• Regulation
  • CFO.com | US

Will Congress Tilt Patent Law in the Right Direction?

There's a wave of support behind patent reform bills in Congress, but some say the changes could hurt small firms and inventors.

Over the two years since the last patent reform legislation passed Congress, the fight against companies that misuse patents as a business strategy has kicked up. Several bills pending in Congress would protect small firms targeted by these so-called “patent trolls.” Lobbying for new patent reform are a number of trade organizations, including the National Restaurant Association, the Consumer Electronics Association, and the National Retail Federation, along with big businesses like Yelp and organizations like the Credit Union National Association.

But the legislation proposed so far is controversial. Opponents say in their current forms the bills may hurt the businesses they are designed to help.

Patent trolls are individuals or shell companies that buy patents on broad technologies (often from bankrupt firms) and demand licensing fees, but never manufacturer a product related to the patent themselves. Often, a patent troll (also known as “non-practicing entity,” or NPE) will send threatening form letters to businesses that allegedly infringe on its patents. Rather than threatening to sue the manufacturers of equipment that violate the patent (for instance, a tech company that makes scanners), NPEs will often bring cases against small-business users (a company that uses the scanners in its office).

“My clients, and other small companies in Vermont, were getting these demand letters and they felt like they had to hire a lawyer to respond to them,” says Peter Kunin, deputy managing partner at law firm Downs Rachlin Martin PLLC. Kunin does pro bono work representing small and midsize firms sued by patent trolls.

Small and midsize companies could simply ignore the letter and toss it in the trash. But not if they’re trying to attract investors, Kunin says. “You have to disclose to your investors — angels, private capital — what the threats of litigation are, and that you aren’t being sued or being threatened with a lawsuit.” As a result, many small companies agree to pay licensing fees just to get trolls off their back, Kunin says.

And some letters do progress to a lawsuit. A 2012 paper from the Boston University School of Law found that 59 percent of the defendants in cases brought by patent trolls were small or medium-size firms.

3 thoughts on “Will Congress Tilt Patent Law in the Right Direction?

  1. The problem with much of the debate in Washington is that it fails to distinguish between “patent trolls” that are “gaming the system” by the sending demand letters for small amounts of money to companies that can’t afford to fight back and legitimate patent assertion entities that enforce strong patents against big companies. The Google’s and Cisco’s of the world like to hold up some of the “scam artists” as proof that the system needs changing, all the while trying to change it in a way that harms the interests of legitimate inventors. See http://www.ipnav.com/blog/the-senate-takes-up-patent-reform/ for a look at the patent reform proposals and how they would effect inventors.

  2. The patent system reform discussions are a perfect example of how political decisions usually are about which of two or more competing groups to favor. There are certainly many examples of abuse of the patent system, but reform proposals must be very carefully thought through to ensure that you don’t replace one potential for abuse with another that is even worse. Unfortunately, this kind of careful understanding followed by an application of common sense seems to be beyond many of our elected legislators, and when they seek help from people with industry experience, what they get is usually a load of consultation by lobbyists paid by the largest corporate interests.
    After working in California technology companies for 33 years, I have reluctantly come to the conclusion that in my field, patents do more harm than good, and treating your “secret sauce” as a trade secret rather than as patentable intellectual property makes more sense for small-to-medium businesses in my field. I have very little hope for any improvements coming from any “patent reform” movement.
    Real patent reform would begin with severely restricting the scope of what can be patented:
    - no more pure software patents
    - no more “business method”patents
    - no patents without a working implementation
    - protection periods in line with the “natural reinvention cycle” in the respective fields.
    - a mechanism for explicitly placing an invention in the public domain
    - no “mid-life enhancements” – especially for drug patents
    It would proceed with a shorter and more transparent approval process – I would hope for a patent to generally issue within 24 months of initial filing.
    And when patents are challenged, a better mechanism to ensure that relevant prior art can be brought forward in a timely manner.
    If you see a reform proposal with some of these characteristics, let me know.


Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *