Senators Patrick Leahy, Orrin Hatch, and Chuck Grassley introduced The Patent Reform Act of 2011, which has been placed on the Judiciary Committee’s agenda for their first executive business meeting. The provisions and language of the bill look a lot like items in the long-pending legislation that were part of a compromise that was announced last Congress.

Sen. Leahy said that the new legislation is intended to accomplish three primary goals: (1) transition to a first-to-file system; (2) improve patent quality; and (3) provide more certainty in litigation.

First-to-File System

Similar to previous patent reform bills, the Patent Reform Act of 2011 proposes to change the U.S. patent system from a first-to-invent to a first-to file system in an effort to harmonize the U.S. patent system with those of other countries. The new first-to-file system will award patents to the earliest-filed application for a claimed invention, as well as provide inventors with a one-year grace period to file an application after public disclosure of the claimed invention by the inventors.

‘‘(b) EXCEPTIONS.— ‘‘…A disclosure made 1 year or less before the effective filing date of a claimed invention shall not be prior art to the claimed invention— if the disclosure was made by the inventor or joint inventor or by another who obtained the subject matter disclosed directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor.

The current interference system in place for determining inventorship disputes will be replaced with a derivation procedure.

Patent Damages

The Act is intended to provide more certainty in damages calculations and enhanced damages.  Specifically, the Act includes a rigorous gate keeping role for the court, pursuant to which judges will assess the legal basis for the specific damages theories and jury instructions sought by the parties.  The gate keeping provisions will ensure consistency, uniformity, and fairness in the way that courts administer patent damages law.  The Act also permits a party to request, and requires a court to grant absent good cause, that the trial be sequenced such that the trier of fact decides questions of validity and infringement prior to damages.

“The court shall identify the methodologies and factors that are relevant to the determination of damages and the court or jury shall consider only those methodologies and factors relevant to making such determination.”

In addition, the Act improves the law of willfulness and enhanced damages.  It codifies the case law that holds that a defendant may only be found to have willfully infringed a patent if the plaintiff demonstrates by clear and convincing evidence that the infringer acted with objective recklessness and the objectively-defined risk was either known or so obvious that it should have been known b y the infringer.

False Marking

Similar to last year’s compromise legislation, the Patent Reform Act of 2011 also proposes to impose more restrictive requirements on who has standing to bring a claim for false marking under 35 U.S.C. § 292. Under the proposed legislation, False marking cases will only be allowed if filed by persons who have actually been harmed by the alleged misconduct. False marking cases would also include a statute of limitations that limits the time to file such cases to 10 years after the alleged misconduct or 1 year after the plaintiff in such an action became aware of the alleged misconduct.   The United States retains the ability to bring a claim for false marking and recover the up to $500 fine per article without needing to demonstrate any competitive injury due to the violation.

Post-Grant Review Procedures

The Patent Reform Act of 2011 also includes a revised “inter partes review” procedure and a new “post-grant review” procedure. The inter partes review procedure includes proposed procedural changes that are intended to shorten the review time for most reviews to 12 months and are conducted by Administrative Patent Judges.  The challenge will be heard by a panel of three Administrative Patent Judges, and its decision is appealable directly to the Federal Circuit.. Upon meeting the threshold requirement of establishing a “reasonable likelihood” of prevailing, any party may challenge the patentability of one or more of the issued claims on the basis of any patent or printed publication. The petition for review must be filed within nine months of the grant of the patent or the conclusion of any post-grant review, whichever occurs later.

An accused infringer may not seek review (1) if it has already filed a lawsuit in district court challenging the patent, or (2) more than three months after the date the accused infringer must answer, or otherwise respond to, a complaint for patent infringement filed by the patentee.

The new post-grant review procedure allows petitioners to challenge the validity of issued claims on any ground of patentability. The Act includes a “reasonably could have raised” estoppel standard, preventing a challenger from raising in court only an argument that reasonably could have been raised during an inter partes review that the challenger instituted.

Additional Provisions

Similar to the versions proposed in past years, the Patent Reform Act of 2011 also proposes changes directed to the following:

  • Allowing third parties to submit and explain prior art, and other pertinent information concerning claim construction, for consideration by the patent examiner
  • Removal of residency restrictions on Federal Circuit judges
  • Elimination of failure to disclose best mode as an infringement defense
  • Creation of a “supplemental examination” procedure to cure potential inequitable conduct
  • Fee setting authority granted to the USPTO

In addition, the Act contains a specific provision precluding the issuance of any patent claims containing subject matter directed to tax strategies.

Before you get all excited about this, don’t forget we’ve already had the Patent Reform Act of 2011, the Patent Reform Act of 2010, the Patent Reform Act of 2009, the Patent Reform Act of 2008, the Patent Reform Act of 2007

  Print This Post Print This Post  

12 Comments

  1. Notice: Object of class WP_Comment could not be converted to int in /hermes/bosnacweb01/bosnacweb01ad/b2262/ipw.patentba/public_html/wp/wp-content/plugins/polldaddy/rating.php on line 7

    […] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Inolyst Consulting, Daisy Kubrick. Daisy Kubrick said: Stop Me If You've Heard This Before…There's a Patent Reform Act of 2011: … patent system with those of other c… http://bit.ly/e2h5XK […]

  2. Notice: Object of class WP_Comment could not be converted to int in /hermes/bosnacweb01/bosnacweb01ad/b2262/ipw.patentba/public_html/wp/wp-content/plugins/polldaddy/rating.php on line 7

    […] Congress re-introduces the patent reform bill. Patent Baristas provides an overview. […]

  3. Notice: Object of class WP_Comment could not be converted to int in /hermes/bosnacweb01/bosnacweb01ad/b2262/ipw.patentba/public_html/wp/wp-content/plugins/polldaddy/rating.php on line 7

    Just because they call it “reform” doesn’t mean it is. Patent reform is a fraud on America.

    Please see http://truereform.piausa.org/ for a different/opposing view on patent reform.

  4. Notice: Object of class WP_Comment could not be converted to int in /hermes/bosnacweb01/bosnacweb01ad/b2262/ipw.patentba/public_html/wp/wp-content/plugins/polldaddy/rating.php on line 7

    Great post on Patents. For more information on patent infringement check out http://www.generalpatent.com/patent-infringement

  5. Notice: Object of class WP_Comment could not be converted to int in /hermes/bosnacweb01/bosnacweb01ad/b2262/ipw.patentba/public_html/wp/wp-content/plugins/polldaddy/rating.php on line 7

    good article…..i was not aware of it..thanks for the update…Recently i happened to come across an article titled “Request for Examination of a patent application – a mandatory requirement in India” which describes in detail about the need of request for examination of a patent application in India. Have a look at the mentioned article at “http://www.sinapseblog.com/2011/01/request-for-examination-of-patent.html”. This kind of articles will definitely help people in clearing their doubts in proceeding with obtaining a patent for their invention.

  6. Notice: Object of class WP_Comment could not be converted to int in /hermes/bosnacweb01/bosnacweb01ad/b2262/ipw.patentba/public_html/wp/wp-content/plugins/polldaddy/rating.php on line 7

    […] the Patent Fairness Coalition and the changes to the law on willful infringement.  The new bill proposes to codify recent court decisions that willful infringement can only be supported by clear and convincing evidence that the infringer […]

  7. Notice: Object of class WP_Comment could not be converted to int in /hermes/bosnacweb01/bosnacweb01ad/b2262/ipw.patentba/public_html/wp/wp-content/plugins/polldaddy/rating.php on line 7

    There are so many parts of this bill that just have not been thought out.

    For example, the “derivation” language quoted above sounds good in some academic ivory tower sense — but there’s no grant of authority to the PTO to subpoena information from the alleged deriver. Without procedure, the substantive law can’t work.

    There’s no consideration given to adaptive responses, how applicants will change their behavior, and how that will create costs for applicants and the PTO. For example, when Canada made a similar change in the late 1980’s, the number of applicaitnos filed by Canadian inventors essentially doubled in two years. If the ratios translate into U.S., the PTO will be flooded with 50 to 100,000 more applications annually, most of which will go abandoned after first exam. What will THAT do to backlog? Everyone at PTO that I;ve talked to insists that there will be no adaptive response. Huh?

    This is a dumb bill.

    For discussion of several of the bigger problems, see articles in

    http://journals.lww.com/medinnovbusiness/Fulltext/2010/06010

    especially

    http://pdfs.journals.lww.com/medinnovbusiness/2010/06010/Venture_Capital___The_Buck_Stops_Where_.4.pdf

    and

    http://pdfs.journals.lww.com/medinnovbusiness/2010/06010/Patent_Reform_s_Weakened_Grace_Period__Its_Effects.6.pdf

  8. Notice: Object of class WP_Comment could not be converted to int in /hermes/bosnacweb01/bosnacweb01ad/b2262/ipw.patentba/public_html/wp/wp-content/plugins/polldaddy/rating.php on line 7

    Interesting blog. It would be great if you can provide more details about it. Thanks you

  9. Notice: Object of class WP_Comment could not be converted to int in /hermes/bosnacweb01/bosnacweb01ad/b2262/ipw.patentba/public_html/wp/wp-content/plugins/polldaddy/rating.php on line 7

    Here is a similar story

    After six years in limbo and significant changes from past years proposed patent reform legislation, the Patent Reform Act of 2011 is going to get hotly debated as it was approved by the Senate Judiciary committee on February 3rd and is currently on it’s way to the Senate. What’s interesting to see is who has lined up on each side of the argument for reform and why. Keep in mind even if the bill survives and stays somewhat intact as it makes it’s way through the Senate, it still must be approved by the House. Let’s take a look at what are some of the key items being proposed.

  10. Notice: Object of class WP_Comment could not be converted to int in /hermes/bosnacweb01/bosnacweb01ad/b2262/ipw.patentba/public_html/wp/wp-content/plugins/polldaddy/rating.php on line 7

    From Europe, I think Mr Boundy is spot-on, to focus attention on the “derivation” issue. It is occasionally a problem with the European Patent Convention but under the EPC the prior art that destroys novelty is everything “made available” to even just one member of “the public” even just one day before the filing date. So, in Europe, by the time you have “derived” enough to file your own app, the true and first inventor has already filed. Explosive in the US jurisdiction, I suspect, is the combination of FItF with a grace period.

  11. Notice: Object of class WP_Comment could not be converted to int in /hermes/bosnacweb01/bosnacweb01ad/b2262/ipw.patentba/public_html/wp/wp-content/plugins/polldaddy/rating.php on line 7

    […] Grant Blog) (IP Watch) (IP Whiteboard) (Maryland IP Law Blog) (CanadaPatentBlog) (ipeg) (IPBiz) (Patent Baristas) (Patent Docs) (Inventive Step) (Patents Post Grant Blog)  (Patents Post Grant […]

  12. Notice: Object of class WP_Comment could not be converted to int in /hermes/bosnacweb01/bosnacweb01ad/b2262/ipw.patentba/public_html/wp/wp-content/plugins/polldaddy/rating.php on line 7

    […] awards and standards for identifying wilful infringement. All measures are implemented with the goals of improving the quality of granted patents, enhancing the efficiency of the USPTO, increasing […]