1,181
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
==Why it Hasn't been passed==
The House Innovation Act and Senate Patent Act are very similar; both acts address abusive litigation through “increased transparency, more limited discovery, heightened pleading standards, and ‘loser pays’ fee shifting”. However, there has been a delay in the passing of the bills because of controversy surrounding the shifting of attorney fees. Fee shifting was originally suggested as a way to incentivize small firms and businesses that were being unfairly accused of patent infringement to bring the case to court, so that they would not have to pay their attorney fees. However, there have been arguments stating that fee shifting would actually increase the settlement rate of small businesses being accused of patent infringement, because they don’t want to take the risk of losing and paying for the winner’s attorneys’ fees, in addition to their own. [http://www.bna.com/debate-patent-reform-n17179934625/ (Bloomberg BNA)]
Issues/cricism of the innovation act [http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2015/05/20/study-should-pause-patent-reform/id=57946/]:
*Apparent automatic fee-shifting in lawsuits
*Heightened pleading standard
*Discovery stay
*Broad ‘customer stay’ provision could shield retailers/importers from infringement claims
*Pierce corporate veil with “ownership transparency”
Indirect infringement:
*Someone who has contributed to the infringement of a patent is liable
*Can only arise when the indirect infringer has some knowledge and intent regarding the patent and infringement
*ex. someone who actively induces infringement of patent by encouraging, aiding, or causing another person to infringe a patent. Inducer must be aware of patent and intend for their actions to result in third party infringing that patent
*Contributory infringement: seller provides part of component that itself does not infringe on a patent, but has a particular use as a part of some other machine that is covered by a patent
→Why it Hasn't been passed
In addition to reducing costs and curbing patent troll abuses, the act requires the USPTO to create and distribute educational materials for small businesses involved in aggressive patent litigation. Working outreach programs would be modified to include information on patent litigation practices that are threatening to the success of small businesses. This information would also be disseminated through the Small Business Administration and the Minority Business Development Agency. The act directs the USPTO to have public records online about when a patent claim is brought to court along with other specifics regarding the patent's ownership to increase transparency. <ref name="govtracksummary" />
==References==
