In October 2003, the FTC released a patent law report that continues to generate activity. Most recently, the Intellectual Property Owners Association (IPO) released its response.
IPO agrees with many of the FTC recommendations directed to improving the quality of patents. IPO strongly believes that improving the quality and timeliness of patents is critical to achieving the proper balance of rights between patent owners and the public.… IPO does not, however believe that the courts or USPTO should actively attempt to balance patent law with economic policy through strategies such as limiting the scope of patentable subject matter or denying the grant or limiting enforcement of a patent. [S]uch an attempt would profoundly undercut the foundation of the patent system. Further, efforts to balance patent and antitrust policy based on today’s technologies will likely cause unintended and adverse economic consequences today and in the future.
Specifically, the IPO takes the following positions:
1. IPO supports enacting legislation to create a new administrative procedure to allow post-grant review, and opposition to, patents.
2. IPO does not support lowering the evidentiary standards for evaluating the validity of patents.
3. IPO does not support changing the statutory standard of non-obviousness.
4. IPO agrees with FTC that we must improve the quality of patents by providing USPTO with adequate funding and no fee diversion.
5. IPO agrees with FTC that Congress should adopt USPTO’s 21st Century Strategic Plan, including expanding the “second pair of eyes” review, but does not support the proposed change to Rule 105.
6. IPO does not support the FTC recommendation concerning considering potential harm to competition in deciding upon the scope of patentable subject matter.
7. IPO endorses the 18 month publication of all patent applications recommendation.
8. IPO supports expansion of prior user rights.
9. IPO supports changes to the notice requirement as a predicate for willfulness determinations.
10. IPO does not support expanding economic considerations in patent law decision making.
Earlier this year, the AIPLA gave its corresponding response (link).
Nipper had the scoop.