I N V E N T O R S' V O I C E [tm]

AMERICA'S GREATEST ASSET UNDER SIEGE

2011-08-30T22:50:00.000-07:00

[UPDATED 9-5-11]

URGENT ALERT

Education and Information about Legislation Related to Independent Inventors

AMERICA'S GREATEST ASSET
UNDER SIEGE 2011

Editorial Opinion By © Stephen Paul Gnass
(The views expressed are the personal views of the author.)

From the moment we wake up, we use inventions: the coffee maker that brews our coffee, the microwave, toaster, refrigerator, as well as so many conveniences and technologies that many of us take for granted: the cellphone, TV, computer, just to name a few. Inventions and innovations are an integral part of our lives and while some make our daily lives a little easier, others have revolutionized our way of living.

What's not so obvious is that these inventions and technologies were made possible due to the foresight of America's founding fathers just over 200 years ago. In this great experiment of democracy, they created a unique patent system, called "First-to-Invent", which granted patent rights to the true inventors of innovations and inventions for a limited time duration. This grant of a limited-time monopoly on inventions, called a patent, granted to the true first inventor, has acted as the greatest form of incentive that the world has ever seen.

Our Unique U.S. "First to Invent" Patent System
- America's Greatest Asset -

The unique U.S. patent system called "First-to-Invent", was built right into the U.S. Constitution by our brilliant founding fathers, and is the vital incentive and stimulus that has helped release the innate creativity and genius of individuals in America.

The U.S. Constitution, signed on September 17, 1787, states in Article 1, Section 8, Clause 8 that Congress shall have the power:

"to promote the progress of Science and Useful Arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries."

The U.S. "First-to-Invent" patent system has spawned the greatest entrepreneurs of all time. Everyone one knows about Thomas Alva Edison and many other inventors of the 19th and the 20th century. Today, Steve Jobs is in the news because he's a co-inventor on 313 of Apple's patents. See New York Times article dated August 25, 2011.

The U.S. "First-to-Invent" patent system is the underpinning which has made America the leader in invention and technology and has given us the greatest standard of living in the world. Innovation is the driving engine that all economies are built upon.

PATENT REFORM
FIRST-TO-INVENT vs. FIRST-TO-FILE

Patent reform. It's an issue that's made it to the very top of the political agenda. It's one of the key measures that's on President Obama's tip of the tongue, that's being touted as a solution to the creation of jobs in America.

Amongst other issues in the current bills, our unique 200+ year old U.S. "First-to-Invent" patent system is under attack. The U.S. system awards patents to the "first inventor" (whether or not he has filed a patent yet), which is on the verge of being changed to the foreign "First-to-File" system which awards patents to the first entity who files a patent.

Misleading claims are being made that the U.S. patent system is antiquated and out of step with the patent laws of the rest of the world. The patent system is said to need major "reform". On the contrary, the U.S. "First-to-Invent" patent system is the underpinning which has made America the leader in invention and technology and has given us the greatest standard of living in the world. Innovation is the driving engine that all economies are built upon.

Even though America's unique "First-to-Invent" patent system is a right that's granted to citizens in the U.S. Constitution, it's on the chopping block, ready to be made into minced meat.

The official title of the current patent reform bill is "The America Invents Act", a nice sounding name for what I believe is such a damaging piece of legislation. It is bill S-23 in the Senate, and bill H-1249 in the House.

It's been attempted quite a few times before in the mid 1960s. Then again in the late 1980s through 1990s. And several times during the 2000s. Each time, strong opposition from small and medium-sized businesses, independent inventors, legal and business associations, and concerned citizens made the difference and prevented the change.

This time around the patent reform bill which includes giving up our "First to Invent" patent system has made it through both houses of Congress and is extremely close to being passed and signed into law.

The Senate approved its version S-23 in March with a 95-5 vote.
See how all Senators voted on this bill at this link.
( www.opencongress.org/vote/2011/s/35 ).

The House approved their version of the patent reform bill HR-1249 in June with a 304-117 vote.
See how all House members voted on this bill at this link
( www.opencongress.org/vote/2011/h/491 ).

Due to a conflict over certain provisions, the bills have not been reconciled yet into one that both sides have agreed with. To pass it, however, the Senate is willing to let go of their differences and vote for the House version.

Congress is currently on recess for the summer, and when they get back next Tuesday, September 6, 2011, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV), is pushing to make sure that patent reform is one of the first bills that they rush and push through.

Senator Reid is planning to call for a special "couture vote" on September 6th. This requests all the Senators to vote for no further debate, no further amendments, no further possibility of opposition. After that, another final determining vote would be cast on the bill.

This small period of time between now and September 6th gives those who oppose giving up the unique U.S. "First-to-Invent" patent system, an opportunity to let their voice be heard and hopefully make enough of a last minute impact to stop or at least delay the legislation from becoming law.

URGENT ALERT 9-5-11

FLASH NOTICE: Even though S.23 and H.R. 1249 have been passed by each house, they haven't been reconciled nor voted into law yet. There's a very short window of time between now and Sept 6 for you to contact your representatives if you would like to protest the patent reform.

1. Ask your SENATORS to vote "NO" on the Motion for Couture on Tuesday. Couture would stop all further debate on the bills and schedule it for a final vote. Ask them to keep the debate OPEN.
Click here to quickly find your two state Senators.

2. Ask ALL your representatives (Senators and House Reps) to vote "NO" on H.R. 1249 which will change our patent system to the foreign first-to-file.
Click here to quickly find your representative.

Click here to see INSTANT ACTION PLAN
Sending an email, fax, or making a phone call, is the absolute quickest way to get the message across, but it needs to be done right now in order to make any difference. Don't send anything by postal mail since it gets screened and can be delayed as much as weeks. Feel free to distribute this to your friends, relatives, and business associates through social media like Twitter, Facebook, blogs, etc.

CONCLUSION

The "American Dream" is about the ability of any individual, no matter what his background, to lift himself up by his bootstraps and make something of his life through dedication and being able to capitalize on his ideas, talents and skills. This is America's sacred legacy.

The U.S. "First-to-Invent" patent system, which gives equal treatment to the individual spirit - whether the lone inventor, a small company or a large corporation, not tipping the scale one way or the other, is the motivating factor that has fueled invention and entrepreneurship in America. We all benefit from the U.S. unique patent system which has provided us with an unparalleled standard of life.

In fact, most big businesses in the U.S. have their roots in an independent inventor who used the U.S. "First-to-Invent" patent system to create the company's breakthrough technology.

Small and medium-sized businesses (under 500 employees) rely on the patent system to protect their innovations. What's not widely known is that these businesses represent over 99% of all businesses in the U.S. and employ more than half of the private sector employees.

At a time when large corporations are bailing on Americans by cutting jobs here by the thousands, sometimes tens of thousands at once, and going offshore, we need to encourage and support more entrepreneurial small and medium-sized businesses who keep America employed. I believe that keeping our proven 200+ year old U.S. "First-to-Invent" patent system in place is a major component of keeping this business segment healthy.

There are many other complex issues involved with the proposed "America Invents Act". But I think that the most vital issue that will affect America's economical future and American entrepreneurs, small/medium-sized businesses, and independent inventors is the proposed change of the U.S. patent system from the successful "First-to-Invent" system to the foreign "First-to-File" process.

I believe that the proposed foreign "First-to-File" system will discourage the small entity and independent inventors by skyrocketing the costs, and making the invention process accessible only to well-financed large corporations with in-house "patent factories".

RESOURCES - GET UP TO SPEED

Here are resources that you can go to immediately and read up on the "America Invents Act".
You can also google "America Invents Act" and "patent reform".

Here are a few videos at Inventors Voice that will help quickly give you an overview:

Calif. House Rep Dana Rohrabacker gives a Gripping Speech against Patent Reform
Video Briefing

Calif. Senator Diane Feinstein on the Importance of Keeping the U.S. First-to-Invent patent system
Video Briefing

Alec Schibanoff, American Innovators for Patent Reform on the Importance of Keeping the U.S. First-to-Invent patent system
Video Briefing

Randy Landreneau Explains How the America Invents Act will harm America
Video Briefing

Here is a guest post by David Boundy on Patentability: A Weblog for the Intellectual Property Law Community titled "Patent Reform" and A Call To Action To Defeat the America Invents Act.
www.patentabilityblog.com/2011/04/27/guest-post-david-boundy-on-patent-reform-and-a-call-to-action-to-defeat-the-america-invents-act/

Here is an information description by Phyllis Schlafly, the founder and president of Eagle Forum, a national organization of citizens who participate as volunteers in the public policymaking process.
www.eagleforum.org/column/2011/mar11/11-03-11.html

PRESS ARTICLES

Patent Reform: Post Grant Review Musings
By Gene Quinn, IP Watchdog

September 4, 2011
http://ipwatchdog.com/2011/09/04/patent-reform-post-grant-review-musings/id=18981/

A Labor Day Message for President Obama
By Henry R. Nothhaft, Wall Street Journal
September 3, 2011
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424053111904716604576542820083918028.html

How the new bid to reform patent law will kill jobs
By Gary Lauder, CNN Money
September 2, 2011
http://finance.fortune.cnn.com/2011/09/02/how-the-new-bid-to-reform-patent-law-will-kill-jobs/

Column: Unique U.S. patent system in peril
By Gary Lauder, USA Today
September 2, 2011
http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/forum/story/2011-09-01/Column-Unique-US-patent-system-in-peril/50231894/1

Businesses Split on Merits of Overhauling Patent Process

By Adam Sege - McClatchy Newspapers

8/16/11

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2011/08/16/120932/businesses-split-on-merits-of.html

The Spoilsmen: How Congress Corrupted Patent Reform
By Zach Carter HuffPost Politics
8/4/11 Updated 8/15/11
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/08/04/patent-reform-congress_n_906278.html

Reid: Patent Reform Bill On Agenda After Recess
By Gautham Nages - The Hill's Hillicon Valley
8/2/11
http://thehill.com/blogs/hillicon-valley/technology/175099-patent-reform-bill-on-senate-agenda-after-reces

How Will Patent Reform Solve The USPTO Backlog?
By Courtenay Brinckerhoff, PharmaPatents Blog
7/5/11
http://www.pharmapatentsblog.com/patent-reform/how-will-patent-reform-solve-the-uspto-examination-backlog/

Patently Absurd or: How to Go From the World's Best Patent System to Worse-Than-Most in a Single Step
By Gary Lauder, HuffPost Business
3/7/11
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/gary-lauder/patently-absurd-or-how-to_b_832703.html

HERE ARE SOME KEY ISSUES
ABOUT THE PATENT REFORM LEGISLATION
TITLED "AMERICA INVENTS ACT":

CHANGING TO A FOREIGN FIRST-TO-FILE PATENT SYSTEM

What's so special about our current "First-to-Invent" patent system, and why will changing the system hurt the U.S.?

With the current U.S. patent laws, the inventor's idea is protected if a proper log or journal is kept proving the date of conception. This means that inventors can work on several ideas at once and patent them when they're prepared to market them. For instance, Thomas Edison worked on hundreds of ideas at a time, but only patented the ones that he was ready to market. This allows ideas to be fully developed by the time a patent is applied for.

With the foreign first-to-file system, inventors would be forced to immediately file for patents for each new idea. Patents would be filed on "half-baked" ideas due to the need to quickly file a patent first, and then subsequent patents would need to be filed on improvements to the patent as the design is developed and changed. So it would result is filing many patents on one invention. In addition to attorney's costs, inventors would also have to pay filing and maintenance fees for "each" invention for the 5 to 10 years average that it takes to market an invention.

According to a French inventor Phillip Bernes, where they have the first-to-file, he once said,

"With the first-to-file system, the inventor becomes enmeshed in a vicious circle: Before filing he cannot disclose his invention for marketing and manufacturing feasibility studies for fear that someone will steal his idea and file it with the Patent Office first. Without these feasibility studies, he doesn't know if the idea is indeed novel, can be manufactured at a reasonable cost, and is wanted in the marketplace. Without this knowledge, he risks wasting time, money and energy filing a patent application."

This would especially be harmful to inventors of significant inventions that require perhaps many years to develop and perfect before having to file a patent. Tomorrow's Edisons, Whitneys or Fords could be defeated even before they've had a chance to create their first breakthrough.

ELIMINATION OF ONE YEAR GRACE PERIOD

Currently, an inventor can publicly display his invention, and has up to one year before he has to file his patent application. It is known as a "grace period". With patent reform, this one year grace period would be eliminated.

INTERFERENCES

For decades, the elimination of "interferences" has been brought up as a key reason to change our "First-to-Invent" system. Interferences are when two inventors apply for the same invention, and a procedure for determination of who the first inventor is initiated by the patent office. However, the facts don't support these claims. In 2010, there were 219,614 utility patents granted and there were only 46 pending interference cases. One percent of all patents granted would be 2,196, so you can see that 46 interferences is significantly under 1%, it's .0002%.

According to David Boundy, Vice President and Assistant General Counsel for Intellectual Property at a well-known financial services firm in Boston MA, whose views are his own:

All net job creation for the last 30 years comes from startups, yet this bill takes away the key features of today’s patent law that allow startups to flourish in the U.S.

The bill's replacement provisions are similar to other countries' laws that squelch startups, with some added variations that are even more onerous:

The bill creates a major "disharmonization" on the single issue that affects the most patents, the "prior art" cutoff date for obviousness. The bill sets a cutoff date that is 18 months different for the U.S. than for any other country. The bill's cutoff date selectively disadvantages U.S. inventors relative to inventors in other countries. This is a recipe for export of America's R&D jobs.

The bill does not "harmonize" with the law of any other country. "Close but not identical" creates almost no benefit. For example, among European countries, where a treaty brings the countries' laws very close to each other, an attorney in one country is unable to give an opinion on a patent from another country, even if the words of two countries' patents are identical, because small differences in law are sufficient to defeat an attorney's ability to provide an opinion. Because the bill leaves relatively large discrepancies in place, the bill's cost savings are tiny, and will be dwarfed by transition costs. This bill does not "harmonize" enough to achieve any meaningful efficiency — it's a job killer.

The bill takes away the primary characteristics of today's law that fosters American startups, and replaces them with provisions that benefit large companies. Today's grace period (particularly today's § 102(a) prong, which is entirely removed by the bill) lets an inventor go out and talk to people, to find investors and partners, to get a business going, before draining funds to the patent lawyers. It lets an inventor get through the trial-and-error of R&D before draining funds into patents on inventions that turn out to be duds. In contrast, in Europe, an inventor is totally locked down, and cannot talk to anyone outside the company until all patent applications are filed. This is fine for big integrated companies, it's totally unworkable for entrepreneurs and small companies that need to partner with an investor or strategic partner. It takes away the legal options that enable disruptive innovation, and replaces them with lock-ins for market incumbents. Europe has almost no startups, and this is a key reason. This part of the bill is a job killer.

The language is ambiguous, and constitutionality is suspect. Years of litigation will lead to commercial uncertainty. The bill is a job killer for everyone except patent litigators.

U.S. PATENT OFFICE (USPTO) BACKLOG:

As of July 2011, the USPTO had a backlog of 669,286 patent applications waiting for examination by a patent examiner. There are 6,798 examiners. For years, the USPTO has had a huge backlog of patent applications and has been unable to hire enough patent examiners to process the quantity of patent applications that are submitted to the patent office. It currently takes an average of three years for a patent to be granted.

They say that patent reform is supposed to solve the problem of the patent application backlog.

But the real problem that causes the USPTO backlog is "fee diversion", not a lack of funds. The USPTO does not receive taxpayer support so it is funded only by the fees paid by patent applicants. However the fees are collected by Congress, then a "budget" is given to the USPTO, and the balance is used for other projects by Congress.

If the USPTO were allowed to keep all of the fees that it collects from the patent applicants, it would be able to hire enough patent examiners to handle the backlog.

The H.R. 1249 bill does nothing to address this key problem of fee diversion in the patent system. It will permit continued fee diversion, and the Super Committee makes it a near certainty.

S.23, the bill the Senate passed in March, gained majority support because of Sen. Coburn’s amendment to end this fee diversion. However H.R. 1249 is essentially identical to current law.

Ending fee diversion is the solution, not changing the U.S. "First-to-Invent" patent system to first-to-file.

PERMITTING DECEPTIVE INTENTION:

The new bill repeals all of the requirements that inventors and attorneys act "without deceptive intention" when dealing with the Patent Office. How can permitting "deceptive intention" be good for the system?

PENALIZE COMPLEX INVENTIONS WITH FEES:

The bill gives the USPTO the power to set fees to penalize complex inventions. Today's law sets fee levels that increase proportionally to the Patent Office's costs of examining applications. The Patent Office has long sought to limit the complexity of patent applications — the USPTO proposed a statutory change in 2003 to have fee levels rise far faster than examination complexity, and proposed regulations in 2006-09 that would have capped the complexity of the inventions that could be patented. The statute should not give the PTO discretion to discriminate against complex inventions. This is a job killer.

I agree with what Courtenay Brinckerhoff said in her blog post, "How Will Patent Reform Solve The USPTO Backlog?", that the new patent reform will create new problems and costs in having to train patent examiners with the foreign patent system, as well as challenges in implementing the changes.
(see article in Press Articles section):

"Many of the provisions of the patent reform bills will complicate proceedings at the USPTO, at least over the next several/many years it will take to understand what the provisions actually mean. If the Leahy-Smith America Invents act is passed, the USPTO will have the first stab at interpreting its many new substantive provisions when it promulgates rules to carry out the changes.

From a logistical perspective, the USPTO will have its work cut out for it if and when patent reform becomes a reality. The USPTO will have to study the law, promulgate regulations, train its personnel on the "first to invent" provisions and the derivation and post-grant review proceedings (among other changes), and educate the public. The USPTO will need every penny of its user fees in order to take on these new responsibilities while still maintaining its daily operations."

URGENT ALERT 9-5-11

PATENT REFORM 2011 - VIDEO BRIEFING - House Rep Dana Rohrabacher; Senator Diane Feinstein on Keeping the 200+ U.S. Patent System "First to Invent"

2011-03-12T14:34:00.000-08:00

[Updated 9-3-11]

House Rep Dana Rohrabacher gives a Gripping Speech against Patent Reform

Senator Diane Feinstein to Congress on How Changing the 200+ U.S. Patent System from "First to Invent" to "First to File" Will Hurt the U.S.

In this amendment that Senator Diane Feinstein proposed to the Senate, she provides an excellent explanation about how changing the 200+ U.S. Patent System from "First to Invent" to "First to File" will hurt the U.S.

Ironically, she supports all the other issues in Senate Bill S.23 which will hurt independent inventors. Although she supported this amendment to keep our "First to Invent" patent system, sadly the amendment was voted down by the Senate, and even more sadly, then she voted in favor of S. 23 which included the damaging change to a "First to File" system! Senate Bill S. 23 was voted in with a huge margin of 95 "yes" votes to only 5 "no" votes. However, most bills never make it through both the Senate and House, so this should not be discouraging.

The inventors voice has made a difference in the past 40 to 50 or so years that attempts have been made to change our effective "First to Invent" patent system. And you can make a difference now. Be sure to contact your two Senators and House Rep. and let them know your view on this. See the INSTANT ACTION PLAN on how you can do this easily within a few minutes.

PATENT REFORM 2011 - VIDEO BRIEFING - Alec Schibanoff, American Innovators for Patent Reform; Randy Landreneau

2011-03-12T14:12:00.001-08:00

[Updated 9-3-11]

NO on "America Invents Act" aka Patent Reform Act of 2011 S.23 and H.R. 1249

American Innovators for Patent Reform

In this position statement by Alec Schibanoff, Executive Director of American Innovators for Patent Reform, he gives an excellent and concise recap about how the Patent Reform Act of 2011 will hurt small businesses, innovators, and independent inventors in the United States by changing from "First to Invent" to "First to File". There are other issues in the bill which will hurt independent inventors which are highlighted in this Video Briefing. Take a few minutes to learn about this important issue (it's under 7 minutes) and how it can affect your inventing path.

Randy Landreneau

Randy provides a straightforward explanation of how the proposed patent reform will hurt inventors and America.

PATENT REFORM 2011 - ACTION PLAN - What You Can Do To Maintain Inventors' Rights

2011-03-12T10:48:00.000-08:00

[UPDATED 9-3-11]

Ask Your Senators to vote "NO" on H.R. 1249 known as the "AMERICA INVENTS ACT" formerly known as Patent Reform Act.

Note: A bill must be introduced into both the House and the Senate, then it must be approved by a majority of both the House and the Senate, before finally being signed into law by the President. ( For more details about how a bill becomes law, click here.) If either the House or Senate rejects a bill, the bill is dead.

The Senate passed bill S. 23 on March 9, 2011 by a huge margin of 95 "yes" vs. only 5 "no".
See how all Senators voted on this bill at this link.
( www.opencongress.org/vote/2011/s/35 ).

The House passed bill H.R. 1249 on June 23, 2011 by a margin of 304 "yes" vs. 117 "no".
See how all House members voted on this bill at this link.
( www.opencongress.org/vote/2011/h/491 ).

In our opinion, many inventors are not aware of the proposed patent changes, and the voice of the independent inventor has not been heard in Washington D.C. You can make a difference! The tipping point can be as few as 100 people contacting their senators to turn the tide!

URGENT ALERT 9-3-11

FLASH NOTICE: Even though S.23 and H.R. 1249 have been passed by each house, they haven't been reconciled nor voted into law yet. There's a very short window of time between now and Sept 6 for you to contact your representatives if you would like to protest the patent reform.

1. Ask your SENATORS to vote "NO" on the Motion for Couture for H.R. 1249 on Tuesday. Couture would stop all further debate on the bills and schedule it for a final vote. Ask them to keep the debate OPEN.
Click here to quickly find your two state Senators.

2. Ask all your Senators and Representatives to vote "NO" on H.R. 1249 changing our patent system to the foreign first-to-file.
Click here to quickly find your Representative.

Making a phone call is best. Sending a fax is next. Sending an email last. These are the absolute quickest ways to get the message across, but it needs to be done right now in order to make any difference. NOTE: Don't send anything by postal mail since it gets screened and can be delayed as much as weeks.

HAVE NO TIME TO WRITE A LETTER OR MAKE A CALL?
CLICK HERE TO SIGN A QUICK PETITION

Please distribute this to your friends, relatives, and business associates through social media like Twitter, Facebook, blogs, etc.

If your voices can succeed in at least postponing the bill, this will give everyone more time to look at the other issues that we believe will also stifle the development of intellectual property developed by independent inventors and small/medium-sized businesses in the U.S.

Index:
1. Sample Guide/Outline of How to Write a Message
2. Who to Contact
3. Chain Protest Viral Email Approach: The Power of Multiplication

1. SAMPLE GUIDE/OUTLINE OF HOW TO WRITE A MESSAGE:

Note: If possible, try to be original with your message so that they don’t all sound exactly the same. The following only gives you a general idea of what to write. Please be polite, rational, respectful, and professional, and refrain from using profanities and/or negative, emotionally charged comments.

NOTE: YOUR MESSAGE DOESN'T NEED TO BE LONG, JUST BE CLEAR AND TO THE POINT. THE GUIDE BELOW COVERS THE BASICS.

IMPORTANT: You MUST include your name and address in your Congressional correspondence because emails or letters without a full U.S. street address will not be read.

(First, State who you are:)
Dear Honorable (name),
My name is (John or Jane Smith) and I'm an (entrepreneur, independent inventor, person with a new idea, small business owner, product developer, etc.). I've been inventing for (x) years, etc. (feel free to add more of your own personalized information here.)

(Next, State your position:)
I am writing to let you know that I just became aware of the proposed patent changes and I strongly oppose bill (enter here), known as the H.R. 1249 America Invents Act of 2011.

(Then, State your views and opinions:)
(sample only, please write your own) I understand that the meetings for these proposed patent changes have been dominated by large corporations, and lack appropriate representation by the small businesses, independent inventors, inventor organizations, and the independent inventor community at large.

I believe that if passed, the H.R. 1249 the America Invents Act of 2011 will affect my own ability, as well as other independent inventors, small businesses and innovators, to profit from their inventions and innovations in the future. I believe that making such major changes to the U.S. patent system will impact our economy in a negative way, by removing incentives to invest in innovation e.g., capitalizing on the development, creation and marketing of intellectual property.

(Last, State the conclusion:)
Any one of the issues in bill “(enter here)”, alone, would be a major change to the U.S. patent system that could negatively affect inventors from being granted a patent. Many of the proposed changes in the two bills are tied-in to the worldwide “first-to-file” system. This first-to-file “package of issues", will destroy the intrinsic incentives and original intention of the U.S. 200+ year old patent system, the“First-to-Invent” which favors the creator i.e. inventor.

The U.S. patent system, created by our founding fathers, has been in place for over 200 years and I believe it has been a major catalyst to making the U.S. one of the greatest countries in the world and a leader in the creation of technology and innovation. A strong patent system that supports incentives for independent inventors, that has a level playing field for corporations and entrepreneurs will encourage the spirit of achievement that made this country great.

Please vote "NO" on COUTURE for H.R. 1249 and "NO" on bill H.R. 1249 for the America Invents Act of 2011 and maintain the genius of our founding fathers to keep the 200+ year old "First-to-Invent" system in place.

Respectfully yours,
(your name)

SOURCE: GOVTRACK.US
Tips for Communicating with Congress
Here are some excellent tips, be sure to read them to make sure that your message makes a difference!

Here's a good information web site with "Frequently Asked Questions" about Contacting the Congress
www.contactingthecongress.org/about.html

2. WHO TO CONTACT:

YOUR THREE (3) STATE REPRESENTATIVES:

Contact your (2) senators for your state.

U.S. Senate:
Find your state's senators by entering your state at:
http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm
It'll bring up a quick form that you can fill out and email to them!

U.S. House:
Find your state's representatives by entering your state at:
http://www.house.gov/house/MemberWWW_by_State.shtml
It'll bring up a chart of the states, click your state, and it'll bring up the web sites for your House representatives. Then look for the email form to contact your representatives.

If this is all you have time for, then you're done! But if you have a few more minutes to contact up to a few more individuals, the impact will be much greater.

SENATE MAJORITY LEADER WHO CALLED FOR THE COUTURE VOTE

Senator Reid is calling for the Senators to vote on the Motion for "Couture" which means there would be no further debate, amendments, comments, or opportunity to oppose the patent reform. That's why it's important for him to receive a copy of your letter.

THE HONORABLE HARRY REID (D-NV)
TITLE: Senate Majority Leader
Address: United States Senate
522 Hart Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510
Phone: 202-224-3542
Fax: 202-224-7327
Email Form: http://reid.senate.gov/contact/index.cfm

CHAIRMEN OF THE HOUSE AND SENATE COMMITTEE WHO "INTRODUCED" THE BILLS

These next two contacts are the Chairmen of the House and Senate Committees who "introduced" the bills. It's important that everyone contact these individuals!

THE HONORABLE PATRICK LEAHY (D-VT)
Title: Chairman, U.S. Senate Committee on the Judiciary
United States Senate
Address: 437 Russell Senate Building
Washington DC 20510
Phone: (202) 224-4242
Email Form: http://leahy.senate.gov/contact/
Web site: leahy.senate.gov

THE HONORABLE LAMAR SMITH (R-TX21)
Title: Chair, House Committee on the Judiciary: Courts, the Internet, and Intellectual Property
Address: 2409 Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515
Phone: (202) 225-4236
Fax: (202) 225-8628
Web site: http://lamarsmith.house.gov/
Email: https://lamarsmith.house.gov/Contact/default.aspx

ALSO CONTACT THE FOLLOWING (2) KEY INFLUENTIAL DIGNITARIES IN WASHINGTON D.C.

The U.S. Patent Office is run by the U.S. Department of Commerce. So contacting the U.S. Secretary of Commerce as well as contacting the Director of the Patent and Trademark Office will help alert the top two U.S. officials related to the patent office, that independent inventors do not agree with the proposed patent changes.

THE HONORABLE GARY LOCKE
Title: U.S. Secretary of Commerce
U.S. Department of Commerce
1401 Constitution Ave., NW
Washington, DC 20230
Phone: (202) 482-2000
Email: %%%TheSec@doc.gov
(Note: remove the three percentage characters [%%%] from the email address, they were added to prevent spam.)

THE HONORABLE DAVID KAPPOS
Title: Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property, and Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO)
600 Dulany St,
Alexandria, Virginia 22314
571-272-8600
571-273-0464 FAX
Email: %%%jennifer.rankin_byrne@uspto.gov (Send Attn: David Kappos c/o Jennifer Rankin, Press Relations)
(Note: remove the three percentage characters [%%%] from the email address, they were added to prevent spam.)

Back to top

3. CHAIN PROTEST EMAIL BLITZ: THE POWER OF MULTIPLICATION

PLEASE TWITTER THIS, RE-TWITTER THIS, FACEBOOK THIS, BLOG THIS.....

I believe that many inventors haven’t been aware about the proposed patent changes, and thus the voice of the independent inventor hasn’t been heard in Washington D.C. So the “Tipping Point” doesn’t require that many individuals, probably as few as 50 to 100 can make the difference and change the direction to defeat any bills. Certainly if thousands, or more, inventors contact our representatives, the independent inventor will surely be acknowledged.

So be sure to email other individuals that you know, who should also let their voice be heard on these important issues. Become an "email-activist" by emailing as many people as you can and asking them to also send an instant email. If, for example, you send out 10, your 10 emails can quickly multiply to 100, then 1000, 10,000, 100,000 and so on. This is a positive way to use the chain letter/networking concept for a good cause, and was the successful approach used by our founding fathers (well with letters, not emails!).

If you can also find time to call the office of your senators and representatives, in addition to the emails, it will add much more impact to your effort.

REMEMBER...
1) Contacting your two Senators and your local House Representative is the most important right now.
2) Also sending this out to friends, family and small businesses owners, small business networks etc. , be creative.

Back to top

4. KEEP INFORMED:

To receive updates, please check back regularly in to the Inventors' Voice blog at inventorsvoice.blogspot.com.

INVENTORS' VOICE TM. 8306 Wilshire Blvd., Ste 391 Beverly Hills, CA 90211 / 800 458-5624 / inventorsvoice@inventionconvention.com / inventorsvoice.blogspot.com

PATENT REFORM 2011 - Bill S. 23 and HR.1249 Specific Information "America Invents Act"

2011-03-12T09:21:00.000-08:00

Note: The final version of Senate Bill number S.23 has newly been titled the "America Invents Act" from the previous name "Patent Reform Act of 2011". Unfortunately it was passed by the Senate on March 8, 2011 by a margin of 95 "yes" vs. only 5 "no".

House Bill number H.R. 1249 was passed on June 23, 2011 by a margin of 304 "yes" vs. 117 "no".

THOMAS, LIBRARY OF CONGRESS
THOMAS was launched in January of 1995, at the inception of the 104th Congress. The leadership of the 104th Congress directed the Library of Congress to make federal legislative information freely available to the public. You can check bills, resolutions, activity in Congress, the Congressional Record, schedules, calendars, committee information, etc.

Bill S. 23 STATUS at THOMAS. In the home page, in the box that says "Search Bill Summary and Status", click the "Bill Number" button and enter "S. 23" in the box. Then press the SEARCH button.

Bill H.R. 1249 STATUS at THOMAS. In the home page, in the box that says "Search Bill Summary and Status", click the "Bill Number" button and enter "HR 1249" in the box, then press the SEARCH button.

GOVTRACK.US
GovTrack.US is a private site that tracks the U.S. government, drawing its information from the THOMAS web site. The layouts are easier to view and understand, though the information may be delayed a little. It's an excellent web site.

OVERVIEW OF BILLS

SUMMARY OF ISSUES IN BILLS

HOW CONGRESSMEN VOTED

MAPLight.org

MAPLight.org, a nonprofit, nonpartisan research organization, provides citizens and journalists the transparency tools to shine a light on the influence of money on politics. Elected officials collect large sums of money to run their campaigns, and they often pay back campaign contributors with special access and favorable laws. This common practice is contrary to the public interest, yet legal. MAPLight.org makes money/vote connections transparent, to help citizens hold their legislators accountable. MAPLight.org is nonprofit and nonpartisan.

CONNECTIONS

S.23: View the CONNECTIONS between how the Senators voted on S. 23, and the financial contributions that they received connected to special interest groups that are for or against this bill.

H.R. 1249: View the CONNECTIONS between how the Senators voted on H.R. 1249 and the financial contributions that they received to special interest groups that are for or against this bill.

READ AND REVIEW THE ENTIRE BILLS IN PDF

BILL S. 23

S.23: Read and/or download the ACTUAL ENTIRE BILL S. 23 in PDF Format

BILL H.R. 1249

H.R. 1249: Read and/or download the ACTUAL ENTIRE BILL H.R. 1249 in PDF Format

THE ADMINISTRATION'S POSITION ON S.23

Read the Administration's February 28, 2011 Press Release in Support of S.23 Patent Reform Act of 2011.

THE U.S. PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE POSITION ON S.23

Read the USPTO's March 8, 2011 Press Release in Support of S.23 Patent Reform Act of 2011 USPTO Urges Senate to Pass the America Invents Act

U.S. PATENT LAWS

Read and/or download the current patent laws from the U.S. PTO web site in PDF format

(PDF format files can be viewed with Adobe Reader.)
Download Adobe Reader for Free Here

PATENT REFORM 2011 - IN THE NEWS

2011-03-11T21:55:00.000-08:00

PRESS COVERAGE

[UPDATED 9-5-11]

INTRODUCTION:
“Any one of the proposed issues, alone, would be a major change to the U.S. patent system. Currently, arguments by those supporting or opposing the current changes, seem to be focusing on a few issues related to infringement, calculating damages for infringement, and injunctive relief, which are critically important. But many of the proposed changes in the Patent Reform Act of 2011, now called the "America Invents Act of 2011" are tied-in to the worldwide “first-to-file” system. This first-to-file “package of issues” , along with the infringement issues, will destroy the intrinsic incentives and original intention of the U.S. 200+ year old patent system. A change to “first-to-file” will be detrimental to the independent inventor, our economy and our standard of living."
--Stephen Paul Gnass

Note: Articles are listed in descending chronological order, with the most recent first.

A Labor Day Message for President Obama
By Henry R. Nothhaft, Wall Street Journal
September 3, 2011
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424053111904716604576542820083918028.html

How the new bid to reform patent law will kill jobs
By Gary Lauder, CNN Money
September 2, 2011
http://finance.fortune.cnn.com/2011/09/02/how-the-new-bid-to-reform-patent-law-will-kill-jobs/

Column: Unique U.S. patent system in peril
By Gary Lauder, USA Today
September 2, 2011
http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/forum/story/2011-09-01/Column-Unique-US-patent-system-in-peril/50231894/1

Businesses Split on Merits of Overhauling Patent Process

By Adam Sege - McClatchy Newspapers

8/16/11

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2011/08/16/120932/businesses-split-on-merits-of.html

The Spoilsmen: How Congress Corrupted Patent Reform
By Zach Carter HuffPost Politics
8/4/11 Updated 8/15/11
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/08/04/patent-reform-congress_n_906278.html

Reid: Patent Reform Bill On Agenda After Recess
By Gautham Nages - The Hill's Hillicon Valley
8/2/11
http://thehill.com/blogs/hillicon-valley/technology/175099-patent-reform-bill-on-senate-agenda-after-reces

How Will Patent Reform Solve The USPTO Backlog?
By Courtenay Brinckerhoff, PharmaPatents Blog
7/5/11
http://www.pharmapatentsblog.com/patent-reform/how-will-patent-reform-solve-the-uspto-examination-backlog/

Patently Absurd or: How to Go From the World's Best Patent System to Worse-Than-Most in a Single Step
By Gary Lauder, HuffPost Business
3/7/11
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/gary-lauder/patently-absurd-or-how-to_b_832703.html

March 9, 2011 National Journal
By Josh Smith

House to Introduce 'Similar' Patent Reform Bill This Month

The House of Representatives will introduce its own version of patent reform legislation sometime this month, said House Judiciary Chairman Lamar Smith, R-Texas.

March 9, 2011 National Journal
By Josh Smith

Patent Bill Passes Senate, House Hurdles Lie Ahead

...The bill gathered wide, bipartisan support in the Senate, but the path ahead remains unclear. Several powerful business groups, as well some conservative activists, are opposed to some of the measure's provisions...

March 3, 2011 National Journal
By Josh Smith

Patent Debate Produces Odd, Bipartisan Alliances

Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., introduced a promised amendment with the support of Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., that would preserve the current U.S. system of issuing patents to whoever invents an item first. Under Leahy's proposed America Invents Act, patents would be awarded to the first person to file a patent application, even if someone else invented the item first.

February 28, 2011 The Huffington Post
Small Business America - By Jim Abrams

Patent Law Could Get Huge Overhaul Under New Bill

The patent system hasn't changed much since 1952 when Sony was coming out with its first pocket-size transistor radio, and bar codes and Mr. Potato Head were among the inventions patented. Now, after years of trying, Congress may be about to do something about that.

February 28, 2011 Yahoo News
By JIM ABRAMS, Associated Press

Congress takes up major change in patent law

The Senate is taking up the Patent Reform Act, which would significantly overhaul a 1952 law and, supporters say, bring the patent system in line with 21st century technology of biogenetics and artificial intelligence.

Patent Reform 2007 - Guest Commentary - Are You Aware that Congress is Mulling over Crippling Your Ability to Fend off Patent Infringement?

2008-05-19T14:22:00.000-07:00

By Guest Contributor
Mark David Torche, Esq.
Patwrite LLC
An Intellectual Property Law Firm
www.patwrite.com

Editor's Note: While S1145 (The Patent Reform Act) has been officially taken off the schedule of the U.S. Senate for 2008, it doesn’t mean that the issue is dead! It could be slipped through without warning after the elections, and it’s sure to be re-introduced in 2009 under a new bill number or title. After all, attempts to change the U.S. unique patent system have been going on for more than 30 years, but have been the most intense since the late 80’s through now, popping up under different bill numbers and titles. So Mark’s article is very important for you to read about how the issue of damages apportionment in infringement cases will negatively affect independent inventors’ rights. In addition, be sure to read this blog post that summarizes the status of The Patent Reform Act.
A complete waste of time that has weakened the US patent-owning communities

Are You Aware that Congress is Mulling over Crippling Your Ability to Fend off Patent Infringement? What Are You Going to do about it?

Individual inventors stand to lose big if the Patent Reform Act (PRA) passes the Senate. It has already passed the House of Representatives.

What's the Big Deal? I would be glad to explain, but first let me ask you a question. What has traditionally protected patent pending inventions from a greedy, well financed infringer?

Answer: If a patent issues, the inventor can bring suit against the infringer with the threat of triple damages as well as legal fees. Of course the inventor has to prove that the infringer intentionally infringed in order for this penalty to apply.

Why is this so significant?

Present patent law provides the poorly financed inventor the means to take on a well-financed corporation transgressor- if the patent holder has a good case. A legal firm will take the case on a contingency basis anticipating recovering their costs by winning.

Present patent law is a powerful deterrent to infringement. Even the largest of corporations must carefully consider before they start producing a patent pending invention. Big business does not like this threat. They would love to be able to do what they please and pay as little as possible for a new invention.

And that is why we find corporate lobbyists whispering in the ears of Senators about patent reform. Right now, the Senate is considering The Patent Reform Act (PRA). S1145 would effectively end this threat of triple damages and basically eliminate the ability of under-financed inventors to fend off infringers.

The PRA practically eliminates triple damages and legal fees - replacing these provisions with "reasonable royalties." This means that even if an infringer loses, they would simply be ordered to pay what they would have paid if they had legally licensed the invention in the first place.

While this may sound reasonable on the surface, the consequences of the legislation effectively makes it open season on individual inventors. Individual inventors likely cannot afford legal action and they won’t be able to attract an attorney because the financial incentives have been stripped away.

Therefore, the infringers' risk of losing is minimal. Hmm, do you think this might encourage corporations to gamble on infringement with so little to lose? Do corporations ever do anything unethical? Do you feel as an individual inventor threatened under these circumstances?

I am not against big business and they owe a duty to their stockholders to maximize profit. But we cannot let our elected leaders tip the balance of fairness against the individual inventor. The rights of the individual to the "pursuit of happiness" and every individual American having the legal rights to protect and profit from his or her dreams and efforts are the very foundation of the American way of life and our System of Government.

And look in the mirror. If you are an inventor, this will affect you. We cannot let corporations influence our elected officials into making this fundamental error. We need to fight back. We must protect every American’s right to profit from their own labors. You must protect your own interests.

And I am not a litigator. I am not standing here worried about my wallet in all this. I am just a lawyer who works day in and day out to help inventors protect their inventions from those who would try to infringe.

But I certainly understand the critical role that my litigator brethren provide as a countervailing force against powerful and well financed companies who might be tempted to abuse your patent rights. I am sure most Americans understand.

Does anybody need a stark example? Anybody here remember Frank Kearns? In 1963 Kearns offered Ford Motor Company his patented intermittent wiper assembly. Ford decided to offer intermittent wipers on select Mercury models in 1969, but then changed their mind and decided to create their own in-house device.

Here is the clinker.

Kearns first refused to tell Ford how the device worked, but ended up obligated to describe the functions because wipers are a safety device on a car. Just a few months later, Kearns was notified that Ford had changed its mind. They were going to produce their own device in house.

Shortening the story, Kearns moved on to a job with the National Bureau of Standards.
But in 1976, he disassembled a wiper control from Ford. Guess what he found., Yup he found basically his own invention.

Kearns immediately had a nervous breakdown, fled his home, and spent time under medical care. When Kearns reappeared, his hair had turned white.

Just stop and put yourself in his shoes. Can you imagine the sense of betrayal and sense of being abused? How much more helpless would Kearns have felt if he had lived under the provisions of the Patent Reform Act? Where might you find yourself if this current legislation passes?

Well, Kearns sued and won millions. It fact he litigated for years. He won millions and spent millions on legal fees. It is a long, harrowing story. A very good account can be found at www.americanheritage.com

What can you do? What should you do?

I suggest you immediately call your state senators and let them know how you feel. Do yourself a favor. Do every American a favor. Support the rights of Americans to follow their dreams and to continue to have the ability to protect their dreams from patent interlopers.

Why don't you contact your senator right now.

And pass this information on to others. We need all the help we can get.

Patent Reform 2007 - Urgent Alert - TIME SENSITIVE: YOUR RIGHT TO INVENT IS AT STAKE! OBJECTIVE: KILL BILL!

2007-11-01T13:47:00.000-07:00

By Stephen Paul Gnass

Teetering in the balance, hanging by the barest of threads, are your inventor rights, and the rights of future generations of inventors and citizens born in the USA to create, invent and benefit/profit from their/your inventions and intellectual property. This issue is really that serious.....

PATENT REFORM ACT OF 2007:
There are two bills under the title of the “Patent Reform Act of 2007” that are being voted on right now in Congress. One already passed the House, bill H.R. 1908, and the other one is in the Senate and is on the verge of being voted on anytime, now. The Senate’s version of the same bill is titled S. 1145 and all indicators look like it will pass.

The rights granted to “individuals” as stated in the U.S. Constitution will be expunged.

The U.S. Constitution, signed on September 17, 1787, states in Article 1, Section 8, Clause 8 that Congress shall have the power:

"to promote the progress of Science and Useful Arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries."

The patent laws regarding how individuals will obtain patents and the patent process are being fundamentally changed which will impede independent inventors. This is being done with little or no input from inventors, inventor organizations, or the invention community at large.

KILL BILL! S. 1145:
With a couple of mouse clicks and a few minutes of your time, you could make the pivotal difference (the tipping point can be as few as 100 people contacting their senators to turn the tide) to Kill Bill!: S. 1145. I’ve made this really easy for you to reply to your senators. I’ve created a sample email guide/outline, and an EZ, simple and quick way to find your Senators and congressmen.

FIRST-TO-FILE:
Any one of the issues in bill “S. 1145”, alone, would be a major change to the U.S. patent system that could negatively affect inventors from being granted a patent. Many of the proposed changes in the two bills are tied-in to the worldwide “first-to-file” system. This first-to-file “package of issues” , along with the infringement issues, will destroy the intrinsic incentives and original intention of the U.S. 200-year old patent system, the“First-to-Invent” which favors the creator i.e. inventor.

ELIMINATING THE LEVEL PLAYING FIELD:
If you’ve ever played tennis, it would be as if the inventor’s side of the tennis court was designed on a pitch (a slant), but multinationals would have a normal level court. Who do you think is going to win the tennis match when the court has been designed with the idea that it’s not a level playing field? With these proposed bills, this is what would happen - the gutting of the U.S. patent system.

PLEASE TAKE ACTION NOW!:
You must make your voice heard NOW in order to stop the bills. This is TIME SENSITIVE. Your action is needed NOW! Please click here for INSTANT ACTION PLAN.

PLEASE SPREAD THE MESSAGE:
This issue affects all citizens, not just inventors, as well as future generations. Even if someone you know isn’t an inventor today, everybody gets ideas at some point in their life. It’s important to maintain the rights of the inventor, which was written into the U.S. Constitution by our forefathers, for all Americans.

Email your mothers, fathers, brothers, sisters, relatives, friends, etc. to spread the word through an email viral approach. If you have any questions at all, feel free to email us and we’ll get back to you as soon as we’re able to.

Sincerely,
Stephen Paul Gnass

Patent Reform 2007 - Guest Commentary - The REAL Purpose of S.1145/H.R.1908 Patent “REFORM” Legislation

2007-10-25T17:22:00.000-07:00

By Guest Contributor
George Margolin
Vice President, Professional Inventors Alliance

“Not a single section in this proposed legislation is for improving the patent system! And NONE OF THEM are directed at reducing the massively INCREASING, backlog of PENDING Patent Applications. ALL of them are designed to spread Web based Land Mines to cripple American patents and Inventors, while REDUCING THE EXPOSURE OF INFRINGERS! This, CLEARLY, cannot help the people who created the jobs and wealth that make America the most creative technological engine the world has ever known! And it would ABSOLUTELY, POSITIVELY, DESTROY AMERICA’S TECHNOLOGICAL SUPERIORITY!” (Retired Bell Labs Patent Attorney)

S.1145 was RUSHED THROUGH COMMITTEE, before the Senators could DISCOVER that Nothing in it helps American Inventors or Invention or Innovation. And NOTHING IN IT is Good for America! It will only benefit its Gargantuan Goliath Trans-National sponsors!

As a long time Professional Inventor, I can assure you that this bill will be a DISASTER for American Technology, as was shown in the FORTUNE article .

THIS LEGISLATION WOULD DESTROY OUR PATENT SYSTEM and ECONOMY!

S.1145 Doublespeak legislation is NOT designed to solve problems with the patent system. It is craftily crafted to PROTECT the sponsoring multi-national corporations from the consequences of “borrowing” -- without recompense, the Inventive Property of creative American small businesses, universities and independent inventors! These, together, create virtually ALL OF THE BREAKTHROUGH INVENTIONS WHICH MAKE AMERICA GREAT!

This Legislation would provide a clear path for countries like CHINA to usurp even MORE of our manufacturing power – including America’s mainstay automotive and Electronic industries. NO MANUFACTURING -- NO PAYROLLS – AND A DYING AMERICAN ECONOMY!

WHY THE AMERICAN PATENT SYSTEM WORKS

The purpose of the American patent system is to grant a limited, short term, monopoly if an inventor FULLY describes his or her invention. The Patent Application description of the invention is to advance the art and TEACH it so that other Americans can build upon it. The purpose is NOT to SELL products. THAT is the purpose of our time tested, successful patent system.

BUT because the Patent Office is DISMALLY UNDERSTAFFED AND UNDER FUNDED – it is INCAPABLE of EXAMINING THE INCREASING FLOOD OF PATENT APPLICATIONS. Because of this -- patent application pendency is now about 800,000! In plain English – that is Eight Hundred THOUSAND applications BEHIND – and getting further behind every day. So IF the USPTO were to accept NO NEW APPLICATIONS – it would take more than FIVE YEARS to complete them with the examining staff currently on board.

S.1145 WILL ABSOLUTELY MAKE THE BACKLOG WORSE!

George Margolin
Vice President – Professional Inventors Alliance
inventor@piausa.org

Patent Reform 2007 - What are the Issues in Bill S. 1145?

2007-10-20T23:57:00.000-07:00

NOTE: This sections will be updated with more issues, so please bookmark this page and check back in.

Introduction

Any one of the issues in S. 1145, alone, would be a major change to the U.S. patent system. Many of the proposed changes in the Patent Reform Act of 2007 are tied-in to the worldwide “first-to-file” system. This first-to-file “package of issues” will destroy the intrinsic incentives and original intention of the U.S. 200-year old patent system.

The laws of the United States are also based upon “case law”, which means that the laws are interpreted based upon the results of court cases. After a court decision is made, future case rulings are based upon the decision of the earlier cases. So the U.S. patent laws have evolved through 200 years of case law. These drastic proposed changes throw out those 200 years of case law, and create a totally new system that has not been tested through court cases.

The proposed "first-to-file"changes stack the rules in favor of well-funded large corporations by encouraging infringement, making the patent process so costly that only big corporations can afford the process, and creating ongoing patent challenges to the independent inventor. Especially in combination, the package of issues tied-in to "first-to-file" work against the independent inventor to "check mate" him at every turn.

Here’s a brief summary of the “first-to-file” package of issues:

First-to-File:

Current U.S. patent system: The existing 200-year old “First-to-Invent” system allows inventors to delay getting a patent until after their product has been researched and developed enough, as long as they keep it secret and maintain the proper invention logbook. Since an invention is often improved, tweaked, and perfected during the research and development stage, this results in a much stronger patent based on the final version of the invention, as well as allowing the inventor to spend his/her limited funds on the development, rather than on the patent, in the early stages. This is an extremely important issue with the more technological inventions that often take years and years to develop.

Worldwide first-to-file system: Whoever files a patent first, would get the patent. This means that whoever has the money to file a patent first, gets the rights to the patent, not necessarily the first inventor. This tilts the patent system to those who can afford the patent process, not those who are original inventors. Being pressured to file a patent immediately encourages a rush to patent without the proper development of ideas. Since the original patent won’t match the final developed product, this means that incremental changes will also need to be patented to protect the idea throughout the development period for as long as it’s being evolved. This results in having to file multiple and successive patents for each idea, a process only large corporations can afford, pricing most independent inventors out of the inventing picture.

Assignee Filing:

Current U.S. patent system: Currently in the U.S., the patent laws require that the individual inventors be listed on the patent. Issuing the patent to the “true inventor”, an “individual”, is at the heart of the U.S. patent system. In corporations, all patents have to be filed in the name of the inventor-employees, and are shown as “assigned” to the corporation within the patent (i.e., all intellectual property rights are turned over to the company, this is something that the inventor has already agreed to in the employment agreement). Both the name of the inventor, and the corporation that owns it, are on the patent. This system has worked well, so it’s not necessary to change this aspect. When licensing an invention, whether filed by the inventor or the licensee, the patent is always filed under the inventor’s name, so there’s never any question about who the true inventor is.

Worldwide first-to-file system: This is tied in to the worldwide “first-to-file” system. This would allow corporations to file for patents in their corporation’s name, eliminating the inventor from the patent. When you combine “first-to-file” with eliminating the inventor from the patent, it’s easy to see that it’ll be very easy for corporations to take inventions from independent inventors witout paying any licensing fees or royalties, saying that they invented it in-house and own the rights, because they rushed to file the patent first.

Prior User Rights:

Current U.S. patent system: Currently, the U.S. “First-to-Invent” patent system gives an “exclusive” and limited time monopoly to the “true inventors”, individuals, which is at the heart and soul of the U.S. patent laws. The patent “excludes” anyone else from making, using, selling or exploiting the invention. Under most circumstances, anyone who is using, making or selling the patented invention is infringing.

Worldwide first-to-file system: This is tied in to the worldwide “first-to-file” system. This would allow anybody who claims they were making, using, or selling a product, before the patent owner filed a patent, to continue without paying licensing fees or being sued for infringement. In a patenting environment ruled by large corporations under a “first-to-file” regime, this is a necessary consolation prize to allow wee inventors and small businesses to have limited rights to continue running a business based on an invention where perhaps they were the “original” inventor who couldn’t afford to file a patent(s) first. But they wouldn’t have a patent, thus they wouldn’t have any rights to license, but could only manufacture and sell it themselves). Yet on the flip side, if an independent inventor, who is the true inventor, happens to make it through all the new hoops and hurdles, files a patent first, and becomes successful, he/she wouldn’t be able to stop a large corporation from competing if that large corporation claims “prior user rights”, saying that they were making, using and selling the invention prior to the inventor’s patent filing.

18-month Publication:

Current U.S. patent system: The U.S. patent office automatically publishes all patent applications 18 months after filing, unless the inventor “opts out” if he is only going to market his invention in the U.S. This allows the pending patent application to remain secret until it is granted/issued. For patent applications that are rejected by the patent office, the inventors can withdraw the patent applications so that they never get published, which allows them to use the invention under “trade secret” protection where they don’t ever reveal how the invention works.

Worldwide first-to-file system: This is tied in to the worldwide “first-to-file” system. The U.S. Patent Office would automatically publish “all” patent applications 18 months after filing - whether pending or rejected, and even if they‘re only going to be marketed in the U.S. Most patents currently take about 3 years to issue because of the backlog of applications at the patent office, so with this provision, pending patent applications would be looked at by competitors worldwide and could be infringed upon even before the patent is granted/issued. Suing for infringement requires that patents be issued/granted, so the patent filer would be helpless to legally stop an infringer until the patent is granted, which would be at least another 18-months (with the current 3 year timeframe to be issued), or more, if it takes longer than 3 years for the patent to be granted.

This is a partial list, this section is being developed, so bookmark it and please check back again.

Patent Reform 2007 - In the News

2007-10-20T14:40:00.000-07:00

“Any one of the issues in S. 1145, alone, would be a major change to the U.S. patent system. Currently, arguments by those supporting or opposing S. 1145 seem to be focusing on a few issues related to infringement, calculating damages for infringement, and injunctive relief, which are critically important. But many of the proposed changes in the Patent Reform Act of 2007 are tied-in to the worldwide “first-to-file” system. This first-to-file “package of issues” , along with the infringement issues, will destroy the intrinsic incentives and original intention of the U.S. 200-year old patent system. Why are so few people talking about how detrimental a change to “first-to-file” will be to the independent inventor, our economy and our standard of living?"
--Stephen Paul Gnass

Note: Articles are listed in descending chronological order, with the most recent first.

August 5, 2008 National Journal CongressDaily

Groups Plot Strategy for Patent Overhaul In Next Congress
Legislation aimed at overhauling the patent system has fizzled in the 110th Congress, but industry stakeholders involved in the debate have not stopped strategizing.

May 12, 2008 Intellectual Asset Management Magazine Blog

Bush Administration urges Congress not to give up on patent reform
I have had a couple of comments from US-based readers concerning the blog I posted last Saturday on the demise (or so i thought) of the Patent Reform Act. According to both correspondents, I could be jumping the gun. This is what they had to say...

May 10, 2008 Intellectual Asset Management Magazine Blog

A complete waste of time that has weakened the US patent-owning communities
It has looked dead for a month or so. And now it is. The Patent Reform Act has been officially withdrawn from the schedule of the US Senate and with that decision goes just about any chance it had of being enacted in 2008.

November 7, 2007 The Signal, The College of New Jersey

Patent Reform Act of 2007 only benefits corporations and hurts small inventors
Unfortunately, the American media tends to neglect news without explosions or death. While news of this nature is important, most Americans are clueless as to our government's newest attempt to bow down to globalism: the Patent Reform Act of 2007.

November 1, 2007 AmericanEconomicAlert.org

The Patent Reform Act: Boon to Chinese Pirates
Reforms that Weaken Patent Protection Would Aid Chinese Pirates

November 1, 2007 Forbes.com

Tech Companies Paid Lobbyist $300,000
A group of high-tech companies paid Elmendorf Strategies LLC $300,000 in the first half of 2007 to lobby the federal government in favor of patent reform, according to a recent disclosure form.

October 29, 2007 Townhall.com

The Patent Act Is a Cheat on Americans by Phyllis Schlafly

October 25, 2007 Channel Register

Techies oppose US patent reform bill
More than 430 organizations spanning all fifty US states have fired off a letter urging Senate leaders to oppose a bill that would overhaul the country's patent system. And that includes tech outfits like Qualcomm and AmberWave.

October 25, 2007 CNN Money.com

Tech Industry Seeks to Boost Patent Bill
Tech Industry Seeks to Firm Support for Patent Reform As Senate Legislative Schedule Fills Up

October 23, 2007 PR Newswire.com

More Than 430 Organizations From All 50 States Speak Out Against Proposed Patent Reform Act
Vast range of American industry asks Senate not to jeopardize U.S innovation with misguided patent system overhaul

October 22, 2007 Internet Business Law Services (IBLS)

Update on the US Patent Reform
Gerry Elman, attorney for Elman Technology Law, P.C. and IBLS Contributor, provides the following update on the United States Patent Reform currently in the US Congress.

October 2, 2007 The Register

Mr WebTV skewers US patent bill
The man who invented WebTV thinks the US patent system is on the verge of ruin.

September 21, 2007 SiliconValley.com

Lobbying kicks off against patent bill
A group of manufacturers, start-ups, entrepreneurs and inventors - including Dean Kamen of Segway fame and Steve Perlman, inventor of WebTV - kicked off a lobbying effort Thursday to stop or change the patent reform bill that passed the House two weeks ago.

September 21, 2007 NewsFactor.com

Tech Startups Oppose Patent Reform
The Patent Reform Act, supported by all the big technology companies, would actually hurt those companies, who depend on startups to funnel innovation to them, said Steve Perlman, inventor of WebTV. "A lot of the companies that are for the bill depend on the startup companies that feed them," Perlman said. "They have market power, we don't."

September 21, 2007 WashingtonPost.Com

Inventors protest patent reform bill
Proposed patent reform legislation would kill the value of patents and allow the theft of U.S. intellectual property, a group of inventors says.

September 20, 2007 Yahoo! Finance
Segway Inventor Raps Patent Reform Bill
Cycle of Innovation Threatened by Patent Bill in Congress, Segway Inventor Tells Capitol Hill

September 20, 2007 CNET News.com

Patent law overhaul: Bad for start-ups?
WASHINGTON--Silicon Valley start-ups and independent technologists will suffer if Congress's proposed overhaul of the U.S. patent system succeeds, the brains behind the Segway and Apple's QuickTime video argued Thursday.

September 7, 2007 CNET News.com

White House opposes tech-backed patent bill
As the U.S. House of Representatives prepares to vote as soon as Friday on sweeping changes to the U.S. patent system, the Bush administration is registering its opposition to the high-tech industry-backed bill.

July 3, 2007 Fortune Small Business

A Hollywood inventor protests the patent bill
George Margolin says a new measure would hurt innovators. An interview by FSB Correspondent with George Margolin.

June 19, 2007 Fortune Small Business

Will Congress slam small inventors?
A massive patent reform would be tough on entrepreneurs.

April 19, 2007 CNET News.com

Congress takes new stab at patent system overhaul
WASHINGTON--Politicians from both parties of the U.S. Congress on Wednesday unveiled a new proposal designed to make the most sweeping changes to the nation's patent system in decades.

Patent Reform 2007 Bill S. 1145 Information

2007-10-19T18:56:00.000-07:00

THOMAS, LIBRARY OF CONGRESS
THOMAS was launched in January of 1995, at the inception of the 104th Congress. The leadership of the 104th Congress directed the Library of Congress to make federal legislative information freely available to the public. You can check bills, resolutions, activity in Congress, the Congressional Record, schedules, calendars, committee information, etc.

Official Bill S. 1145 status at THOMAS.

See an Overview of Bill S. 1145 [at GovTrack.US]

Read a Summary of Bill S. 1145 [at GovTrack.US]

BILL S. 1145

Read and/or download the actual entire Bill S. 1145 in PDF Format

U.S. PATENT LAWS

Read and/or download the current patent laws from the U.S. PTO web site in PDF format

(PDF format files can be viewed with Adobe Reader.)
Download Adobe Reader for Free Here

Patent Reform 2007 - Inventors' Voice TM: Instant Action Plan

2007-10-19T12:13:00.000-07:00

Note: A bill must be introduced into both the House and the Senate, then it must be approved by a majority of both the House and the Senate, before finally being signed into law by the President. ( For more details about how a bill becomes law, click here.) If either the House or Senate rejects a bill, the bill is dead.

The House already passed bill H.R. 1908 on September 9, 2007. Now bill S. 1145 is pending a vote by the Senate, and is expected to be voted on, at any moment. If the Senate rejects and votes "no" on S. 1145, both bills will be dead! This is the goal!

In our opinion, many inventors are not aware of the changes, and the voice of the independent inventor has not been heard in Washington D.C. You can make a difference! The tipping point can be as few as 100 people contacting their senators to turn the tide!

Index:
1. Sample Guide/Outline of How to Write a Message
2. Who to Contact
3. Chain Protest Viral Email Approach: The Power of Multiplication

1. SAMPLE GUIDE/OUTLINE OF HOW TO WRITE A MESSAGE:

Note: If possible, try to be original with your message so that they don’t all sound exactly the same. The following only gives you a general idea of what to write. Please be rational, respectful, and professional, and refrain from using profanities and/or negative, emotionally charged comments.

IMPORTANT: You MUST include your name and address in your Congressional correspondence because emails or letters without a full U.S. street address will not be read.

(First, State who you are:)
Dear Honorable (name),
My name is (John Smith) and I'm an (entrepreneur, independent inventor, person with a new idea, small business owner, product developer, etc.). I've been inventing for (x) years, etc. (feel free to add more of your own personalized information here.)

(Next, State your position:)
I am writing to let you know that I just became aware of the proposed patent changes and I strongly oppose bill S. 1145, known as the Patent Reform Act of 2007. (See issues here)(See bill S. 1145 here)

(Then, State your views and opinions:)
I understand that the meetings for these proposed patent changes have been dominated by large corporations, and lack appropriate representation by the small businesses, independent inventors, inventor organizations, and the independent inventor community at large.

I believe that if passed, the Patent Reform Act of 2007 will affect my own ability, as well as other independent inventors, small businesses and innovators, to profit from their inventions and innovations in the future. I believe that making such major changes to the U.S. patent system will impact our economy in a negative way, by removing incentives to invest in innovation e.g., capitalizing on the development, creation and marketing of intellectual property.

(Last, State the conclusion:)
Any one of the issues in bill “S. 1145”, alone, would be a major change to the U.S. patent system that could negatively affect inventors from being granted a patent. Many of the proposed changes in the two bills are tied-in to the worldwide “first-to-file” system. This first-to-file “package of issues” , along with the infringement issues, will destroy the intrinsic incentives and original intention of the U.S. 200-year old patent system, the“First-to-Invent” which favors the creator i.e. inventor.

The U.S. patent system, created by our founding fathers, has been in place for over 200 years and I believe it has been a major catalyst to making the U.S. one of the greatest countries in the world and a leader in the creation of technology and innovation. A strong patent system that supports incentives for independent inventors, that has a level playing field for corporations and entrepreneurs will encourage the spirit of achievement that made this country great.

Please vote "NO" on S. 1145 and the Patent Reform Act of 2007 and maintain the genius of our founding fathers to keep the 200-year old "First-to-Invent" system in place.

Respectfully yours,
(your name)

ack to top

2. WHO TO CONTACT:

YOUR THREE (3) STATE REPRESENTATIVES:

The bill S. 1145 is being voted in the Senate. So definitely contact your (2) senators for your state.

U.S. Senate:
Find your state's senators by entering your state at:
http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm
It'll bring up a quick form that you can fill out and email to them!

If this is all you have time for, then you're done! But if you have a few more minutes to contact up to five more individuals, the impact will be much greater.

Even though the House already approved their bill H.R. 1908, if you have a few minutes, it would also help to let your local state representative hear from you, even now, so he/she is aware of your opposition to the patent reform.

U.S. House:
Find your state's representatives by entering your state at:
http://www.house.gov/house/MemberWWW_by_State.shtml
It'll bring up a chart of the states, click your state, and it'll bring up the web sites for your House representatives. Then look for the email form to contact your representatives.

CHAIRMEN OF THE HOUSE AND SENATE COMMITTEE WHO "INTRODUCED" THE BILLS

These next two contacts are the chairmen of the House and Senate committees who "introduced" the bills. It's important that everyone contact these individuals!

THE HONORABLE PATRICK LEAHY
Title: Chairman, U.S. Senate Committee on the Judiciary
U.S. Senate
Address: 433 Russell Senate Office Building
Washington DC 20510
Phone: (202) 224-4242
Email: %%%senator_leahy@leahy.senate.gov
Web site: leahy.senate.gov
(Note: remove the three percentage characters [%%%] from the email address, they were added to prevent spam.)

THE HONORABLE HOWARD BERMAN
Title: Chairman, House Committee on the Judiciary: Courts, the Internet, and Intellectual Property
Address: 2221 Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515-0528
Phone: (202) 225-4695
Fax: (202) 225-3196
Web site: www.house.gov/berman
Email: %%%howard.berman@mail.house.gov
(Note: remove the three percentage characters [%%%] from the email address, they were added to prevent spam.)

ALSO CONTACT THE FOLLOWING (2) KEY INFLUENTIAL DIGNITARIES IN WASHINGTON D.C.

The U.S. Patent Office is run by the U.S. Department of Commerce. So contacting the U.S. Secretary of Commerce as well as contacting the Director of the Patent and Trademark Office will help alert the top two U.S. officials related to the patent office, that independent inventors do not agree with the proposed patent changes.

THE HONORABLE CARLOS M. GUTIERREZ
Title: U.S. Secretary of Commerce
U.S. Department of Commerce
Address: 1401 Constitution Ave., NW
Washington, DC 20230
Phone: (202) 482-2112
Fax: (202) 482-2741
Email: %%%CGutierrez@doc.gov
(Note: remove the three percentage characters [%%%] from the email address, they were added to prevent spam.)

THE HONORABLE JON W. DUDAS
Title: Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property, and Director
United States Patent and Trademark Office
Crystal Plz. 3, Rm. 2C02, PO Box 1450
Alexandria, VA 22313
(703) 308-4357
Email: Email Jon Dudas

Back to top

3. CHAIN PROTEST EMAIL BLITZ: THE POWER OF MULTIPLICATION

I believe that many inventors haven’t been aware about the proposed patent changes, and thus the voice of the independent inventor hasn’t been heard in Washington D.C. So the “Tipping Point” doesn’t require that many individuals, probably as few as 50 to 100 can make the difference and change the direction of Senate bill S.1145. Certainly if thousands, or more, inventors contact our representatives, the independent inventor will surely be acknowledged.

So be sure to email other individuals that you know, who should also let their voice be heard on these important issues. Become an "email-activist" by emailing as many people as you can and asking them to also send an instant email. If, for example, you send out 10, your 10 emails can quickly multiply to 100, then 1000, 10,000, 100,000 and so on. This is a positive way to use the chain letter/networking concept for a good cause, and was the successful approach used by our founding fathers (well with letters, not emails!).

If you can also find time to call the office of your senators, in addition to the emails, it will add much more impact to your effort.

REMEMBER...
1) Contacting your two senators is the most important right now.
2) Also sending this out to friends, family and small businesses owners, small business networks etc. , be creative.

Back to top

4. KEEP INFORMED:

To receive updates, please check back regularly in to the Inventors' Voice blog at inventorsvoice.blogspot.com.

INVENTORS' VOICE TM. 8306 Wilshire Blvd., Ste 391 Beverly Hills, CA 90211 / 800 458-5624 / inventorsvoice@inventionconvention.com / inventorsvoice.blogspot.com

Patent Reform 2007 - Guest Commentary - IP Law Briefs Newsletter: Inaugural Issue Fall 2007

2007-10-19T11:02:00.001-07:00

By Guest Contributor
John Connors, Patent Attorney
Connors & Associates, Inc.

Inaugural Issue – Fall 2007

Dear Clients, Colleagues and Friends:

We are initiating this periodic newsletter to alert you of important developments in intellectual property law, the most troubling of which is the so-called “comprehensive patent reform” legislation that is rapidly moving through Congress, with the House having passed H. R. 1908 on September 9, 2007.

The American patent system is an open system, which allows people from all walks of life to participate in the "American Dream" at a cost that is affordable by inventing and patenting a product that the public wants. Compared to other nations, the American patent system grants the strongest patent rights in the world for protecting inventions, thus encouraging investment in innovation. The proposed changes, outlined below, would make the American patent system essentially equivalent to foreign patent systems, which are much less favorable to small businesses, entrepreneurs, and independent inventors.

The incentive to invest in inventions fostered by strong United States patents has nurtured our economy, the most dynamic in the world, and made us the world’s technology leaders. It is vital for the continued health of the American Spirit of Invention and Free Enterprise that you speak out against the dangerous changes being proposed that will weaken our economy, favoring transnational corporations over those companies that do business primarily in the United States.

IF H. R. 1908 BECOMES THE LAW, UNITED STATES PATENTS WILL BE DEVALUED, THERE WILL BE MANY UNINTENDED ADVERSE ECONOMIC AND SECURITY CONSEQUENCES, AND THE GROWING PATENT APPLICATION BACKLOG WILL ONLY INCREASE.

We are strongly recommending that our clients—and anyone else wishing to maintain America’s technology leadership—oppose enactment of Senator Leahy’s Companion Senate Bill S. 1145. Here are the facts. The S.1145 and H.R. 1908 patent bills call for:

1. A first-to-file system rather than a first-to-invent system;

2. The elimination of the grace period that gives an inventor one year to file a patent application after the first public use, offer to sell, or publication of his or her invention;

3. The publication of all United States patent applications even through a patent may never be granted;

4. An administrative hearing in the Patent Office (called an opposition) rather than a jury trial as a means of challenging the validity of a granted United States patent; plus

5. Several other provisions diminishing damage awards that will further devalue a United States patent.

A first-to-file system encourages applications to be filed covering an invention that is inadequately developed. Thus, instead of spending money on testing the invention to confirm its viability, the money will be spent on attorney fees and filing costs. Moreover, the elimination of the one-year grace period means the invention cannot safely be tested in the public marketplace. Currently, an inventor can perfect his or her invention before filing a patent application and trust they are protected if first to invent. This time-tested and uniquely American standard has resulted in only a few hundred pending disputes over who is the first inventor.

Our international competitors’ patent systems are modeled after the German patent system that evolved during the 19th century under that nation’s military-industrial economy, which was dominated by cartels. Clearly, these cartels biased the German patent system to favor their interests; namely, that the German system and others like it are not based on a fair bargain of a patent in exchange for public disclosure. The patent application is published, effectively destroying any trade secrets, and the patent may never be granted. Even if granted, it may be opposed and revoked in an opposition conducted in the patent office without a jury trial. Applications may be filed in the name of a corporation. And the most inequitable and Anti-American feature is this: the first one to file is granted the patent instead of the first to invent. Consequently, there is no one-year grace period.

I went to Washington D. C. in 2006 and 2007 with the Orange County Business Council’s delegation to urge California’s representatives to oppose this legislation. Congressman Rohrabacher, a Republican, has been especially helpful, and has spoken out on the House floor in opposition to H.R. 1908 and voted against it. So did Congressman Baca, a Democrat. This is a non-partisan issue. Unfortunately, Senator Feinstein apparently supports S. 1145.

A delegation from the Orange County Business Council met in 2006 with Senator Diane Feinstein (fourth from left). Mr. Connors is shown second from left.
Photo courtesy of Orange County Business Council

I suspect that Senator Feinstein and others in Congress have been misled by a lobbying and public relationship campaign paid for by a consortium of transnational corporations that have conspired to sell a phony story to many members of Congress that the American patent system is broken. The truth is that the courts are doing their job, but the Patent Office is malfunctioning. Here’s why:

(1) There is a backlog of about 800,000 patent applications, which means the average time to patent grant is at least three years, and, in some cases, in excess of five years.

(2) The number of new patent applications filed annually is rapidly approaching 500,000, and a patent examiner is on average allowed only about 20 hours to examine an application regardless of its length or complexity. Given the shortfalls of budgeting and staffing, the Patent Office will, in a few short years, be unable to do the job that inventors and the public expect from it.

(3) To the disadvantage of inventors, the Patent Office is in the process of changing its rules to limit the number of claims and the number of continuation applications that can be filed. This is a vain effort to reduce its backlog. Clearly, one way to avoid the anticipated crushing backlog is for Congress to avoid imposing on the Patent Office the excessively burdensome task of conducting post-grant oppositions. The resources of the Patent Office should be devoted to training the examiner corps and focusing their efforts on greater efficiency by simplifying the rules to expedite examination and reduce the burden on both the applicant and the examiner.

The backlog problem has been created over at least the last 16 years by diverting fees collected by the Patent Office to other branches of government and mismanagement by both Democratic and Republican administrations. Sadly, S.1145 and H.R. 1908 do nothing to fix the situation in the Patent Office. The proposed changes will only compound this problem by switching to a first-to-file system and mandating that oppositions be conducted in the Patent Office.

Another OCBC delegation visited members of Congress in the spring of 2007. SEC Chairman Christopher Cox is shown in the center. Mr. Connors is at the far right.
Photo courtesy of Orange County Business Council

In the European Patent Office about 7% of the granted patent applications are opposed. The number of U. S. patent applications filed will soon be 500,000 annually, with the number of patents being granted approaching 50% of the filed applications. Assuming the same proportion as encountered in the European Patent Office, the U. S. Patent Office should reasonably expect to be handling about 17,500 new opposition cases annually-this in the face of the office’s huge backlog. Moreover, these oppositions are adversarial proceedings deciding disputed factual issues; a job Patent Office personnel are unsuited to perform and that is now reserved to the province of a jury. The result will be a specialized corps of high paid bureaucrats, rather than a jury, who will take an unknown amount of time to decide cases, further increasing the backlog. These bureaucratic elites will make a judgment without the benefit of live testimony to evaluate witness credibility, and after reviewing stacks of papers representing deposition testimony and legal arguments prepared by armies of lawyers hired by a Goliath competitor or competitors (they can gang up) to break the granted patent.

In many cases, the legal costs associated with oppositions will prohibit small businesses and independent inventors from enforcing their patents. The proposed legislative changes, if enacted, will also create an additional hurdle for entrepreneurs to jump that just might be too high, since prospective investors will be reluctant to advance money in launching a start-up business based on an invention when the patent may be bogged down in an opposition while Goliath competitors freely compete with an infringing product or service. Many contingent fee trial lawyers will now accept a patent case because there is a good chance they can get the case to a jury, giving small businesses, entrepreneurs, and independent inventors a real opportunity to enforce their United States patents. An opposition will be a major deterrent to such contingent fee patent litigation.

In the final analysis, an opposition proceeding is not needed. It would only expand the patent bureaucracy and delay enforcing patents. It is being proposed because of alleged deterioration in the quality of United States patents being granted. If this is true (which is highly debatable), the lack of quality needs to be overcome by the Patent Office doing a better job of examination. (Don’t close the barn door after the horse has escaped.) Only commercially important patents are asserted anyway, and through the litigation process they have their validity tested where the facts are determined by a jury in accordance with over 200 years of American patent law jurisprudence. Much of this established law will be set aside if S.1145 and H.R. 1908 become the law. Some Big Tech Firms and Big Banks don’t like the current situation and assert that “trolls” are making them unfairly pay royalties because their high-tech products or services may be covered by many patents. They assert that this creates a barrier to innovation. They are disingenuous! Such Big Tech Firms often assert hundreds of patents against infringers. The number of pending patent lawsuits does not indicate that the federal courts are overloaded. Quite the contrary! The statistics strongly support the view that the patent enforcement component of the American patent system is working:

(1) The average number of patent lawsuits filed annually, including declaratory judgment suits involving a claim of patent infringement, is only a few thousand and is only gradually growing.

(2) The average number of such lawsuits going to trial annually is less than about 10% of those filed.

(3) In recent decisions addressing standards of patentability, issuance of injunctions, “willfulness,” and other important areas, the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit continue to monitor the patent system and balance the interest of the patentee and the alleged infringer.

(4) And, as the courts have almost always done, they set aside large jury verdicts—for example, the $1.5 billion judgment against Microsoft—that are not supported by the evidence.

I urge you to write your Senator to oppose Leahy S.1145.

Attorney John Connors, right, shown with Congressman Dana Rohrabacher at a social event discussing the pending patent legislation.

New Rules
Very important changes in the Patent Office rules concerning claiming and continuation applications go into effect November 1, 2007. More on these new rules in the coming issues of this newsletter.

Electronic Publication
All future issues of IP Law Briefs will be published electronically and distributed by email. If you wish to be added to our emailing list, please send your email address to ipbriefs@connorspatentlaw.com. His web site is at: www.connorspatentlaw.com

Sincerely,
John J. Connors
Patent Attorney

Patent Reform 2007 - Guest Commentary - Patent Reform Act or Patent Dilution Act?

2007-10-18T18:28:00.001-07:00

by Guest Contributor
Mark David Torche, Esq.,
Registered Patent Attorney, Patwrite LLC

First let me say that I am a strong believer in the free enterprise system of economics and have nothing against big business and large corporations per se. Of course my law firm specializes in working with private inventors and small businesses, so I naturally tend to identify with the issues most important to them.

The United States Constitution (Article 1, Section 8) empowers Congress: "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries." Since its inception in 1790 with the passage of the first Federal Patent Act, the US patent system has arguably been the most successful promoter of private innovation in recorded history.

Of course there have been many changes in the system since then, but it has remained a system that tended to equal the playing field and even a poor person with a great invention could force the "big boys" to play nice because of the patent system. We merely have to look to other parts of the world to see the difference in patent philosophies and the way they impact their respective societies.

Almost all countries have a patent system of sorts, but if you look at who is filing and enforcing those patents, you'll see that the U.S. system is well represented by the private inventor. In other countries, the vast majority of patents are filed by large corporations. Additionally, the court systems in other countries are much less accessible to private inventors so even if they have a patent, it is very difficult for them to enforce it.

In spite of its tremendous success record, or perhaps because of it, every few years the U.S. patent system comes under tremendous pressure to fundamentally change it. It is relatively easy to see where this pressure is coming from: big business.

Large multinational corporations do not want to have to deal with a strong independent inventor class that forces them to pay millions in royalties and license agreements. Even though these corporations hold and file many patents themselves, they have the deep pockets necessary to enforce their market share even without a strong patent system.

The U.S. patent system is about to quietly undergo a radical change if the bill that is currently under consideration in the U.S. Senate and recently passed by the House becomes law. Most people are unaware of the drastic changes proposed to the patent system as it seems to be overshadowed by more publicized issues like the war in Iraq or the coming presidential elections.

Changes proposed:

I will not attempt to outline all the changes addressed by this legislation; only the ones that I feel are the most serious to the well being of the private inventor and small businesses that depend on the patent system to protect their inventions.

1. First-to-invent to First-to-file:

This is a fundamental change. Since its inception, the U.S. patent system has always held the basic philosophy that the first person to invent something should be rewarded even if someone else beats them to the patent office. Of course this is not without controversy and expense, but it meshes well with the American sense of "rightness" and has served the private inventor reasonably well throughout its history.

At the very least, a fundamental change of this magnitude deserves a thorough and public discussion allowing all the issues to be presented. This legislation has been mostly 'submarining" through the legislative process with little public debate. Most of the rest of the world already has the first to file system, but again, there is not nearly as robust a private inventor class in these countries. We should be very careful before making such a major change.

2. Patent Searches, Patent Office to Patent Applicant:

Of course I always advise my clients to get a good search before filing a patent application and the U.S. system does not allow patents on inventions that are not unique and new. If your invention is already in the public domain, you are not entitled to a patent.

A good patent search can save would-be inventors lots of money if it turns out that the invention is already known. However, the patent office still performs its own patent search, with full disclosure on the part of the inventor (i.e. the inventor has a legal duty to disclose all known prior art that he or she believes is related to patentability) and relies on its own search to determine patentability.

If the current legislation passes, each applicant would be required to perform the search that the patent office will rely on. While this may sound like a minor change, in reality, this effectively guts the patent system. How, you ask? Because, no patent search is perfect, not the one performed by the applicant (or representative like patent attorney or agent) or the one by the patent office.

The problem with this proposal is on the enforcement side. If it can be shown that the applicant deliberately didn't reveal something germane to patentability, the patent can be invalidated along with civil and criminal penalties. This means that the private inventor presenting an issued patent to a large corporation faces the likely challenge to the patent by the company's legal department. If the search overlooked something - not something that would preclude patentability since that could be used even now to invalidate a patent - but merely something that was relevant to patentability but not disclosed, then the patent will likely be invalidated for fraud on the patent office. This means that basically every patent that has any economic advantage will be subject to invalidation.

There are other major problems with this legislation such as a new way to compute damages, etc. but in my opinion, the two issues above are the most important to the private inventor and small business and should be voted down.

We need to be very careful before radically changing the system that has allowed individuals such as Thomas Edison and George Washington Carver access to a strong patent system. Our system is unique to the United States and is part of the American reality of the "rags to riches" mentality that is unequaled in the rest of the world.

If you have any questions regarding this legislation or other intellectual property law issues, please feel free to contact us toll free at 866-424-7529 or email mark@patwrite.com. His web site is at www.patwrite.com

How to Instantly Find and Email Your Elected Officials

U.S. Senate web site:
Find your state's senators by entering your state at:
http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm
It'll bring up a quick form that you can fill out and email to them!

U.S. House Web site:
Find your state's representatives by entering your state at:
http://www.house.gov/house/MemberWWW_by_State.shtml
It'll bring up a chart of the states, click your state, and it'll bring up the web sites for your House representatives. Then look for the email form to contact your representatives.

Then be sure to email other individuals that you know, who should also let their voice be heard on these important issues.

Why You, Just One Individual, Can Make a Difference

2007-10-18T17:24:00.001-07:00

by Stephen Paul Gnass

In our U.S. democratic government, wouldn't it be great if our elected officials frequently contacted us to find out our positions on proposed laws and issues, and made their decisions to vote on legislation, based upon what the majority of their constituents wanted? [Definition of constituent: a person who authorizes another to act in his or her behalf, such as a voter in a district represented by an elected official.]

While our elected officials have a postage budget for mailings within their districts, the sad reality is that we only seem to get personalized mail or phone calls from their staff during election time. It’s extremely rare that we hear from them since our elected officials are not pro-active in reaching out to us, their constituents.

So, the bottom line is that, we the people, are the ones that need to contact our elected officials to let them know what our positions are on proposed laws and issues. Yet it’s understandable that most of us are so busy with our daily lives - commuting to and from work, dropping off and picking up the kids, working, doing the daily chores around the house, etc., that we just don’t have time for researching and studying the many proposed laws and issues or how our elected officials are voting.

Why "He Who Has the Gold Makes the Rules"

What’s ironic is that a corporation has no vote. However, corporations can contribute campaign funding to legislators, which legislators need to get re-elected. But even though legislators may feel obligated to these corporations, the bottom line is that the corporations cannot legally bribe our legislators to make certain decisions. Our legislators have the ultimate decision making ability. So what makes corporations so influential in D.C.?

I believe that once most people vote, they tend to feel that they've done their patriotic duty - we’re taught the importance of voting. But we're not taught the importance of participating in how our system of laws works during our K-12 educations - how to keep up with new bills, the status, etc.. So after voting, people go on with their busy lives.

But it's the gap throughout the periods between voting, that’s really the most important part about a democracy. This is the period when the elected representatives are making the country’s laws - the laws that rule our lives. This is the time when the people, the constituents who have entrusted their representatives with the power to make laws, need to contribute their input, to make laws that benefit them.

But our elected often only hear from lobbyists on behalf of corporations during these crucial times. It seems that the only ones who have time for this are the big corporate interests, who are well funded and can afford to pay lobbyists to focus 100% of their time on specific issues, go to Washington D.C. and personally spend time with our elected officials to let them know what “their” positions are. However, these lobbyists are working for the corporation’s own interests, not the people’s interests.

Since our elected officials often only hear from lobbyists from these corporate interests, too many times they end up basing their decisions on corporate views.

And so it happens that approximately 500 legislators - just 100 senators (2 per state) and about 435 state representatives - determine the laws for the entire country - many times with little input from the American people.

When Democracy “Really” Works

On the other hand, individuals collectively make up the country - about 400 million strong (though of course a portion are children under age 18). So think about it - if you have 10s or 100s of “millions” of individuals who can vote contacting our elected officials about certain issues, who do you think will be listened to? In their own self interests of re-election, do you think that our elected officials will most likely listen to the majority? (Note: Every letter/email/phone call that our elected representatives receive is multiplied by a formula to determine an estimated percentage of the population that thinks the same way, similar to the TV Nielsen ratings. So your one contact really counts as more than just your individual comment.)

And so it turns out that when huge numbers of people get interested in a proposed law or issue and contact their elected representatives, that’s when democracy works! You can see that the “many versus the few” has worked with many key issues, such as with smoking, etc.

But the catch is that, we the people, need to be pro-active and reach out to our elected representatives - in-between the voting seasons, when they’re making the laws of our land.

And that's when our government becomes "by the people, for the people" as envisioned by our founding fathers.

Otherwise, by default, if we don't participate in the lawmaking process, our government could become "by the multinationals, for the multinationals".

Inventors' Voice TM Mission

So the challenges to our government system working by the people, for the people, and to individuals making a difference, would seem to be:

1) informing enough people to help them become aware of proposed legislation

2) getting them up to speed quickly on what's important since people don't have much time in their lives

3) having ways of being able to quickly and easily contact our elected official for little or no cost and with minimal time

This is the goal of Inventors Voice TM in relation to independent inventors and the 200 year old U.S. Patent System. Fortunately, due to access to the internet today, you can quickly and easily contact your elected officials through email forms on their web sites, which takes just a few minutes.

And by reading through this blog, hopefully it'll bring understanding of what the issues are facing independent inventors. If you have any questions, feel free to email us at inventorsvoice@inventionconvention.com

How to Instantly Find and Email Your Elected Officials

U.S. Senate web site: Find your state's senators by entering your state at:
http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm
It'll bring up a quick form that you can fill out and email to them!

House Web site: Find your state's representatives by entering your state at:
http://www.house.gov/house/MemberWWW_by_State.shtml
It'll bring up a chart of the states, click your state, and it'll bring up the web sites for your House representatives.

Then be sure to email other individuals that you know, who should also let their voice be heard on these important issues.

I N V E N T O R S' V O I C E [tm]

AMERICA'S GREATEST ASSET UNDER SIEGE

AMERICA'S GREATEST ASSETUNDER SIEGE 2011

Our Unique U.S. "First to Invent" Patent System- America's Greatest Asset -

PATENT REFORMFIRST-TO-INVENT vs. FIRST-TO-FILE

CONCLUSION

RESOURCES - GET UP TO SPEED

HERE ARE SOME KEY ISSUESABOUT THE PATENT REFORM LEGISLATIONTITLED "AMERICA INVENTS ACT":

CHANGING TO A FOREIGN FIRST-TO-FILE PATENT SYSTEM

This would especially be harmful to inventors of significant inventions that require perhaps many years to develop and perfect before having to file a patent. Tomorrow's Edisons, Whitneys or Fords could be defeated even before they've had a chance to create their first breakthrough.

ELIMINATION OF ONE YEAR GRACE PERIOD

INTERFERENCES

U.S. PATENT OFFICE (USPTO) BACKLOG:

PERMITTING DECEPTIVE INTENTION:

PENALIZE COMPLEX INVENTIONS WITH FEES:

PATENT REFORM 2011 - VIDEO BRIEFING - House Rep Dana Rohrabacher; Senator Diane Feinstein on Keeping the 200+ U.S. Patent System "First to Invent"

PATENT REFORM 2011 - VIDEO BRIEFING - Alec Schibanoff, American Innovators for Patent Reform; Randy Landreneau

PATENT REFORM 2011 - ACTION PLAN - What You Can Do To Maintain Inventors' Rights

PATENT REFORM 2011 - Bill S. 23 and HR.1249 Specific Information "America Invents Act"

PATENT REFORM 2011 - IN THE NEWS

PRESS COVERAGE

[UPDATED 9-5-11]

Patent Reform 2007 - Guest Commentary - Are You Aware that Congress is Mulling over Crippling Your Ability to Fend off Patent Infringement?

Patent Reform 2007 - Urgent Alert - TIME SENSITIVE: YOUR RIGHT TO INVENT IS AT STAKE! OBJECTIVE: KILL BILL!

Patent Reform 2007 - Guest Commentary - The REAL Purpose of S.1145/H.R.1908 Patent “REFORM” Legislation

Patent Reform 2007 - What are the Issues in Bill S. 1145?

Patent Reform 2007 - In the News

Patent Reform 2007 Bill S. 1145 Information

Patent Reform 2007 - Inventors' Voice TM: Instant Action Plan

Patent Reform 2007 - Guest Commentary - IP Law Briefs Newsletter: Inaugural Issue Fall 2007

Patent Reform 2007 - Guest Commentary - Patent Reform Act or Patent Dilution Act?

Why You, Just One Individual, Can Make a Difference

AMERICA'S GREATEST ASSET
UNDER SIEGE 2011

Our Unique U.S. "First to Invent" Patent System
- America's Greatest Asset -

PATENT REFORM
FIRST-TO-INVENT vs. FIRST-TO-FILE

HERE ARE SOME KEY ISSUES
ABOUT THE PATENT REFORM LEGISLATION
TITLED "AMERICA INVENTS ACT":