by Dennis Crouch

On Nov 8, the US Senate Judiciary IP Subcommittee held a key hearing on the PREVAIL ACT – The “Promoting and Respecting Economically Vital American Innovation Leadership Act.” PREVAIL is a bipartisan proposal from Senators Coons (D-DE) and Tillis (R-NC) who are looking to strengthen the power of patents. The proposal here is directed toward AIA trials — generally attempting to make it more difficult to invalidate patent claims via IPR.  Key provisions include:

• Imposing standing requirements to restrict who can file AIA patent challenges.
• Requiring “clear and convincing” evidentiary standard for invalidating claims.
• Broadening estoppel. Challengers must either challenge 102/103 invalidity via PTAB or court, not both (only on prior patents or printed publication grounds).
• Limiting repeat challenges of the same patent.
• Adding additional transparency and safeguards.

Senator Coons opened the hearing, laying out his views on the need for patent reform. He argued that the current system allows large corporations to “weaponize” the PTAB to invalidate patents held by small inventors and startups.

The witnesses were Lamar Smith, former House Judiciary Chair and namesake of the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (now at Akin Gump); Joe Matal, former interim PTO Director (and until recently at Haynes & Boone), Joe Kiani, Founder and CEO of the medical device company Masimo, and Michelle Armond, partner at Armond Wilson.

Smith and Kiani testified strongly in favor of the PREVAIL Act while Matal and Armond provided support for IPRs largely in their current iteration, although allowing for limited changes.

Any legislation needs a good personal compelling story.  Joe Kiani provided that here.  Kiani testified that his pulse oximetry technology was copied and patents challenged once he proved that the technology worked. Masimo spent over $13 million defending patents at the PTAB that withstood pre-AIA scrutiny. Kiani argued the AIA’s intent was an efficient second look at patents, not reflexive, duplicative challenges by “opportunistic” big companies to invalidate smaller entities’ rights. Predictable property rights drive investment and innovation, and Kiani endorsed PREVAIL’s reforms for providing more certainty and reducing PTAB abuse. He concluded with a statement that action is needed, otherwise “the United States will continue to cede technological supremacy to China.”

Mr. Smith testified that the PTAB has strayed from its original purpose as an alternative to litigation. He said it has become a tool for infringers to undermine valid patents. He endorsed the PREVAIL Act’s reforms as preserving strong patent rights while still allowing for challenges to bad patents.

Smith similarly testified that IPR proceedings have strayed from their original purposes and have now become an additional tool for “litigation gamesmanship.” Smith endorsed the proposed legislation as supporting smaller companies and individuals against “well-resourced corporations.”  “[I]f we lose sight of creating a system that truly rewards investment in innovation, we are really hurting ourselves.”

Matal testified that PTAB proceedings have proven to be timely, cost-effective, and produce accurate patentability results. He cited a study finding the PTAB is affirmed on appeal much more often than district courts due to judges’ technical expertise. Matal argued PREVAIL’s restrictions on PTAB reviews are contrary to the public interest. He opposed limits on serial challenges, saying they could entrench bad examiner decisions. He argued PREVAIL’s standing requirement would prevent beneficial challenges. Matal concluded the PTAB provides reliable review American manufacturers need, saying recent cases like VLSI v. Intel show billions in damages can be awarded on invalid patents absent PTAB access.

Finally, Armond testified that PTAB proceedings have transformed patent litigation over the past decade.  She suggested that PREVAIL’s early forum choice requirement and aligned evidentiary standard could advance the goals of efficiency and certainty. However, Armond opposed limits on PTAB access, saying strong patents come from quality examination rather than less scrutiny. She suggested a better area for reforms is to ensure examiner resources and technical training.

The divided views expressed at the hearing reflect the reality that passage of the PREVAIL Act in its current form is unlikely this Congress. While Chairman Coons and Ranking Member Tillis aim for bipartisan patent litigation reform, these issues have entrenched stakeholders on both sides — making any major movement in Congress unlikely.

• 2023-11-08_-_testimony_-_smith
• 2023-11-08_-_testimony_-_matal
• 2023-11-08_-_testimony_-_kiani
• 2023-11-08_-_testimony_-_armond

Guest Post by Professor Jorge L. Contreras

The Patent Eligibility Restoration Act should be modified to prevent the reintroduction of patents on naturally-occurring genomic sequences that are isolated and purified in the lab, a change that will enable international pathogen research to continue while interfering little with private incentives to develop new biomedical technologies.

The Patent Eligibility Restoration Act of 2022 (PERA), introduced by Senator Thom Tillis (R-NC) in August 2022, is designed, among other things, to abrogate the Supreme Court’s patent eligibility decisions in Bilski, Mayo, Myriad and Alice. While Congressional action may be useful to clarify the confusing landscape of patent eligibility that has followed from these decisions, particularly in areas such as medical diagnostics, software and business methods, one piece of the eligibility puzzle that the Supreme Court got right, and which should not be changed, is Myriad’s holding that naturally occurring genomic sequences are ineligible for patent protection, even when “isolated and purified.”

In my book, The Genome Defense: Inside the Epic Legal Battle Over Who Owns Your DNA (New York: Algonquin, 2021), I discuss the Myriad case at length, focusing on its implications for human health and access to care.  Like many others, I am concerned that PERA would make newly identified human genetic variants with significant health implications (e.g., this and this) patentable again, potentially removing them from the broad competitive market and placing them in the hands of the first research team that chances to identify them (a task that is, today, largely serendipitous and requires little innovative skill). I have previously discussed these concerns here. In this post, however, I focus on a different and less-discussed issue: the risk that non-human pathogenic genomic sequences (i.e., from viruses and bacteria) will be patented by non-U.S. institutions and used to delay the development of lifesaving diagnostics, vaccines and therapeutics.

When Patents Held Up Pathogen Research

Prior to the Myriad decision, research groups around the world were able to obtain patents on newly identified pathogen genomic sequences, including those of the H5N1 influenza strain and the SARS and MERS coronaviruses. As I discuss in this new article, these patents led to disputes and delays in research on the diseases and effective countermeasures. After Myriad, however, research groups appear to have stopped seeking patents on new pathogenic agents, as shown by the global experience with the Ebola and Zika outbreaks, leading to greater global cooperation and rapid responses by public health agencies and private developers of diagnostics, vaccines and therapeutics.

SARS-CoV-2:  the Benefits of Patent-Free Pathogens

The genomic sequence of SARS-CoV-2 (the virus responsible for COVID-19) was first identified in early January 2020 by a team of researchers in China. On January 5, they uploaded the sequence to the publicly accessible GenBank database. Within days, diagnostic tests for the virus had been developed and a few months later, new vaccines against COVID-19 were being tested. As I have written previously, the unavailability of patents on genomic sequences, and the rapid uploading of the SARS-CoV-2 sequence to public databases, enabled researchers around the world to study the viral genome without fear of patent infringement and without the need to negotiate complex patent licensing agreements and pay royalties to the first researchers to determine its sequence. This open and unencumbered global research environment enabled scientists to identify and trace the spread of multiple pathogenic variants around the world, to understand the biological mechanisms of the virus, and to develop vaccines, diagnostics and therapeutics, all in record time.

PERA and U.S. Competitiveness

Senator Tillis, when introducing PERA, explained that a major goal of the bill is to enhance “the economic and global competitiveness of the United States”. He faults judicial decisions like that in Myriad for “undermining American innovation and allowing foreign adversaries like China to overtake us in key technology innovations.” Likewise, supporters of the draft legislation have enthusiastically proclaimed that it will “rev the US innovation engine once again”, warning that “[e]conomic growth, job creation, global competitiveness, public health and national security are all at risk until Congress repairs the law of patent eligibility that the Supreme Court has distorted.”

Yet, ironically, at least in the case of pathogenic sequences, PERA would work largely to benefit institutions in China and elsewhere, and could have adverse consequences for U.S. businesses and global public health.

Pathogens Usually Emerge, and are Sequenced, Outside the United States

Most serious pathogenic outbreaks result from the transmission of disease agents from animals to humans. These outbreaks originate in regions characterized by extensive animal husbandry, live animal markets, hunting or habitat loss. Within these parameters, the particular locale of a future outbreak is unpredictable. Recent infectious disease outbreaks have been traced, respectively, to China (SARS and H5N1), Saudi Arabia (MERS), Zaire and Congo (Ebola), Uganda and Brazil (Zika).

Likewise, once a pathogenic outbreak has entered human populations, the locations where its variants will emerge is also unpredictable. For example, the major variants of SARS-CoV-2  were first documented in China (original strain), the United Kingdom (alpha), South Africa (beta, omicron), Brazil (gamma), India (delta), Peru (lambda) and Botswana (omicron).

Today, genomic sequencing equipment is widely available at a modest cost. Researchers in 2021 estimated that the cost of sequencing a SARS-CoV-2 genome (only 1/100,000 the size of the human genome) is approximately $120, bringing it well within the reach of researchers in countries such as Gambia, which had, by mid-2021, sequenced more SARS-CoV-2 genomes than Germany.

It is also worth noting that countries, including the United States, that are parties to the World Trade Organization (WTO) Agreement on Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property (TRIPS) must give “national treatment” to applicants from all other member states. Thus, researchers from any TRIPS member country may apply for a U.S. patent and will be afforded the same rights as applicants from the United States. Indeed, for the past several years, most U.S. patents have been issued to non-U.S. applicants. In 2021, for example, of approximately 374,000 issued U.S. patents, nearly 200,000 (roughly 53%) were issued to foreign entities. This situation is not unique to the United States and is simply indicative of today’s global technology markets.

The combination of unpredictable sites of pathogenic emergence, inexpensive genome sequencing and national treatment under TRIPS suggests that if U.S. patents become available for pathogenic sequences, the parties most likely to obtain these patents will originate outside of the United States in countries that are likely sites of disease emergence. It is doubtful that allowing pathogen patenting would result in more patents being issued to U.S. applicants. Rather, U.S. and other companies that wished to develop diagnostics, vaccines and other technologies dependent on those sequences would either be excluded from the market or required to pay unpredictable prices for a license to operate under those patents.

Countries That Are Willing to Hold-Up Research

In recent years, certain foreign governments have shown themselves willing to hold-up international disease research and response efforts in order to gain concessions and advantages for themselves under the banner of “access and benefit sharing” (ABS). The most prominent example of this tactic occurred in 2006-07, when the government of Indonesia refused to share samples of the H5N1 influenza virus strain with the World Health Organization until it obtained commitments regarding access to any resulting biomedical products. Similar tactics were adopted by other countries during the MERS, Ebola and Zika outbreaks, as documented here.

If countries are willing to hold-up international research and disease response in order to secure ABS benefits for themselves, then they are also likely to use patents to extract further concessions from the international community. Demands for ABS concessions are not necessarily unjustified in view of past exploitation of local resources by foreign firms in developing countries. Yet even if justified, these barriers to the international response to emergent disease outbreaks can negatively impact global health. Reintroducing pathogen patenting will give countries where diseases emerge yet another tool to hold-up critical international research and development to the detriment of all.

Patents are not Necessary to Incentivize Pathogen Sequencing

One of the principal functions of the patent system is to provide financial incentives for innovators to develop new technologies. Yet, this rationale does not support the issuance of patents claiming pathogen sequences. The identification of new pathogens during emergent disease outbreaks is rarely undertaken by private industry. Rather, this function is usually carried out by public health agencies and academic laboratories, typically in the locale of the outbreak, and which are supported by public funds. Thus, unlike the development of vaccines and therapeutics, the financial incentives offered by patent exclusivity are not necessary to incentivize these early stage research efforts.

There Are Ample Patentable Innovations Relating to Disease Response and Containment Beyond Pathogen Sequences

It is also unnecessary to patent underlying pathogenic sequences in order to protect novel and innovative technologies such as diagnostics, vaccines and therapeutics. A 2012 WIPO study identified more than 50,000 patents and published patent applications across 57 countries that claimed the active ingredients of pneumonia, typhoid and influenza vaccines, most without claiming the underlying pathogen. Even more opportunities for innovation exist with respect to therapeutics, which can adopt a broad range of approaches to combating infection. For example, Regeneron filed more than 100 patent applications around the world on its Ebola drug Inmazeb, though the viral sequence was freely available on GenBank.

The broad availability of patents for innovation around pathogenic disease outbreaks is amply demonstrated by the COVID-19 pandemic. Despite the absence of patents claiming the SARS-CoV-2 sequence or its many variants, the research institutions and private firms that developed COVID-19 diagnostics and vaccines obtained numerous patents on the innovative aspects of their products. For example, one 2020 study found that, with respect to mRNA vaccine technology alone, 56 different entities ranging from large pharmaceutical companies to small and medium-sized entities held a total of 119 different patent families. Perhaps the most convincing evidence that sizeable numbers of patents have issued in this space is the expanding universe of patent litigation among mRNA vaccine manufacturers, now dubbed the “COVID-19 Patent Wars”. All of these examples demonstrate that COVID-19 technology innovations, vaccines in particular, have been amply protected without the need for patents on naturally occurring pathogenic sequences.

But is this Threat Real?

An argument that may be made against the need to limit further pathogen patents is that the ability of patent holders to enforce their patents, especially during global health crises, is limited by law.  For example, in the United States, a patent holder cannot obtain a permanent injunction preventing an infringer from practicing a patented invention unless it demonstrates that the public interest would not be disserved by the entry of the injunction.  Likewise, the International Trade Commission, when assessing the appropriateness of an exclusion order barring the importation of infringing goods into the United States, must take into account “the effect of such exclusion upon the public health and welfare.”  These limitations have greatly reduced (but not entirely eliminated) the number of injunctions and exclusion orders issued with respect to medical and health-related technologies.

These limitations suggest that, at least in the United States, the existence of patents claiming pathogenic sequences might not represent a significant threat to pathogen research or biomedical product development. However, the existence of patents on these basic research tools, no matter what the likelihood of eventual litigation outcomes, can chill research, impose delays and prompt the payment of unwarranted fees. Moreover, even meritless claims are costly to fend off in court and impose some level of risk on defendants, particularly in the U.S. where fee shifting is rare.  Thus, while various litigation doctrines may tend to lessen the threat of pathogen patents in the U.S., that threat is not eliminated entirely and may still represent a significant cost and deterrent to firms engaged in research and development of pathogen-based biomedical products.

Don’t Let PERA Potentially Hold Up Research Efforts

For the reasons outlined above, PERA should be modified to ensure that naturally occurring genomic sequences – even once isolated – remain ineligible subject matter for patent protection. Preventing the reintroduction of pathogen patents will enable international pathogen research to advance rapidly while interfering little with private incentives to develop innovative new biomedical technologies. In contrast, opening the door to pathogen patents arguably will provide opportunities for individual countries where outbreaks emerge to hold up international research efforts for their own benefit, causing delays and barriers to the development of lifesaving diagnostics, vaccines and drugs.

by Dennis Crouch

Senators Tillis and Coons have released their “Patent Eligibility Restoration Act of 2023” designed to overturn the Supreme Court case of Mayo and Alice Corp.  The impact here is to return eligibility doctrine back to the mid 2000s when almost any useful advance was likely patent eligible.

Here are some key points:

1. Elimination of Judicial Exceptions: The Act proposes to eliminate all judicial exceptions to patent eligibility. “Under this Act, and the amendments made by this Act, the state of the law shall be as follows: (A) All judicial exceptions to patent eligibility are eliminated.”

2. Statutory Ineligibility Categories: The Act specifies that that the following are not eligible: (A) mathematical formulas that are not part of an invention; (B) processes that a human could practically perform that are “substantially economic, financial, business, social, cultural, or artistic” even if the process itself requires a machine; (C)  mental processes performed solely in the human mind or processes that occur in nature wholly independent and prior to any human activity; (D) unmodified human genes (“as that gene exists in the human body”); and (E) unmodified natural material (“as that material exists in nature”)

3. Claims as a Whole: When determining eligibility, the tribunal must consider the claims as a whole without discounting or disregarding any claim element and without regard to its novelty or conventionality.

Read the proposal here.

Trading Technologies International, Inc. v. IBG LLC, SCT Docket No. 19-353 (Supreme Court 2019)

Before writing this post, I note that while in practice (2003-2007) I represented Trading Technologies and filed a number of infringement lawsuits asserting infringement of patents related to those at issue here. Although I no longer represent Trading Technologies, I continue to be bound by duties owed to a former client.  – Dennis Crouch 

The patented inventions at issue are used by professional stock-market traders buying and selling in a dynamic electronic marketplace.  The patents generally relate to user interfaces (UIs) designed to improve accuracy and speed of offers and bids while also dynamically displaying market-depth (pending offers/bids at higher/lower prices).  U.S. Patents 7,904,374, 7,212,999, and 7,533,056.  These inventions do not make the computer itself run faster or improve the computer’s internal processing or signalling. Rather, the improvement is seated in user interaction.  In its decision, the Federal Circuit characterized the improvement as “focused on improving the trader, not the functioning of the computer.”  And, according to the court, such improvements were effectively non-technological abstract ideas.  “We conclude that the claims are directed to the abstract idea of graphing bids and offers to assist a trader to make an order.”

In its petition for writ of certiorari, Trading Technologies challenges the Federal Circuit’s conclusion that an inventive concept cannot lie in the improved user-functionality and also directly challenges the Supreme Court’s Alice Corp. decision and its progeny. (Note that on the first-point, the Federal Circuit has an inconsistent set of opinions).

Question presented:

In Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, 573 U.S. 208 (2014), the Court declined once again to define the scope of the “abstract idea” exception to patent eligibility created by this Court. It did, however, assume that claims that “purport to improve the functioning of the computer itself” would be patent eligible. Here, a panel of the Federal Circuit held, in conflict with other panel decisions, that computer-implemented inventions providing useful functionality to users, but without improving the basic functions of the computer itself in a manner akin to improved hardware, are directed to abstract ideas and therefore patent ineligible.

Accordingly, the questions presented are:

1. Whether computer-implemented inventions that provide useful user functionality but do not improve the basic functions of the computer itself are categorically ineligible for patent protection.

2. Whether the Court should overrule its precedents recognizing the “abstract idea” exception to patent eligibility under the Patent Act of 1952.

Trading Technologies Petition.  On question two – it is important to note that the Supreme Court has identified eligibility as a question of statutory interpretation — but has not directly confronted whether the Patent Act of 1952 rejected or modified the abstract idea test.

by Dennis Crouch

Section 101 has some magic to it.  The short provision has remained essentially unchanged since it was originally handwritten in the 1700s and signed into law by President George Washington.

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.

35 U.S.C. 101.  But the courts have taken the general provision and given it substantial meaning beyond the text.

Senator Tillis has introduced legislation that would re-write Section 101 — taking back authority from the courts and detailing the scope of eligibility as broadly extending to technology-based innovation.  Because the Supreme Court’s interpretation of Section 101 is largely atextual, the proposed amendment does not change the core text cited above. Rather, the Bill adds detail in the form of “eligibility exclusions” and notes that the broad provisions of Section 101 are subject “only to” the statutory exclusions.”  In his press release, Senator Tillis indicates that the proposal “is the product of almost four years of consensus driven stakeholder conversations from all interested parties.”

Unfortunately, due to a series of Supreme Court decisions, patent eligibility law in the United States has become confused, constricted, and unclear in recent years. This has led to inconsistent case decisions, uncertainty in innovation and investment communities, and unpredictable business outcomes. This has resulted in a wide range of well-documented negative impacts.

Tillis.  The Bill does not include a statement about whether its impact would be retroactive to apply to already issued patents and pending applications.  If it is retroactive, the legislation would have an immediate impact on many thousands of of patents and pending applications.

The Bill lists four particular eligibility exclusions that would be codified within a new Section 101(b)(1).  In particular, the statute would deny patent protection “for any of the following, if claimed as such:”

(A) A mathematical formula, apart from a useful invention or discovery.

(B) A process that— (i) is a non-technological economic, financial, business, social, cultural, or artistic process; (ii) is a mental process performed solely in the human mind; or (iii) occurs in nature wholly independent of, and prior to, any human activity.

(C) An unmodified human gene, as that gene exists in the human body.

(D) An unmodified natural material, as that material exists in nature.

These four exclusions are the only exceptions to Section 101’s broad text. The provision goes on with additional “CONDITIONS” that endeavor to ensure that the exclusions are narrowly read:

(2) CONDITIONS.—

(A) CERTAIN PROCESSES.—Notwithstanding paragraph (1)(B)(i), a person may obtain a patent for a claimed invention that is a process described in such provision if that process is embodied in a machine or manufacture, unless that machine or manufacture is recited in a patent claim without integrating, beyond merely storing and executing, the steps of the
process that the machine or manufacture perform.

‘(B) HUMAN GENES AND NATURAL MATERIALS. … a human gene or natural material that is isolated, purified, enriched, or otherwise altered by human activity, or that is otherwise employed in a useful invention or discovery, shall not be considered to be unmodified [i.e., is patentable].

The Bill would also add a process for determining whether or not an invention is eligible.

(c) ELIGIBILITY.—

(1) IN GENERAL.—In determining whether, under this section, a claimed invention is eligible for a patent, eligibility shall be determined—

(A) by considering the claimed invention as a whole and without discounting or disregarding any claim element; and

(B) without regard to—(i) the manner in which the claimed invention was made; (ii) whether a claim element is known, conventional, routine, or naturally occurring; (iii) the state of the applicable art, as of the date on which the claimed invention is invented; or (iv) any other consideration in section 102, 103, or 112.

The proposed amendment makes clear that invalidity via eligibility is still potentially available via motion to dismiss.

Finally, the provision also modifies and adds definitions to Section 100 of the Patent Act:

 (b) [Amended] The term “process” means process, art or method, and includes a new use, application, or method of manufacture of a known or naturally occurring process, machine, manufacture, composition of matter, or material.

(k) [New] The term ‘useful’ means, with respect to an invention or discovery, that the invention or discovery has a specific and practical utility from the perspective of a person of ordinary skill in the art to which the invention or discovery pertains.

Read the legislation yourself here.

On Wednesday, June 8, 2005, Congressman Lamar Smith (R-TX) introduced the Patent Reform Act of 2005. (H.R. 2795). This proposed legislation includes sweeping reforms to fundamental aspects of the U.S. patent laws and procedures, including:

• Change to a first-to-file system (including elimination of the 1-year grace period for certain third party public disclosure);
• Elimination of the best mode requirement;
• Changes to the duty of candor (violations will be adjudged by the PTO rather than in Federal Court);
• Damages to be limited to the inventive contribution rather than calculated on the selling price of an entire product;
• Limitations on damages for willfulness;
• Adding a factor of “fairness”to the determination of whether to enter an injunction;
• Automatic stay of injunctions for appeals;
• Limits on scope of continuation applications (to be made by PTO); and
• Introduction of a post-grant opposition procedure and submission of prior art by third parties, etc.

• Proposed Legislation
• Buchanan’s Patent Reform Library
• Story by Declan McCullagh at CNET News
• Red Herring Article

The Senate Judiciary Committee approved the Patent Act of 2015 (Protecting American Talent and Entrepreneurship Act) as amended by the Manager’s Amendment as well as additions from Senators Feinstein and Cornyn.  The vote was 16-4 with only Senators Cruz, Vitter, Durbin, and Coons voting Nay. Yeas include Senators Grassley, Hatch, Sessions, Graham, Cornyn, Lee, Flake, Perdue, Tillis, Leahy, Feinstein, Schumer, Whitehouse, Klobuchar, Franken, and Blumenthal.

We can expect a few more amendments before being passed in the Senate.  Notably, there is continued debate over whether to alter the statute to force the PTO to more liberally allow claim amendments during post-grant proceedings.

[Update] In the original version of this post, I mistakenly wrote that universities are pushing to have their patents excluded from post grant proceedings.  That was in error, the move rather is from the pharma and life science tech sector to exclude patents “that are subject to the Hatch-Waxman Act and Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act (BPCIA) processes.” [Link to Grassley Statement]

By Dennis Crouch

It appears that the Patent Law Treaties Implementation Act of 2012 will soon become law. The U.S. Senate passed the bill earlier this year (S. 3486) by a unanimous vote and this morning the House passed the identical version in a voice vote. President Obama is expected to sign the bill into law within the next two weeks.

The Bill provides the domestic legislation required to implement both: (1) The Hague Agreement Concerning International Registration of Industrial Designs ("Hague Agreement") and (2) The Patent Law Treaty ("PLT"). Both treaties were ratified by the Senate in 2007.

In discussing the pending bill last week, I wrote that the USPTO has lobbied for passage of this bill and provided the original draft legislation. 

On the industrial design front,  substantive elements of the changed law include (1) an extension of the design patent term by an additional year with the resulting term being fifteen years from issuance; (2) allowing applicants to include up to 100 different design inventions within a single international design application; and (3) creation of provisional rights as of the publication date of the international application. About 45 countries, including virtually all of Europe have signed-on to the Hague Agreement (Geneva Act).

A major change with regard to the patent law treaty is that the law would now allow for revival of unintentionally abandoned international applications.   

Related articles

Patent Issues in the 2012 Lame Duck Session of Congress