Bipartisan sense on patent office bias
By James Edwards
The Patent and Trademark Office the federal agency charged with securing certain intellectual property, has become an enemy of America’s inventors.
How is it that an office charged with protecting innovation is subverting it?
In 2011, Congress passed the America Invents Act. This law included a number of provisions harmful to intellectual property rights.
Perhaps the worst was the establishment of new administrative procedures for challenging a patent’s validity. The abuse of this system has reached epidemic proportions. It’s time for Congress to restore integrity to the patent system.
The new administrative process for challenges to existing patents, known as inter partes review, centers on a review by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, or PTAB, which proponents sold as a faster, cheaper alternative than taking patent challenges to court. The trouble is that PTAB proceedings are wildly unbalanced in favor of patent challengers.
Federal court procedures provide a balanced, fair process and operate on a presumption that the patent, having been duly granted after review by the Patent and Trademark Office, is valid. Yet the inter partes review procedures at PTAB, as one commenter put it, “are plagued by what in any other forum would be considered to be ‘procedural irregularity.'”
First, anybody may file a PTAB challenge. This has enabled speculators, such as hedge funds with no interest in the patent or invention, to short the stock of a patent owner, then file for review simply to make a profit on the devalued stock.
Second, the PTAB sets a low standard of proof, so petitioners can easily wipe out property rights. This differs from the tougher standards in federal courts.
Finally, there’s no protection of a challenged patent from “double jeopardy.” At the PTAB, a patent may be challenged again and again. Thus, a patent owner may face a never-ending battle.
The same patent can face a challenge in both the PTAB and federal district court. A federal court’s decision to uphold a patent doesn’t preclude the PTAB from instituting a proceeding on the same patent — or even from overruling the court.
Should the patent owner prevail, the victory consists entirely of the right to keep the patent — no damages or expenses. Only now, precious time has been lost on the patent term.
What has the PTAB regime led to, besides a clear and present danger to secure private property rights? More than one in three patents hauled into inter partes review has faced more than one request for review. Companies whose business centers on intellectual property frequently find themselves facing one or several inter partes review actions each time they seek to defend their patent rights.
The inter partes review process invalidates an incredible 76 percent of the patent claims challenged. In contrast, district courts toss out 30 percent of challenged claims. Such uncertainty has devalued patents by two-thirds since the America Invents Act became law.
Thankfully, bipartisan legislation would address many of the excesses of the PTAB regime. The STRONGER Patents Act brings the balance and fairness of the federal courts to administrative challenges to patents.
Nobody but lawyers likes expensive litigation. But if something entails high stakes — for example, billions of research and development dollars, years of trial and error, and the potential revocation of someone’s property rights — the proceedings making the determination between disputing parties must be fair. As it currently operates, the PTAB isn’t.
James Edwards is executive director of Conservatives for Property Rights and advises Eagle Forum Education and Legal Defense Fund on patent issues.
The viewpoints expressed above do not necessarily reflect those of The Independent.
Articles related to “Bipartisan sense on patent office bias”
Congress must protect vital drug patents from Wall Street’s inter partes review attacks
Utah lawmakers employ new tactic to wrest control of Escalante National Monument
Get this: You are protected by the First Amendment, not from it
How to submit an article, guest opinion piece, or letter to the editor to The Independent
Do you have something to say? Want your voice to be heard by thousands of readers? Send The Independent your letter to the editor or guest opinion piece. All submissions will be considered for publication by our editorial staff. If your letter or editorial is accepted, it will run on suindependent.com, and we’ll promote it through all of our social media channels. We may even decide to include it in our monthly print edition. Just follow our simple submission guidelines and make your voice heard:
—Submissions should be between 300 and 1,500 words.
—Submissions must be sent to editor@infowest.com as a .doc, .docx, .txt, or .rtf file.
—The subject line of the email containing your submission should read “Letter to the editor.”
—Attach your name to both the email and the document file (we don’t run anonymous letters).
—If you have a photo or image you’d like us to use and it’s in .jpg format, at least 1200 X 754 pixels large, and your intellectual property (you own the copyright), feel free to attach it as well, though we reserve the right to choose a different image.
—If you are on Twitter and would like a shout-out when your piece or letter is published, include that in your correspondence and we’ll give you a mention at the time of publication.
