Reaction to Senate Passage of S. 23

By Donald Zuhn --

It took almost six years for Senate Judiciary Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-VT) to get a patent reform bill to the floor of the Senate for a vote.  And after the Senate passed the most recent version of Senator Leahy's bill (S. 23) by a 95-5 vote earlier today (see "Senate Passes S. 23"), it took only minutes for patent and industry organizations to start rolling out press releases regarding the bill's passage.

The American Intellectual Property Law Association (AIPLA) was one of the first to issue a statement, saying that it "applaud[ed] the Senate passage of critical patent reform legislation (S. 23), marking a significant milestone in the effort to secure the U.S. position as the worldwide leader in innovation and the jobs it produces."  The AIPLA commended the Senate, under the leadership of Chairman Leahy and Ranking Minority Member Charles Grassley (R-IA), for approving "a strong, bipartisan bill that includes the essential patent reform features, including the adoption of a first-inventor-to-file patent system, funding for the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office that will bring budget predictability to this critical agency, and the creation of an ever more effective post-grant review procedure."  The AIPLA stated that it hopes the legislation, which now moves to the House of Representatives, "will continue to advance expeditiously to the enactment of the most important patent legislation in nearly 60 years."  AIPLA Executive Director Q. Todd Dickinson called the passage of the bill a "historic step towards enactment of critical reforms to our patent system," and looked forward to "Congress finishing this work to enact the kind of patent reform the American innovation community needs and deserves."

In its statement, the Innovation Alliance "applaud[ed] the efforts of the Senate to date" and "recognize[d] that great strides have been made."  However, the group noted that it "remain[s] neutral on S. 23 as passed."  Among the group's "concerns" with the Senate bill were "the removal of the 'gatekeeper' compromise on damages achieved in the last Congress, as well as the creation of the new 'transitional post-grant review proceeding' for business method patents."  The group did find some positives in the Senate bill that passed, including provisions for an expanded post-grant system and an end to fee diversion.  With regard to the post-grant system, the Innovation Alliance stated that the bill "retains the important procedural safeguards that lessen the potential for abuse of the expanded post-grant system the Senate Judiciary Committee added to the bill last year."  As for fee diversion, the Innovation Alliance said the adoption of this provision was "overdue," adding that "ending fee diversion is now a goal that unites virtually all stakeholders on all sides of the patent debate."  According to the group's statement, the provision to end fee diversion would, more than any other provision of the bill, "promote the health of the innovation ecosystem in the United States."  The group concluded by saying that it "will continue to be a constructive voice in the ongoing debate, which we hope will result in the enactment of a bill the Innovation Alliance can support."  According to the Innovation Alliance website, the group "represents innovators, patent owners and stakeholders from a diverse range of industries that believe in the critical importance of maintaining a strong patent system that supports innovative enterprises of all sizes."

The Biotechnology Industry Organization (BIO) "hail[ed]" and "commend[ed] the Senate for its overwhelming passage" of S. 23, voicing its "appreciat[ion for] the dedication of Senate Judiciary Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-VT), Ranking Member Charles Grassley (R-IA) and the bill's other cosponsors for their tireless efforts to build bipartisan consensus on the legislation."  BIO stated that "[o]nce enacted into law, it will strengthen and improve our nation's patent system, spurring innovation and job creation."  (That assumes, of course, that the House finds favor with the Senate bill and that the President signs the bill into law.)  BIO contended that "improvements made by the America Invents Act would benefit all sectors of the U.S. economy by enhancing patent quality and the efficiency, objectivity, predictability, and transparency of the patent system," and concluded by "encourage[ing] the House of Representatives to consider patent reform without delay."

The Coalition for Patent Fairness issued a statement on its website saying that while the Senate "improved S.23 by removing the damages, venue, and willfulness provisions before the final vote," the group "continue[s] to have concerns about the bill and could not support its passage at this time."  As the patent reform debate moves to the House, the organization noted that it "stands ready to help reach a consensus on the most efficient way to lessen the growing burden of abusive and unjustified patent infringement claims."  According to the Coalition's website, the group, which represents a broad range of companies and trade associations in the financial services, technology, energy, chemical, manufacturing and media industries, is "committed to the passage of patent legislation that will foster innovation and economic growth."

Comments

[Gary Lauder]

For a perspective on what's wrong w/S.23 from a venture capitalist's perspective, please see this article I wrote: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/gary-lauder/patently-absurd-or-how-to_b_832703.html

All interested parties should understand what's wrong with the grace period in this bill. See: http://bit.ly/Grace-Period-USA

-GML

[fred]

The big companies and the people and organizations that are influenced by the big companies (including those listed in this article) love S.23 and first-to-file. For the perspective of the inventors and small companies, there are lots of articles . . .

http://truereform.piausa.org/

http://ipwatchdog.com/2011/03/07/patent-reform-the-senate-makes-its-move/id=15688/

http://www.eetimes.com/electronics-news/4213581/IEEE-USA-others-challenge-patent-reform

[Stan E. Delo]

Gary-

Excellent article, and it sounds like you are talking about Philip Johnson perhaps. Very interesting, because he went way out of his way to make an appointment call me, and he spend nearly an hour trying to convince me that FTF was a Good Idea just before I sent a letter to Senate leadership opposing the S. 1145 bill of 2007. Hopefully the House with it's crash and burn freshmen TEA party Reps will Just say No.

Stan~

[Michael R. Thomas]

Clearly we need to condem this bills passage it deteriorates the present system and does nothing to improve it the trash can is where it belongs.the legislation designers left out there previous primary inventor myself and took imput from those using 40 different methods of stealing inventions big business. Do they really expect this to ignite human advancement and jobs.