Here we go again: 5 key questions for patent reform in 2015

7 Comments

Will the third time be the charm? In the last five years, Congress has twice tried to fix the country’s dysfunctional patent laws only to see those efforts founder at the hands of shrewd lobbying by reform opponents.

Now, lawmakers are at it again, vowing to cut down the patent trolls who have made a mockery of a system that is supposed to promote innovation by instead turning it into a tool for economic extortion. Here’s a short look at the story so far, plus five factors that will determine if this year’s patent reform effort will fare any better than 2011 and 2014 — and a prediction of how it will all turn out.

A short, unhappy history of patent reform

Patents became a major problem in the early 2000s with the rise of so-called patent trolls, which are companies that don’t make tech products or provide services, but instead acquire old intellectual property and threaten expensive lawsuits against those that do.

The trolls (who prefer to call themselves “non-practicing entities,” or NPEs) soon grew rich by exploiting an economic asymmetry in federal law that makes it relatively cheap and risk-free to file a patent lawsuit but ruinously expensive to defend one. As a result, many companies have chosen to simply hold their nose and pay the trolls — those who didn’t often landed in the patent swamps of East Texas, where lawyers and plaintiff-friendly juries have built a cottage industry based around multimillion dollar verdicts. The trolls’ recent scalps in Texas include Google, which faces an $85 million jury award over push notifications on smartphones, and comedian Adam Carolla, who was browbeat into a settlement by a troll that claims to own podcasting.

The growing economic toll of the trolls, which came to target everyone from big tech companies to small coffee shops, eventually led to calls for Congress to pass laws to stop them. Proposed remedies included fee-shifting, which would undercut the economic imbalance that makes trolling so lucrative, and the creation of expedited review procedures to challenge the validity of so-called “business method” patents, which the Patent Office began issuing by the thousands after 1998, and which can grant 20-year monopolies on basic business practices.

While Congress did pass a reform law in 2011 known as the America Invents Act, it had virtually no effect since lobbyists for patent owners had gutted almost every key provision by the time President Obama signed it into law. Indeed, after 2011, the scale of patent trolling actually increased to the point where it became a source of national notoriety through mainstream media exposes, including a landmark radio documentary titled “When Patents Attack.”

As a result, Congress tried again in 2014 and came close to achieving meaningful reform with a proposed law called the Innovation Act, which passed the House of Representatives by a large margin, and which enjoyed bipartisan support from influential Senators like John Cornyn (R-Tx) and Chuck Schumer (D-NY), as well as President Obama. The law foundered last spring, however, when Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt) abruptly cancelled a key vote. Leahy never offered an explanation for his decision to pull the plug, though it’s rumored he did so in order to win favor from trial lawyers and other key Democratic constituencies ahead of last year’s mid-term elections.

Now, patent reform is brewing in Congress for a third time. Last week, an unusually broad coalition of tech companies and main street retailers announced a campaign to “take back our system from trolls,” and the wind appears to be in their sails thanks to support from the Republican-controlled Congress and the White House.

While a proposed bill is expected to arrive next month, skeptics who have seen this movie before may wonder if patent reform will go 0-for-3 — either by failing to pass, or suffering an Innovation Act-style gutting. It’s too soon to know, but here is what will determine the answer:

5 questions that will make or break patent reform in 2015

1. Will there be one reform bill — or more?

Despite bipartisan support for “patent reform,” lawmakers in 2014 offered up a potpourri of different bills that drew supporters in different directions.  This played into the hands of patent trolls, who were able to claim the mantle of “reform” for themselves by supporting the weaker legislation, which offered only cosmetic changes and none of the measures (like fee-shifting or discovery reform) that would threaten their operations.

2. Will tech and retail stick together?

On previous occasions, opponents have been able to portray patent reform as a pet project of Silicon Valley, and suggest reformers were no more than slick tech villains looking to ride roughshod over inventors.

Now, as patent trolls present a growing burden to the likes of restaurants and retailers, companies like Macy’s and JC Penney are standing side by side with big tech names like Google, Adobe and Oracle. According to a person close to the campaign, the tech and retail companies have agreed to an all-or-nothing approach, and committed to seven core reform principles as a condition of membership. But it remains to be seen if this will hold up once the lobbying dollars start flying around.

3. Will anyone fall for the “good trolls” versus “bad trolls” distinction?

In recent months, the strategy of big players in the patent troll space has become clear: head off reform by drawing a distinction between themselves and the small-time shakedown players who have been targeting mom-and-pop coffee shops. In the case of Intellectual Ventures, which is the largest and most famous NPE/patent troll, the company has been scrambling to create associations with startups and charities in an effort to downplay its core business.

Likewise, in an interview late last year, the CEO of Finjan Holdings — which looks, walks and talks like a patent troll — assured me that his company was not a patent troll, but that its reputation has been harmed as a result of people associating it with “bad actors.” Whether lawmakers will appreciate this distinction, or if they will continue to swallow the trolls’ “be careful not to harm innovation” shtick, is an open question.

4. Will Apple step up?

While tech companies like Google and Rackspace have been at the forefront of patent reform, Apple has been less vocal — even as it has groused about being the very favorite target of trolls. So far its name is not among the other tech giants, including Facebook and Amazon, who are anchoring the new “United for Patent Reform” coalition.

If Apple goes all-in pushing for reform, the iPhone maker’s powerful reputation among inventors and consumers could persuade any wavering lawmakers to drive a fatal stake into the patent trolls.

5. Will pharma stay on the sidelines?

In the past, the pharmaceutical industry has been one of the most powerful opponents to patent reform on the grounds that it could weaken incentives to develop new drugs. This has been a sticking point for reform because the justification for patents in pharma, where innovation is slow and incredibly expensive, is much different than in tech where innovations are often obsolete in a year or two.

This time, however, the source familiar with the patent coalition said that the pharma industry may stay out of the legislative debate — so long as the drug companies feel comfortable the measures are aimed at patent trolls and not pills.

Is reform for real? Handicapping the 2015 outcome

Patent reform proponents are optimistic 2015 is their year. Of course, this was also the case last year when the Innovation Act was one of the few pieces of bipartisan legislation that people predicted could pass in a dysfunctional Congress.

The difference this time, however, is it will be harder other Senate Democrats to throw wrenches in the process.

But the best indication that this really could be the year for genuine patent reform may come from Erich Spangengberg, a notorious patent troll, who boasted to the New York Times in 2013 about how he likes to “go thug” on those who resist his licensing demands.

Early this year, Spangenberg blogged that 2015 would be the worst year yet for his much-maligned industry. Many companies and consumers, who pay higher prices due the trolls, no doubt hope he’s right. My own prediction is that Congress will pass some sort of reform, but that real reform — which must include fee-shifting and the end of discovery abuse — is still a crapshoot.

7 Comments

hrearden360

What an irresponsible piece of journalism. Mr. Roberts may be a lawyer, but he clearly lacks a detailed understanding of patents and the need for a strong patent system that rewards all inventors. Rather than perform a balanced analysis, Mr. Roberts simply regurgitates the standard “stop trolls” mantra.

“[C]ontinue to swallow the trolls’ “be careful not to harm innovation” shtick”? C’mon Mr. Roberts — as another reader inquired below, are you paid by Cisco or Google to write this rubbish?

Many of the proposed reform measures will be detrimental to small businesses and individual inventors who lack the resources to challenge corporate “giants.” These entities (along with Mr. Roberts) label such small businesses and inventors as “trolls” simply because they choose to enforce their patents. The patent system should not be a system only for multi-billion dollar corporations. It’s discouraging that so many of these companies have been able to convince so many that any “small guy” enforcing a patent is a troll.

Jeff John Roberts

Thanks for the comment but don’t you find it funny how many of these “small inventors” can fund Washington PR people who spout rhetoric like what we see in the comments below ;)

And you’re welcome to disagree with my views on the patent system, but please don’t impugn my understanding of it! It’s a topic with which I’m deeply familiar as a law clerk, researcher, lawyer and journalist. I’m also wary of those who think that Federal Circuit types (and patent troll lawyers) should have the final say in how to set it up

hrearden360

“[F]und Washington PR people who spout rhetoric”? That’s really funny, Mr. Roberts. Is that what you’d call the massive lobbying effort that is under way (by Google, Cisco, etc.) to convince our lawmakers that patent enforcement by an inventor/small business is “troll” behavior?

Apologies for impugning your understanding of patent law, however, I’m very wary of anyone whose credentials don’t include “patent lawyer” that so loosely use the phrase “troll.” Although you have experience as “a law clerk, researcher, lawyer and journalist,” I take it you have little if any experience working closely with (e.g., prosecuting patent applications on behalf of) inventors/small businesses who have invested significant resources developing an invention, only to see that very same invention used by multi-billion dollar corporations. When such inventors/small businesses then choose to enforce their patents, these same corporations conveniently label them as “trolls.” Again, our patent system (including enforcement of patents) should not exist solely for multi-billion dollar corporations.

Gary Lauder

This article, like most on the subject, lacks balance. For example, it omits the fact that troll lawsuits have declined dramatically after last year’s supreme court rulings: http://www.iam-magazine.com/blog/Detail.aspx?g=2ed
and therefore many anti-patent companies are banding together to neuter the patent system before people wake up to the fact that the troll problem is rapidly diminishing. For a balanced perspective from a retired judge, see this:
http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2015/01/06/a-sensible-re
Another thoughtful piece:
http://www.patentdocs.org/2014/12/more-misinformat
The very premise that the troll problem is as bad as characterized here (and most places) was implicitly called into question in 2013 by the GAO. See: http://www.managingip.com/Blog/3247850/Patent-trolls-and-barking-dogs.html
It’s a shame that so few are aware of the intentional misinformation being put out there to push this legislation through. It is enlightening to study patent systems around the world to see which are actually working for entrepreneurs (hint: only the USA). The changes that are afoot would adversely affect entrepreneurs.
Eventually, we will all be with a loved one who is dying and we will wish that someone had invented a cure. The contemplated legislation will make it harder for innovators to get the funding they need to develop the inventions we will all wish had existed.
http://www.chi.org/uploadedFiles/CHI%20Patent%20La…

More on the topic:
http://www.iam-magazine.com/blog/Detail.aspx?g=1909647c-29dd-4b3b-b0a8-4f09eec42bec
And from the far-right:
http://humanevents.com/2014/10/22/depriving-property-rights-is-patently-offensive/

Adel

Here we go again. For years the small inventor has been victimized by unscrupulous large entities stealing inventions telling the inventor to go sue in court. Patent litigation has been called the last sport of kings since only kings can afford the cost to complete the case. Most inventors give up in frustration. Some inventors have partnered with entities having the resources to successfully litigate infringement n court.

The large entities call these partners “trolls” and now try to limit the inventors from enforcement of their patent rights. preventing smaller entities from having resources to enforce their rights will only allow the large entities to have patent rights.

Matt

Jeff – seriously, are you on Google’s payroll? This whole article is so one-sided to be laughable. Why are you not including in this article provisions that are already in effect, and working, from both the AIA and Alice supreme court decision? Why not also include that patent lawsuits are actually DOWN over the last 2 years and not up? I guess you also feel it’s not appropriate to mention that judges are now using more latitude to employ loser pays for ridiculous lawsuits?

The problem with the Innovation Act and upcoming potential patent reform are that many of these provisions target erosion of small business/startups patent rights and not just ‘patent trolls’. Larger tech companies have no problem throwing out the ‘baby with the bathwater’ to keep their place at the top and I think it’s irresponsible on your end that you continually present false facts as basis for your view on patents. Is it too much to ask GigaOm to provide balanced reporting on this issue? Or is that something Google won’t allow you to do?

Matt

Comments are closed.