Between the Lines

Larry Dignan, Andrew Nusca and Rachel King

Patent reform on the way as Obama signs America Invents Act into law

By | September 16, 2011, 12:46pm PDT

Summary: Patent infringement disputes in Silicon Valley could be handled quite differently in a short time as the President signs a new reform bill into law.

The America Invents Act, a bill seeking to reform the way patents are awarded, was signed into law by President Obama on Friday after being passed through the Senate just last week.

Here’s how the White House believes this reform will benefit the U.S. in a nutshell:

It will help companies and inventors avoid costly delays and unnecessary litigation, and let them focus instead on innovation and job creation. Many key industries in which the United States leads, such as biotechnology, medical devices, telecommunications, the Internet, and advanced manufacturing, depend on a strong and healthy intellectual property system.

More specifically:

An efficiently operating IP system that processes applications and issues high-quality patents quickly is especially vital to small and new businesses, which create two out of every three new American jobs.

By transitioning to a simpler, more objective, and more inventor-friendly system of issuing patents, the new Act helps ensure that independent inventors and small entities have greater clarity and certainty over their property rights and will be able to navigate the patent system on a more equitable footing with large enterprises.

The Act also establishes a new in-house review process for challenging patents—a process that is faster and significantly cheaper than litigation, which too often stymies technological growth.

Essentially, the new America Invents Act shifts towards a “first-to-file patent system” rather than just a first-to-invent system.

Patents have been a huge source of legal disputes this past year in the tech world, especially in the United States as Oracle, Google, Apple, Microsoft, and countless others are all involved in the patent showdown to some extent — mainly over mobile technologies these days.

The approval of this bill could have some major effects on the industry, at least within a few years as the law won’t go into effect for over a year.

Maybe this will at least please Google Executive Chairman Eric Schmidt, who recently said at Dreamforce 2011 that he thought patents have been handed out too generally in the past and would like to see a more systematic approach to the approval process.

For more about how the new law will work and the potential advantages as well as pitfalls, check out what ZDNet’s Joe McKendrick has to say about it.

Related:

Kick off your day with ZDNet's daily e-mail newsletter. It's the freshest tech news and opinion, served hot. Get it.

Topics

Rachel King is a staff writer for ZDNet based in San Francisco.

Disclosure

Rachel King

Rachel King has no business relationships, affiliations, investments, or other potential conflicts of interest relating to the content posted in this blog.

Biography

Rachel King

Rachel King is a staff writer for CBS Interactive in San Francisco. Before serving as a contributing editor at ZDNet in New York City for two years, she previously worked for The Business Insider, FastCompany.com, CNN's San Francisco bureau and the U.S. Department of State. Rachel has also written for MainStreet.com, Irish America Magazine and the New York Daily News, among others. Rachel has a B.A. in Mass Communications and History from the University of California, Berkeley and a M.S. in Journalism from Columbia University, where she served as art director for the student magazine, Plated.

51
Comments

Join the conversation!

Just In

fwxkyck 37 myl
chomeioy1401-24379050583164344287649173473205 25th Nov
ssbkob,upwwhzki87, tltiz.
0 Votes
+ -
Software Patent Law? No.
Dietrich T. Schmitz * Your Linux Advocate 16th Sep
nt
@Dietrich T. Schmitz * Your Linux Advocate
0 Votes
+ -
Yes, they can
John L. Ries Updated - 19th Sep
@otaddy
Patents exist because legislatures authorize them and governments grant them.

Reply to otaddy:

So you advocate the repeal of all laws and the dissolution of all governmental institutions?

If there are no problems government can solve, then why not just scrap it and put ourselves at the mercy of your friendly neighborhood warlord?
0 Votes
+ -
Yes you are correct.
otaddy 17th Sep
@John L. Ries And the judicial system upholds them, so yes, they did create something.

What I should have said was: "govts think they can solve problems by writing laws" The law never solves the original problem and creates lots of unforseen problems.

The patent system is a great example of govt creating more problems than it solves.
0 Votes
+ -
And here's how it will work.
baggins_z Updated - 16th Sep
Small, independent inventor comes up with a great idea, but doesn't have money to hire a patent lawyer. Whiles he's trying to figure out how to file, big company with $$$ and patent attorneys on retainer take his idea and file. Folks, there was a reason big corp was drooling all over this law.
0 Votes
+ -
@baggins_z 1st to file means anybody can steal ideas without the need to invent them. Since patent submition cost about $20K, a "garage" inventor will be easily screwed by a big corp with money.

Another example, an open source project with a very innovative product can lose the product because the single developer/maintainer did not have the money to submit a patent application. I bet you that a lot of companies will be scanning SourceForge for ideas that they can steal and patent.

What the Obama admin is presenting is not a patent reform ....
0 Votes
+ -
The quality of the patent application
Richard Flude 16th Sep
Gives an indication of the financial position of the filer. Those without big bucks can support their patents anyway.

It's a terrible system, entrenchingly anticompetitive.

The above press releases are the funniest I've ever read.
0 Votes
+ -
Make it public knowledge
Robert Hahn 16th Sep
@wackoae
In the open source case, or in any case where the inventor is more concerned with preventing others from patenting the idea than about acquiring a patent for himself, the solution is simply to publish the idea.

IBM has maintained a "Journal of Research" for just this purpose for decades. Back when there was a Bell Labs, they had one too. They put stuff in there that they've tripped over, don't want to commercialize, but don't want anybody coming after them with a patent if they ever change their minds.
@wackoae - I think it is unlikely that SourceForge will be any more of a hunting ground than it already is. The foundation that the inventor must be the patentor is still in place. If the idea is on a public database like SourceForge, it is pretty clear that said big company didn't invent it. The lab notebooks and such would tell that tale clearly. And if a company were dishonest and fudged the books under the new system, they would have under the old. And what happens if I apply for an NSF grant to study some phenomenon, and Company X decides to patent it? There has to be an inventor/invention connection if this is going to work. Prior art has to come into play, too. So, I don't see this as an erosion of availability for small inventors.

To me the problem becomes seeking development funding for the idea from companies. You simply can't afford to tell anyone about the idea until after the idea is filed for the actual patent. If you do, you are asking for an end run from one of the companies you shop the idea around to, unless you get a legal document to keep that from happening along the way. Something a small inventor should do, anyway.
0 Votes
+ -
@baggins_z ..

(of course, the caveat here is that the USPTO actually implements first-to-file correctly)..

The beauty of first-to-file, similar to the Torrens system in land titles, is that the filing process for patents becomes a whole lot simpler, and many MANY small inventors can safely file patents without patent lawyers. When you only have to prove that your invention is not obvious and hasn't been previously patented (and in a LOT of cases, one follows the other). Not having $$$ to hire a patent lawyer is less of a problem, when the lawyer isn't needed in many cases.

Now, said small inventor can go get his/her patent before disclosing the invention publicly. Compare this with the current system (which STILL makes it easy for big corp to steal small inventor's lunch - doesn't work well when Mr. small inventor can't afford a lawyer to fight a "prior art" case) .
0 Votes
+ -
Sure they can .....
wackoae 16th Sep
@daftkey ... because "small" inventors have $20K laying around the floor of their houses that can be used to submit a patent.
@daftkey

First to file does *not* eliminate the issue of "prior art". People are *NOT* going to be simply pulling up ideas from the past and patenting them. Prior art issues will still result in challenges which, if proven, will still result in the patent being revoked. First to file only changes the way that *unpublished* ideas are sequenced, published ideas still make that idea unpatentable.
0 Votes
+ -
@George
guihombre Updated - 16th Sep
First to file is a direct attack on the prior art requirement.

It redefines 'prior' to an illogical order that bears no resemblance to time.

This only works in other places because they have a strong 'must keep the invention secret before patenting', so the order in the patent que fairly closely matches the real order of invention.

USA doesn't have that, the order in the patent que has trolls with 'vague patents that were never made' at the front, with the proper inventions that took time and research money and work at the bottom.

It's a patent troll's charter.
0 Votes
+ -
@daftkey .. I guess with all the money you Americans save in taxes, they gotta get into your wallet somehow.

$20k to file a patent? Not sure how many other countries can boast that - definitely not the one to the North of you.
@guihombre

This only works in other places because they have a strong 'must keep the invention secret before patenting', so the order in the patent que fairly closely matches the real order of invention.

And the Torrens system "only works on other places" because "other places" have mandatory mortgage insurance rules if you buy a house with less than a 20% down payment, and a detailed registry and land titles system.

That's what I meant by the caveat is whether the USPTO implements the first to file system properly or not.

My gut feeling is that the government is going to institute this reform law, and then implement the one rule without the rest of the rules that have to go with it, and you're going to suffer the fate of yet another country with lots of money, lots of inventions, and very little experience in running a modern patent system.
@daftkey small inventors don't typically have TIME to file - they're busy inventing and don't have access to a fleet of lawyers who know how to dance around the legal and formatting trivia required to get a valid patent accepted.

Guess who DOES have lots of time, lots of lawyers? Big corps - the ones the patent system is supposed to be protecting the small inventor from.
0 Votes
+ -
I might favor that...
John L. Ries Updated - 17th Sep
@daftkey
...if software and business method patents were specifically excluded, the USPTO got to keep all fees, serial filers paid more (a LOT more), standards were tighter, and those caught filing false patent applications (or patenting the inventions of others) faced imprisonment and financial ruin, but then again, I'm not sure it's worth the risk that people will lose the right to use their own inventions if they don't file a patent application.
@daftkey "The beauty of first-to-file... is that... many MANY small inventors can safely file patents without patent lawyers"
- Despite many years as a design/applications engineer and patent practitioner, I must confess that you have me stumped. In short, the new law is merely a distraction by lawmakers who have yet to even consider issues of patent REFORM... . Nevertheless, you made a statement without any support... So here's your opportunity:
- First, your "you only have to prove" is entirely incorrect, but you and everyone reading your statement probably already knew that by simply reading the bill.
- Second, the filing process is already extremely simple... so how does simplifying it further help anyone.
- Third, if my sole concern was making money, then I'd suggest that ALL inventors should draft, file and begin prosecuting their own applications... My $$$ would multiply many times in the back end with the endless cleanup... if possible at all.
- You might be a pleasant and intelligent person that simply speaks out too quickly about topics beyond your current understanding and NOT simply a corporate or political stooge... I hope so.
@baggins_z I agree to some extent.

This bill does little or nothing to fix what's wrong with the patent system. It just changes the timing, and makes it slightly easier for the patent office and courts to declare a winner.

It does nothing to address the problem of approving overly broad patents.

It makes it MORE likely that an outfit which didn't really "invent" something winds up owning it for 20-odd years.

It may reduce the workload on the patent office slightly, which might speed up the process. That's a very tiny bit of good, traded off against an pile of bad side effects, and a huge NOTHING on the main problem.
@baggins_z - Not necessarily. It may be possible that the process will become sufficiently transparent that a lawyer isn't necessarily required (it really isn't now, it just makes it easier). I am not convinced that will be the outcome, however.

But what it really means is that the inventor, large or small, cannot afford to communicate his idea until he files the patent. Up until now, once the invention disclosure was filed, the invention date was set. Now, the small inventor will have nowhere to refine his idea to improve the patent, unless he gets a non-disclosure agreement with a non-compete clause signed by whoever he confides in. It makes the job more isolationist, and makes seeking development funding riskier for the inventor, but might benefit him in the long run. Time will tell on that one.
0 Votes
+ -
Grade School
rhonin 16th Sep
Big Dike
Many holes
One kid
....................................
And the water level is going up
plain
Who's going to be first to patent the wheel?





happy
0 Votes
+ -
..considering the good ol' U-S-of-A has been the last industrialized nation to adopt the "First to File" system for.. well.. ever...
0 Votes
+ -
fallacy. Just because a lot of others do something doesn't make it smart.
@baggins_z .. but the fact that no other industrialized nation uses the "first to invent" system, and no other industrialized nation has the degree of patent problems that the US currently has says something about the "smartness" of the "it" we are talking about in this case.
@baggins_z Agreed, the US system was different than the one used in most of the rest of the world... and patent law isn't any less disfunctional in Europe under first-to-file than it is in the US under first-to-invent.

So, this is gonna make us slightly more uniform, and completely miss the core problem: Patents are being granted that are way too obvious, and way too broad. Nothing in that area is being addressed by this change.
As an independent innovator, I can't afford to dream about patenting my innovations anymore. This is too expensive.
0 Votes
+ -
You and me, both...
adornoe@... 19th Sep
I've developed a service, which I think I could apply to get a few patents for, but, from my quick estimates, I might have to spend somewhere in the neighborhood of $200,000 to file those patents.

My service is already developed, and ready to implement (although, like all other software services, nothing is ever "finished" or "completed").

I don't have the money to apply for the patents, and if I did decide to implement my system without the patents, the ideas would be readily apparent and probably easily stolen and patented by others with the deeper pockets.
isn't this the type system that gotten all the fuss with Apple. Didn't they patent the tablet or whatever without haven invented it yet.
Not sure what it was, just heard the stink it created. I happen to agree that if you don't have it invented yet then you better impress me with some serious technical stats, diagrams, material usage, etc.... before I award a patent otherwise people will just get a whim from internet forums or whatever of what is up and coming and go race to patent it without even inventing the thing.

Kinda reminds me of when world wide web started, a number of people went out and registering domain names of every big business they could think of knowing that business would pay good money for it. BS if you ask me so thank god the courts put a stop to that.
@brad1000 Patents have always been allowed to be filed without actually creating an example of the invention in question. You just needed to disclose enough that someone "skilled in the art" would be _able_ to make one if they tried hard enough.

Switching to first-to-file makes the patent office's prior-art search job easier, but at the cost of making it much more likely a patent is awarded to someone who didn't come up with the idea, but had a faster better funded set of lawyers.

It wont fix the real problem (granting of overly broad, stunningly obvious patents) and it tilts the balance of power even more towards the large well funded corporations against the small time overworked genuine inventor that the entire patent system was designed to protect.

I'm ready to ask that the entire patent office be closed. That would do more for encouraging invention than anything in this law.
0 Votes
+ -
What it will do, I suspect...
John L. Ries 16th Sep
...is to massively increase the number of patent applications since it someone patents your invention before you do (even if you don't think it should be patented), you'll lose all right to use it.
Imo the problem is with too many common patents being granted that really should not be, at least that is the main problem we see with all the current law suits.
@Frenz9 Yep, that is the problem, and this bill does nothing to correct it.

The bill does make life easier on the patent office, since they no longer have to do meaningful prior art search - just look at the current patent database to see if the new filing seems vaguely unique, and then grant it.

First-to-file is good for three groups:

1. Large corporations with huge fleets of patent lawyers ready to make filings.

2. Shady characters who manage to get a peek at someone's early work and rush to file on it before the actual inventor can find time.

3. Patent office workers, who no longer need to even attempt to try to figure out who really came up with an invention, and who is trying to steal it.
I think the old expression "day late and a dollar short" is rather applicable here. It's a stupid piece of legislation apparently written without any idea of what's been happening in recent years regarding the new Wild Wild West of intellectual property law, gaming the patent office, and pretend innovation.

At least it shows that Congress and the White House can actually agree on something -- but apparently only if it actually doesn't do anything.
0 Votes
+ -
turns to make the patent system EVEN WORSE. Anyone else think he is an Iranian sleeper agent put in place to ruin America?
0 Votes
+ -
...and he did it all by himself!
John L. Ries 17th Sep
@adinas..
Ignore the fact that the Republican majority in the House of Representatives voted for it (the evil Democrats must have threatened their campaign funds). President Obama signed it, so it's all his fault.
@adinas This isn't a discussion thread on Foxnews.com for people with severe knowledge disabilities.
because, according to studies and surveys, the FOX news viewers, always come out on top when it comes to being better informed on the issues and people in the news.

Although I watch other news channels and read from many media sources, I watch FOX a lot, and I'll bet that I'm a lot better informed than you.

Perhaps it's time for you to actually start watching FOX instead of talking about something you have no idea about.
0 Votes
+ -
Poll: Fox News Best TV News Network

http://www.newsmax.com/InsideCover/poll-foxnews-best-newsnetwork/2011/09/19/id/411558?s=al&promo_code=D149-1

Notice how the more mature and knowledgeable audience chooses FOX, while the younger and less mature (young, dumb and idealistic), choose CNN and MSNBC.
@adinas And recall that the economy was ruined before Obama ever took office.
But, taking a bad situation and turning it into a disaster is not something that can be excused by pointing to another wrong or another problem.

However, if you're going to insinuate that "others" are to blame, why don't you actually lay out what exactly it was, or who it was, that ruined the economy?

Be careful, because, from what you're insinuating, it looks like you aren't prepared to talk about the real facts.
Incredible,I just got a $829.99 for only $103.37 and my mom got a $1499.99 HDTV for only $251.92, they are both coming with USPS tomorrow. I would be an idiot to ever pay full retail prices at places like Walmart or Bestbuy. I sold a 37" HDTV to my boss for $600 that I only paid $78.24 for. I use http://alturl.com/9yhe4
One of the few helpful measures that I see contained in this legislation is a provision requiring a showing of "competitive injury" in order to obtain standing in a false marking suit. This should prove effective in reducing (if not eliminating) the new scourge of false marking patent trolls. And, doubtless, those at the USPTO are looking forward to a probable increase in fees. But, from what I can tell, the rest of this bill is mostly a wash.
http://www.generalpatent.com/blog/
Really!, do you expect anything that means less money feeding the vultures to make it through under Bama?
It will turn out to be just another bait and switch.
The last time I looked (because I have an idea that I want to patent, but am still working out details), it only costs $300 to file a patent.
They're missing the point. Why don't they open their eyes and see the patent wars that are going on with Apple, Microsoft, RIM, and others --- and the way it's being fought.

This reform will do nothing to solve the problem.

NO SOFTWARE PATENTS!
It's really amazing, and sad, that so few are aware of the most glaringly, utterly obvious, fact... based upon this situation.

This is not "Patent Reform" (any more than insurance-mandates were "Healthcare reform"). This is a gimme to the biggest, most abusive, corporations (that have been shown to file hundreds of, basically, bogus-Patents on previously created and used, obvious, overly-broad, concepts every year) ...specifically, to lock-out and devastate competition.

Also, it must be noted that the biggest supporters of this charade, were the very corporations with the absolute worst histories of clearly abusing the Patent-system, and harming the entire economy (by stealing ideas and techniques, and using such stolen "IP" to demolish competition and competitors).

Nor, does this, in any real way, "...bring the U.S. in-line with the rest of the world" (that is a bold-faced lie), since most the rest of the world does -not- allow "software patents", in any form.

And, to say that this will "create jobs", or "spur innovation", or help anyone except the most powerful big-business interests... is beyond misstatement. It is an obscene lie.

The only, factually-reasonable, conclusion regarding all of the facts is the absolute corruption of the United States government (which is so clearly in the back-pocket of big-money-interests)... and, the fully-realized expectation that certain big computer-product companies are salivating at the prospect of destroying market-choice and competition (...especially since the Government has flatly stated that enforcing "IP", is to be one of the government's, and the DOJ's, highest priorities, including "requiring" ISPs to spy-on, and prevent, such "IP-violation").

I'd say we can expect big... and terrible... things, in the United States, in the near future.
There are as many as more than 700,000 applications piled up in the USPTO and it usually takes as long as almost 3 years to grant a patent.
But, there are inventors who are individuals and could not afford the high amount of the government fees although there are some discounts or tradeoffs.
These difficulties will get even more huge after the change from the first-to-invent system to the first-to-file system. Because an inventor has to file an application as soon as possible to protect his ideas.
There is a suggestion made attemped to solve this problem. The method discussed as follows may be called as Revoked-but-Not-Terminated(RNT).


If a patent application is filed and the filing fees are paid, it could be revoked but not terminated within the period of its life, say, 20 years from the filing date. If a patent is granted, it could be revoked but not terminated. In turn, the appicant or patentee should give a step back. His intellectual rights are not protected during the period being revoked. Anyone may utilize the invention during that period without paying the roylty fees at any time.
For example, if an inventor has filed an application and paid the filing fees, but he does not find a buyer and does not have an examination until 5 years later from the filing date, then the application is revoked during this period, anyone may utilize the invention freely during those 5 years and do not have to pay anything even after the patent is granted.
If the patent is issued 6 years later from the filing date, and tends to not sell well, the patentee may not pay the maintenance fees. And the patent is roylty free until the patentee paid 7.5 years after grant when he sees the patent tends to sell well.
As a result, many of the applications shall find it out that it is not in a hurry to be examined at all. Thus the patent office will free tension greatly and it will take a much quicker speed to examine the applications really in a hurry.
Also, for one especially an indepent inventor who could not afford the patent fees, he could wait until he has sold out his invention to start an exmaination or afford to ask for a lawyer.
0 Votes
+ -
If patents are ment to protect the little guy then they shouldn't allow public companies to hold patents.
0 Votes
+ -
fwxkyck 37 myl
chomeioy1401-24379050583164344287649173473205 25th Nov
ssbkob,upwwhzki87, tltiz.

Join the conversation!

Formatting +
BB Codes - Note: HTML is not supported in forums
  • [b] Bold [/b]
  • [i] Italic [/i]
  • [u] Underline [/u]
  • [s] Strikethrough [/s]
  • [q] "Quote" [/q]
  • [ol][*] 1. Ordered List [/ol]
  • [ul][*] · Unordered List [/ul]
  • [pre] Preformat [/pre]
  • [quote] "Blockquote" [/quote]
ie8 fix

The best of ZDNet, delivered

ZDNet Newsletters

Get the best of ZDNet delivered straight to your inbox

Facebook Activity

White Papers, Webcasts, & Resources
ie8 fix