Senator Orrin Hatch has been a deep participant in all major legislative patent reform initiatives for the past 35 years. In a recent update, Sen. Hatch lists upcoming issues for legislative patent reform:
- Venue: The Senate will consider the impact of TC Heartland and whether further guidance is needed from Congress. The statement suggests Hatch’s position that the limitations are beneficial because they limit “patent trolls’ ability to forum-shop.”
- Inter Partes Review: Hatch suggests that there may be ways to better calibrate the AIA Trials so that it is easier to cancel “unsound patents” while also ensuring that “valid patents” survive the review process.
- Eligibility: Hearing calls for eligibility reform, Hatch indicates that the Supreme Court has recently applied the non-statutory exceptions to eligibility “in a way that has caused considerable uncertainty for technology and life sciences companies.”
Read more here: https://medium.com/@SenOrrinHatch/a-look-forward-on-patent-reform-288942e634f1
‘patent reform’
patent trolls=small competitors
When large infringers draft legislation you can bet all those changes will do is make it easier for them to rob and crush their small competitors. Don’t believe the lies of thieves. Just because they call it reform doesn’t mean it is.
For our position and the changes we advocate (the rest of the truth) to restore the patent system, or to join our effort, please visit us at link to aminventorsforjustice.wordpress.com
or, contact us at aifj@mail.com
The problem with a “legislative clarification” of “Supreme Court .. applied .. non-statutory exceptions to eligibility” is a real danger that such legislation could create dangerously unintended consequences and more ambiguities, especially if not subjected to extensive public scrutiny over a long enough time period to identify and fix the bugs. Especially since there are very different such “statutory exceptions to eligibility.”
A point blank overruling should suffice then, eh?
Especially if Congress also considered using their Constitutional power of jurisdiction stripping to remove the non-original jurisdiction of patent appeals from the Supreme Court…
Sounds like the google $$ train is still barreling down the tracks. Bio is right to complain about 101.
Sounds like the maximalist whiners need a new script.
But cleverness isn’t really their bag, is it? Hence the unrelenting need for easier to obtain patents.
Boo hoo hoo hoo.
Bio is right to complain about 101.
I’m not complaining. I’ve got work coming out of my ears and none of it is vaporous bu ll cr @p.
What’s your problem?
No, you don’t. Else you’re relying on others to do your work while you do your duty here every day, 8 hours/day. Either you’re lying or you’re d u m b and unprofitable.
Hatch indicates that the Supreme Court has recently applied the non-statutory exceptions to eligibility “in a way that has caused considerable uncertainty for technology and life sciences companies.”
What is the chance that that Hatch’s understanding of the issues has any depth beyond this shallow soundbite: 0%
There’s no more “uncertainty” surrounding eligibility than there is around 103 or 112. It’s not the “uncertainty” that bothers the eternally screeching patent maximalists. On the contrary, it’s the certainty about what is definitely not eligible that bothers them. A big part of the scriveners playground as been roped off. That’s not going to change.
And, yes, there’s more to come. And the maximalists aren’t going to like it.
Maybe they need to come up with some better arguments? Or they can just keep flinging these anti-democratic “Kernstertershernal” arguments dreamed up at their Federalist Society Cracker parties.
I wouldn’t be so overconfident. As you said, Hatch’s understanding of the issues is likely shallow at best, but so is most of Congress’ understanding of these issues. And if he thinks there are problems with the current eligibility law, then the rest of Congress could be convinced of such as well. That leads to Congress tinkering with eligibility. Are you so sure that such tinkering would further restrict eligibility instead of expanding it?
Imagine the President tweeting something like this:
“Today I signed an AWESOME bill that will make America one again the world’s GREATEST innovators in computers and advanced technologies”
“China will NOT eat our lunch on IP for computer technologies”
If Trump’s looking for legislative wins, and he is, this could happen.
That leads to Congress tinkering with eligibility. Are you so sure that such tinkering would further restrict eligibility instead of expanding it?
Yes, I am.
You don’t have to be that intelligent to understand the reasoned arguments against expansive eligibility. You just need a mind that isn’t tainted with vapid maximalist slogans.
Ask for help if you need it. I explained the basics to folks here years ago and they fought hard at first. Now it’s the law and it’s never going to change.
Well I bet you were also sure that an immature, conceited, and misogynistic reality TV star would never be the President. Oops.
It amazes me that so many blog commentators could think that this Congress will ride to their rescue with easier patent suits and venue after reading what this top Senate Republican leader has to say here. Killing off patent trolls is obviously still at the top of their agenda.
” Killing off patent trolls is obviously still at the top of their agenda.”
But, they are killing off small inventors and suppressing startups. Is this intentional? It seems it is.
they are killing off small inventors and suppressing startup
Complete unadulterated b . s.
No, small inventors and startups are largely “collateral damage” [or caught in the cross-fire] of the strong reactions to patent trolls taking advantage of patent litigation defense costs to extract extensive settlements and creating a bad image for the system. Denial of that problem by many patent attorneys did not help.
“strong reactions to patent trolls taking advantage of patent litigation defense costs to extract extensive settlements and creating a bad image for the system. Denial of that problem by many patent attorneys did not help.”
It is FAR less a matter of “denial” and FAR more a matter that the “Tr011” problem was a vast overstatement and propaganda t001 (as exemplified in the challenge to the White House by Ron Katznelson).
ANY issues with litigation effects are quite open to litigation reform quite apart from any m0nkeying with patent law itself.
That’s missing the point that blog comment personal opinions about patent trolls are not Hatch’s opinions, and his opinions count but yours do not.
And your attempted dismissal misses the point entirely.
As noted, some really are opening their eyes to the “Tr011” storyline as the propaganda that it is.
See Ron Katznelson’s writings on the subject.
As well, you seem to miss the point of even having a comments section.
Since you appear eager to “not count” opinions appearing on blog comment sections, Paul – please feel free to NOT share your your own, eh?
Unless of course, the different narrative that emerges (even from editorially controlled comment sections) is different than the narrative that you prefer, then by all means feel free to be as ironic as possible and post your own personal opinions (on anything )in blog comment sections.
Paul, bad patents have always existed, always. The problem was that the Federal Circuit took away the discretion of the district courts to deal with abusive practices. Octane Fitness and Halo Electronics, and perhaps TC Heartland, have restored the balance. Ditto, the 20 year from filing patent term.
What is killing the legitimate inventor and startup are all forms of post grant PTO meddling that are being used by big companies abusively. Hatch’s remarks seem to indicate that Congress is now aware they may have gone too far. But what happened with IPR was quite predictable given the abusive practices involving reexaminations, with one reexamination followed another, essentially keeping a patent owner in the patent office until he gave up or the patent expired, and with every amendment, often necessitated by BRI, creating intervening rights.
t amazes me that so many blog commentators could think that this Congress will ride to their rescue
You have to remember that a lot of the “commentators” here spend most of their time drinking “news” from Big G/ne’s p u ke funnel.
LOL – saw your post after I made my comment at 3.3.
But clearly, you have it wrong as those at the other blog are NOT happy (or pacified) with Hatch’s actions (nor with the audience his actions were directed to).
But why let such things get in the way of your screed?
those at the other blog are NOT happy (or pacified) with Hatch’s actions
Most of those people are certifiable glibertarian nertjerbs who will never be happy or pacified until the Supreme Court declares that patent rights are fundamental and self-granting.
You are doing that “one-bucketing” thing again…
A rather different take on this (especially consider the headline):
link to ipwatchdog.com
Dear Senator Hatch, would it be okay for inventors and start-ups to file infringement suits in our own district? Enforcing patents is hard enough already and we certainly cannot manage multiplying it for every infringer’s district across the nation.
Thank you for acknowledging that the PTAB has gone off the rails and for working to clarify eligibility.
He hasn’t “clarified” anything and if he’s listening to the AIPLA g 00 n squad he never will.
Dennis –
“Hatch suggests that they may be ways to better calibrate”
I think you meant — THERE may be ways…
gracias!
Comments are closed.