinnings and its Impact on the Biotechnology Industry and Society

U.S. Supreme Court buildingCPIP has published a new policy brief celebrating the fortieth anniversary of the Diamond v. Chakrabarty decision, where the Supreme Court in 1980 held that a genetically modified bacteria was patentable subject matter. The brief, entitled Forty Years Since Diamond v. Chakrabarty: Legal Underpinnings and its Impact on the Biotechnology Industry and Society and written by Matthew Jordan, Neil Davey, Maheshkumar P. Joshi, and Raj Davé, is dedicated to the late Dr. Ananda Chakrabarty, a pioneer in the biotechnology world, who passed away in July 2020.

Chakrabarty had a great impact on the biotechnology revolution, ushering in a new era of technological advances that have benefited humankind. Through interviews with Randall Rader, former Chief Judge of the Federal Circuit, and Dr. Chakrabarty himself, as well as case studies on genetically modified seeds, polymerase chain reactions, and monoclonal antibody therapies, the policy brief explores the importance and enduring implications for society of the Chakrabarty decision.

The introduction and conclusion sections are copied below:

***

I. Introduction: The Diamond v. Chakrabarty (1980) Supreme Court Decision

In 1972, Ananda Chakrabarty—a genetic engineer at General Electric—filed a patent application for genetically modified bacteria capable of breaking down crude oil. Dr. Chakrabarty introduced genetic fragments into the Pseudomonas bacterium, altering the bacteria to decompose hydrocarbon components of crude oil. Dr. Chakrabarty intended the bacteria to assist in cleaning up oil spills. The engineered bacteria were especially suited for bioremediation given their resistance to adverse environments and safety as a non-pathogen.

The examiner rejected the application under Section 101 of the Patent Act, which covers patentable subject matter, because living things were not patentable. The Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences (now known as the Patent Trial and Appeal Board) affirmed the examiner’s decision, however, the U.S. Court of Customs and Patent Appeals (now part of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit) sided with Dr. Chakrabarty. The Court of Customs, in an opinion by Judge Giles Rich, reasoned that only naturally occurring articles, not all living things, were ineligible for patenting. Importantly, the court said, “the fact that microorganisms are alive is a distinction without legal significance” for purposes of the patent law. Then, U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) Commissioner Sidney Diamond appealed the case to the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court of the United States held that Dr. Chakrabarty’s invention consisted of patentable subject matter. Section 101 states: “Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.” The Court ruled in a landmark 5-4 decision that Dr. Chakrabarty’s invention was a patentable, manmade, “composition of matter” or “manufacture.” Chief Justice Warren Burger famously quoted a Senate Report that was part of the legislative history for the Patent Act of 1952: patentable subject matter included “anything under the sun that is made by man.”

This decision had immense implications for biotechnology. It resulted in patents for genetically modified seeds, DNA amplification technology, and monoclonal antibody therapy. The rise of biotechnology has impacted many technological fields and society as a whole. The Supreme Court’s distinction between manmade and naturally occurring phenomena was clarified in Mayo v. Prometheus and AMP v. Myriad. The Court found that naturally occurring biological relationships and isolated DNA sequences were not eligible for patenting.

***

V. Conclusion

Diamond v. Chakrabarty revolutionized the biotechnology industry in the United States by incentivizing the advancement of inventions that are beneficial to human life. However, as noted by Judge Randall Rader: “This whole patent eligibility question—which was so clear and well-defined, was practically implementable and understandable, and gave life to our whole biotech industry after Chakrabarty—now has had a heavy cloud cast over it in recent jurisprudence such as Myriad.”

When asked if our legislature should take action to clear up the confusion, Judge Rader stated: “If the statute was the written law that was being interpreted by the Supreme Court, we wouldn’t need legislative change. But the sad truth is that the Supreme Court has created a whole overlay of doctrine that makes the statute almost irrelevant. And now we don’t look at whether there’s a process, a machine, an article of manufacture, or a composition of matter. Instead, we look at whether there’s something more beyond the conventional and the routine and the well-known. We argue over what is something and what is more, and what is an inventive concept. And so in that state of confusion, yes, we’re probably going to need legislation.”

Within the dire context of the COVID-19 pandemic and other countries racing past the United States in biotechnology, it is crucial for Congress to clarify what currently qualifies as patentable subject matter.

***

To read the policy brief, please click here.

Categories
Innovation Patent Law

New CPIP Policy Brief: The Long Shadow of the Blackberry Shutdown That Wasn’t

CPIP logoCPIP has published a new policy brief by CPIP Senior Fellow for Innovation Policy Jonathan Barnett entitled The Long Shadow of the Blackberry Shutdown That Wasn’t. The policy brief looks at how the Blackberry litigation and the “patent troll” narrative ultimately contributed to the Supreme Court’s 2006 decision in eBay v. MercExchange that limited the availability of injunctive relief for successful patentees.

Professor Barnett then examines the problematic legacy of the post-eBay case law, which significantly shifted the legal infrastructure supporting the U.S. innovation markets. In particular, he explains how this shift has led to opportunistic infringement that favors downstream incumbents with the resources to fund extensive litigation at the expense of upstream innovators—a dynamic that is exemplified in the recent litigation between Sonos and Google.

The introduction is copied below:

Introduction

In early 2006, there was widespread public interest in a seemingly arcane patent infringement litigation brought by a small IP licensing entity, NTP, Inc., against Research in Motion (or “RIM”), the maker of the then-ubiquitous Blackberry mobile communications device. The reason: NTP alleged that the Blackberry device and service infringed upon its patents relating to wireless email communications. In the district court litigation, NTP had secured a judgment of willful patent infringement against RIM, entitling NTP to treble damages, attorneys’ fees, and a permanent injunction (stayed pending appeal) that placed at risk the continued operation of the Blackberry service.

Given NTP’s success at the district court, and uncertainty surrounding RIM’s ability to design a non-infringing alternative, there seemed to be a material risk that the appeals court would sustain the lower court’s rulings and, most importantly, the injunction order. Faced with this predicament, RIM settled all claims with NTP in March 2006 for the impressive sum of $612.5 million.

In this contribution, I revisit the almost 15-year-old Blackberry litigation and its connection with both the Supreme Court’s 2006 decision in eBay, Inc. v. MercExchange LLC, which limited patent owners’ ability to secure injunctions, and ongoing infringement litigation (commenced in January 2020) involving Google and Sonos, a leading innovator and supplier of wireless audio systems. While the eBay decision may have deterred certain opportunistic uses of patent infringement litigation, there are growing indications that it has had a significant adverse effect on the innovation ecosystem.

As illustrated by the Google/Sonos litigation, eBay and post-eBay case law has enabled incumbents that maintain key technology platforms and distribution pathways to infringe upon patent-protected technologies held by others at relatively modest legal and business risk. The increasing normalization of patent infringement as a rational business strategy endangers the property-rights infrastructure behind important segments of the U.S. innovation economy.

To read the policy brief, please click here.

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
Antitrust Patent Licensing

Department of Justice Recognizes Importance of Reliable Patent Rights in Innovation Economy

dictionary entry for the word "innovate"It is undeniable that the patent system has been under stress for the past decade, as courts, regulators, and even the Patent Office itself (as the newly confirmed Director Andrei Iancu has acknowledged) have sowed legal uncertainty, weakened patent rights, and even outright eliminated patent rights. This is why a series of recent speeches by Assistant Attorney General Makan Delrahim—head of the Antitrust Division at the Department of Justice—have signaled an important and welcome policy change from the past decade. It’s just one step, but it’s an important first step to restoring reliability and predictability to property rights in patents, which, as Director Iancu has also been saying in recent speeches, drives innovation and economic growth by promoting investments by inventors, venture capitalists, and companies in the new inventions that make modern life a veritable miracle today.

Delrahim’s speeches are important because one significant point of stress for the patent system and the innovation economy over the past decade has occurred at the intersection of antitrust law and the licensing of patents in standard setting organizations (SSOs). Many people are unaware of this particular issue, and it’s understandable why it flies under the radar screen. The technical standards set by SSOs are the things that make everything work, such as electrical plugs, toasters, and pencils, among millions of other products and services, but they are not obvious to everyday consumers who use these products. Also, antitrust law is a complex domain of lawyers, policy-makers and economists. Still, the patented innovation that comprises technical standards, such as 4G, WiFi, USB, memory storage chips, and other key features of our smart phones and computers, have been essential drivers of innovation in the telecommunications revolution of the past several decades.

In a series of recent speeches, Delrahim has signaled an important and welcome change from his predecessors in how antitrust law will be applied to patented technology that is contributed to the standards that drive innovation in the high-tech industry. Delrahim’s predecessors at the DOJ gave many speeches criticizing (and instigating investigations of) alleged “anti-competitive behavior” by patent owners on technical standards. The DOJ’s approach was one-sided, unbalanced, and lacked evidence confirming the allegations of anti-competitive behavior. Instead, Delrahim is emphasizing the key importance of promoting and properly securing to innovators the technology they create through their long-term, risky, and multi-billion-dollar R&D investments (as succinctly described in two paragraphs here about Qualcomm’s R&D in 5G by an official at the Department of Treasury).

Delrahim has announced that he will return to an evidence-based, balanced antitrust policy at the DOJ. He will not take action against innovators unless there is real-world evidence of consumer harm or proven harm to the development of innovation. The absence of such evidence is well known among scholars and policy-makers. In February 2018, for instance, a group of scholars, former government officials, and judges wrote that “no empirical study has demonstrated that a patent-owner’s request for injunctive relief after a finding of a defendant’s infringement of its property rights has ever resulted either in consumer harm or in slowing down the pace of technological innovation.” It’s significant that Delrahim has announced that the DOJ will constrain its enforcement actions with basic procedural and substantive safeguards long provided to citizens in courts, such as requiring actual evidence to prove assertions of harm. This guards against unfettered and arbitrary regulatory overreach against innocent owners of private property rights. This self-restraint is even more important when overreach negatively impacts innovation, which portends badly for economic growth and the flourishing lives we have all come to expect with our high-tech products and services.

For example, Delrahim has rightly recognized that “patent holdup” theory is just that—a theory about systemic market failure that remains unproven by extensive empirical studies. Even more concerning, “patent holdup” theory—the theory that patent owners will exploit their ability to seek injunctions to protect their property rights and thus “holdup” commercial implementers by demanding exorbitantly high royalties for the use of their technology—is directly contradicted by the economic evidence of the smart phone industry itself. The smart phone industry is one of the most patent-intensive industries in the U.S. innovation economy; thus, “patent holdup” theory hypothesizes that there will be higher prices, slower technological development, and less and less new development of products and services. Instead, as everyone knows, smart phones—such as the Apple iPhone and the Samsung Galaxy, among many others—are defined by rapidly dropping quality-controlled prices, explosive growth in products and services, and incredibly fast technological innovation. The 5G revolution is right around the corner, which will finally make real the promise of the Internet of Things.

In sum, Delrahim has repeatedly stated that antitrust officials must respect the equal rights of all stakeholders in the innovation industries—the inventors creating fundamental technological innovation, the rights of the companies who implement this innovation, and the consumers who purchase these products and services. This requires restraining investigations and enforcement actions to evidence, and not acting solely on the basis of unproven theories, colorful anecdotes, or rhetorical narratives developed inside D.C. by lobbyists and activists (such as “patent trolls”). This is good governance, which is what fosters ongoing investments in the R&D that makes possible the inventions that drives new technological innovation in smart phones and in the innovation economy more generally.

We will delve more deeply into the substantive issues and implications of Delrahim’s recent speeches in follow-on essays. Since his speeches have been delivered over the course of the past six months, we have aggregated them here in one source. Read them and come back for further analyses of these important speeches (and more speeches that will likely come, which we will keep adding to the list below):

  • November 10, 2017. In a speech at the University of Southern California, Gould School of Law, Assistant Attorney General Delrahim discussed why patent holdout is a bigger problem than patent hold-up. “[T]he hold-up and hold-out problems are not symmetric. What do I mean by that? It is important to recognize that innovators make an investment before they know whether that investment will ever pay off. If the implementers hold out, the innovator has no recourse, even if the innovation is successful.” He further noted that antitrust law has a role to play in preventing the concerted anticompetitive actions that occur during holdout.
  • February 1, 2018. In a speech at the U.S. Embassy in Beijing, Delrahim noted that the proper antitrust focus should be on protecting the innovative process, not “short-term pricing” considerations. With this focus, using antitrust remedies should be approached with “caution.”
  • February 21, 2018. In a speech at the College of Europe, in Brussels Belgium, Delrahim observed that antitrust enforcers have aggressively tried to police patent license terms deemed excessive, and “have strayed too far in the direction of accommodating the concerns of technology licensees who participate in standard setting bodies, very likely at the risk of undermining incentives for the creation of new and innovative technologies.” The real problem and solution he noted is that the “dueling interests of innovators and implementers always are in tension, but the tension is best resolved through free market competition and bargaining.”
  • March 16, 2018. In a speech at the University of Pennsylvania Law School, Delrahim expanded on his detailed remarks from his talk at USC by adding some historical context from the founding fathers. He also made the core point that “patent hold-up is not an antitrust problem,” noting that FRAND commitments from patent owners are part of the normal competitive process and are therefore appropriately policed by contract and common law remedies. He further describes the necessary impacts of having a right to exclude in the patent right, including that the “unilateral and unconditional refusal to license a patent should be considered per se”
  • April 10, 2018. In a keynote address at the LeadershIP Conference on IP, Antitrust, and Innovation Policy in Washington, D.C., Delrahim emphasized the harm that can occur when “advocacy positions lead to unsupportable or even detrimental legal theories when taken out of context.” He specifically noted that some advocacy about patent hold-up could undermine standard setting as “putative licensees have been emboldened to stretch antitrust theories beyond their rightful application, and that courts have indulged these theories at the risk of undermining patent holders’ incentives to participate in standard setting at all.”
Categories
Innovation Legislation Patent Law

CPIP Co-Founder Testifies at House Judiciary Committee Hearing on IP

U.S. Capitol buildingCPIP co-founder Adam Mossoff testified on June 13 before the House Judiciary Committee’s subcommittee on the Courts, Intellectual Property and the Internet.  He and other witnesses testified about the impact of the Supreme Courts recent decision in TC Heartland LLC v. Kraft Foods Group Brands LLC on innovators and the possibility of future changes to patent law.

For those not familiar with the decision, it held that patent lawsuits against corporations must be filed either where the corporation is incorporated or where it has infringed the patent and has a “regular and established placed of business.” This is different than the rule for most litigation which generally allows a lawsuit to be filed wherever a court may exercise jurisdiction over the corporation.  Thus, TC Heartland placed constraints on patent owners enforcing their rights that don’t exist for other litigants.

Although the hearing was nominally about TC Heartland and venue for patent suits, Members of Congress and witnesses took the opportunity to address broader issues of innovation policy.  In his opening statement, Professor Mossoff primarily described how patent owners—particularly individual inventors and small businesses—will now be required to file multiple lawsuits all across the country to enforce their rights.  This will drastically increase the costs of protecting their property from infringers, which for many innovators will be cost prohibitive.  Professor Mossoff mentioned one such inventor, Bunch-o-Balloons inventor Josh Malone, who is being seriously harmed by the inability to protect his invention from rampant infringement.  Together with the litany of other recent disastrous changes to our patent system, innovators are now in a precarious position when deciding to rely on patents to protect their inventions.

Much of the hearing was taken up by questions of what the impact of the TC Heartland decision will be.  There was general agreement that the concentration of patent cases in only a few districts will continue.  Under the old regime, many cases were filed in the Eastern District of Texas.  Under the new regime, these cases will now be filed in the Northern District of California or the District of Delaware.  There was also general agreement that this would benefit accused infringers, who will now be litigating in their preferred fora.

Adam MossoffUnfortunately, much of the discussion centered around a perceived problem with patent “trolls.”  This epithet based on myths is often used in the place of reasoned debate for patent policy.  As Professor Mossoff explained, as deployed in research and policy debates, this term would make even famous inventors like Thomas Edison a troll.  Furthermore, it is both wrong and irresponsible to assume that patent owners who license their inventions are practicing an illegitimate business model. Just as it is perfectly legitimate for a landlord to rent her property instead of selling it, it is likewise perfectly legitimate for a patent owner to license her patent rights instead of manufacturing and selling products to customers. And just as it is legitimate for a landlord to sue a squatter for trespass, it is equally legitimate for a patent owner who licenses her property rights to sue for infringement.

Several questions focused on broader patent issues in the context of whether or what Congress should do next for patent law. The Global Intellectual Property Center of the Chamber of Commerce recently reported that the United States had slipped from 1st to 10th in their annual ranking of patent systems.  Reasons for the degradation of our patent system are obvious: death squads killing patents at the PTAB, subject matter eligibility standards that make oil rigs outside the scope of patent laws, and the inability of patent owners to prevent others from infringing their rights through injunctions.

As Professor Mossoff emphasized, Congress’ first priority should be “do no harm.” Rather than make another attempt to pass legislation further restricting patent owners’ rights, it would be better for Congress to simply do nothing.  However, Congress could make the patent system better for innovators.  One step already being discussed that would be a positive improvement is the suggestion to amend section 101 to limit the scope of the judicial exceptions to subject matter eligibility.  At the hearing, Professor Mossoff astutely noted that the first patent ever issued in the United States—being held up at that moment by Chairman Darrell Issa—would likely be invalidated under current patent eligibility standards.

Many questions directed at the witnesses asked for them to propose specific solutions to either perceived venue abuses or broader patent law issues. Professor Mossoff stressed that systemic changes to the patent system will not just affect a few bad actors, but all of the individual inventors, small businesses, universities, licensing companies, and R&D-intensive high-tech and bio-pharma companies who rely on the patent system to protect their innovations.  These types of companies have been the fountainhead of the U.S. innovation economy for more than 200 years.  “Reform” that only addresses the concerns of accused infringers, but not the costs to patent owners, is doomed to do more harm than good.

Professor Mossoff’s written testimony can be found here.  Video of the hearing can be found here.

Categories
Uncategorized

Lobbyists Continue to Invoke Discredited Junk Science to Push Patent Legislation

dictionary entry for the word "innovate"It seems no matter how many times the mole gets whacked, it keeps popping back up. The latest incarnation of this problem is a recent op-ed by Katie Johnson of the National Association of Realtors, which relies on a long since discredited study about the state of patent litigation in the United States.  She goes on to make matters worse by using the highly misleading “patent troll” moniker and positively referring to an out of control bureaucracy that is destroying patents at an alarming rate.

Although Ms. Johnson cites only the $1.75 million estimate to defend a patent suit from the flawed study, the entire study was flawed from top to bottom. To achieve its desired result of blaming “trolls” for high litigation costs, the study defined “trolls” to include individual inventors, universities, startups, and even manufacturers who also license their patents. The study also ignores the benefits of the patent system for small business patent owners and inventors who must rely on litigation to stop piracy of their new innovation.

It is important to set things right. Patent litigation is the mechanism by which property owners protect their rights.  This has been true for all types of inventors throughout American history, including such famous American innovators as Thomas Edison, Charles Goodyear, and Elias Howe – all of whom are included in the “patent troll” definition. For software patents specifically, these patents are highly valuable for innovation.  As CPIP founder Adam Mossoff has discussed at length previously, patent protection for software inventions promotes innovation. It is important that every time someone uses junk science and rhetorical epithets to attack the patent system, we continue to call this out for what it is.

Categories
Innovation Patent Litigation

CPIP Scholars Ask Supreme Court to Resist Call to Restrict Venue Choices for Patent Owners

U.S. Supreme Court buildingOn March 8, 2017, CPIP Scholars Adam Mossoff, Devlin Hartline, Chris Holman, Sean O’Connor, Kristen Osenga, & Mark Schultz joined an amicus brief in TC Heartland v. Kraft Foods. CPIP Scholars worked with USD Law’s Ted Sichelman to organize, write, and file the brief. The case focuses on whether patent owners may sue corporate defendants in any judicial district where the court has personal jurisdiction over the defendant, which is the default rule in federal cases.

Concerned about the allegedly abusive behavior of certain firms suing in the Eastern District of Texas, some would like to severely restrict where all patent owners may sue. The amici note that, even if the Supreme Court restricts venue choices as these people would like, patent lawsuits would not be equitably distributed as a result. A recent study showed that 60% of all patent cases would still be concentrated in 5 of the 94 judicial districts. Furthermore, instead of concentrating in one district—the Eastern District of Texas—cases would primarily concentrate in two districts—the Northern District of California and the District of Delaware.

As the amici argue: “No plausible argument can be made—and Petitioner and its amici have not offered an argument—that shifting cases from one district to two districts would result in a meaningful distribution of patent cases among the ninety-four federal district courts.” The amici note that concerns about “forum shopping” are overblown since patentees are just doing what all federal plaintiffs do—choosing “the forum that gives it the best opportunity for success.” Since “corporate defendants are generally subject in any civil complaint to venue in any district in which personal jurisdiction lies,” the amici suggest that the same rule should apply in patent cases.

The amici conclude: “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 research & development and commercialization. By restricting the districts in which a patent owner can bring suit, the value of the patent itself is lessened, diminishing the economic incentives the patent system provides to spur innovation.”

To read the amicus brief, please click here.

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
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
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.