`EXHIBIT 2010
`
`EXHIBIT 2010
`
`

`

`September 19, 2013
`
`The Honorable Bob Goodlatte
`The Honorable Patrick Leahy
`Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary
`Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary
`United States House of Representatives
`United States Senate
`Washington, D.C. 20515
`Washington, D.C. 20510
`The Honorable John Conyers, Jr.
`The Honorable Chuck Grassley
`Ranking Member, Committee on the Judiciary Ranking Member, Committee on the Judiciary
`United States Senate
`United States House of Representatives
`Washington, D.C. 20510
`Washington, D.C. 20515
`
`Dear Chairmen Leahy and Goodlatte and Ranking Members Grassley and Conyers,
`
`On behalf of industry groups, professional organizations, and leading
`companies in America’s most innovative industries, including technology, communications,
`manufacturing, consumer products, energy, financial services, medical devices, software,
`pharmaceuticals, and biotechnology, we are writing to express our opposition to recent
`legislative proposals expanding the America Invents Act’s “covered business method patent”
`program. These proposals could harm U.S. innovators – a driving force of economic growth
`and job creation in this country – by unnecessarily undermining the rights of patent holders.
`
`Under Section 18 of the America Invents Act (“AIA”), transitional post-grant
`review proceedings for “covered business method patents” (CBM program) allow the USPTO
`to take a second look at a patent after that patent’s grant or reissuance, in order to determine
`its validity. A “covered business method patent” is a business method patent that relates to a
`“financial product or service.” Unlike regular post-grant review proceedings, which require
`that a proceeding must be requested no later than nine months from a patent’s grant date or
`reissuance date, a request for a “covered business method patent” proceeding can be made
`at any time until September 16, 2020 – the date the transitional program is scheduled to
`sunset.
`
`During congressional consideration of the AIA, proponents of Section 18 argued
`that it was a necessary and temporary measure to review a very narrow class of financial-
`services-related patents. However, recently-introduced legislation proposes to make the
`transitional proceedings of Section 18 permanent and expand the definition of “covered
`business method patent” to include data processing patents used in any “enterprise, product,
`or service.” This means that any party sued for or charged with infringement can always
`challenge an extremely broad range of patents at the USPTO. The request for a proceeding
`need not be related to financial products or services and can be submitted any time over the
`life of the patent.
`
`This would have far-reaching implications, because data processing is integral
`to everything from cutting-edge cancer therapies to safety systems that allow cars to respond
`to road conditions in real time to prevent crashes. Subjecting data processing patents to the
`CBM program would thus create uncertainty and risk that discourage investment in any
`number of fields where we should be trying to spur continued innovation.
`
`

`

`September 19, 2013
`Page 2
`
`The US patent system for more than 200 years has succeeded spectacularly in
`promoting “the progress of science and useful arts,” as the Founders intended, in part
`because it has always provided the same incentives for all types of inventions. To expand
`and make permanent the CBM program would be to turn ill-advisedly and irrevocably in a
`new direction — discriminating against an entire class of technology innovation.
`
`Moreover, expanding the CBM program could inadvertently undermine many
`valid patents by giving infringers a new procedural loophole to delay enforcement. Because
`of the way Section 18 works, infringers would be able to delay legitimate lawsuits they face in
`district court by initiating CBM proceedings at the PTO. This would buy time to gain market
`share on innovative, patent-holding competitors.
`
`Expanding Section 18 will not only stymie innovation at home, but it could also
`impact the relationship of the United States with its trading partners. We have already
`received questions from our colleagues abroad regarding how this expansion could be
`justified as compatible with the obligation of the United States under the Agreement on
`Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights to make patents “available and patent
`rights enjoyable without discrimination as to . . . the field of technology.” Apart from this
`question, however, it is clear that if this discriminatory treatment of a select category of
`patents opposed by special interests in the United States were to be made a permanent
`feature of U.S. law, it would create a harmful precedent for our trading partners to enact
`exceptions in their laws to protect special interests in their countries.
`
`As innovators, educators, developers and US employers, we hope Congress
`will set aside the ideas related to expanding the CBM program as it looks to further improve
`our patent system.
`
`We look forward to working with you to achieve those goals.
`
`Sincerely,
`
`3M
`ActiveVideo Networks, Inc.
`Adobe Systems
`Advanced Technology Ventures
`Allison Transmission, Inc.
`Architecture Technology Corporation
`Beckman Coulter, Inc.
`BGC Partners, Inc.
`Bi-Level Technologies
`Biotechnology Industry Organization
`Boston Scientific
`Brash Insight Corp.
`BSA - The Software Alliance
`
`

`

`September 19, 2013
`Page 3
`
`Cabochon, Inc.
`California Healthcare Institute (CHI)
`Cantor Fitzgerald L.P.
`Caterpillar, Inc.
`Ciencia, Inc.
`Cleveland Medical Devices Inc.
`Colorado Technology Consultants
`CONNECT
`Cotera Inc.
`The Cummins Allison Corporation
`Dolby Laboratories
`Domain Associates
`Donohue Consulting, Inc.
`The Dow Chemical Company
`DR Systems, Inc.
`DuPont
`Eatoni Ergonomics, Inc.
`Eli Lilly & Company
`Embedded Systems LLC
`Entrepreneurs for Growth
`Entropic Communications, Inc.
`ExploraMed Development, LLC
`Fairchild Semiconductor
`Fairfield Crystal Technology
`Fallbrook Technologies Inc.
`Flocel Inc.
`Forsight Labs
`ForSight VISION4, Inc.
`Foundry Newco XII, Inc. (d/b/a Twelve)
`Freescale Semiconductor
`GearMax USA Ltd.
`General Electric
`General Nanotechnology LLC
`Global Network Computers
`Great Lakes Neuro Technologies Inc.
`Holaira, Inc.
`IBM
`IEEE-USA
`Illinois Tool Works Inc.
`Innovation Alliance
`Inogen, Inc.
`Insight Legal
`Interknowlogy
`Inventors Network of the Capital Area
`IP Advocate
`IP Pipeline Consulting, LLC
`Irwin Research & Development, Inc.
`
`

`

`September 19, 2013
`Page 4
`
`Johnson & Johnson
`Karbonique, Inc.
`KeepSight LLC
`Kovogen, LLC
`Lauder Partners, LLC
`Licensing Executives Society (USA & Canada), Inc.
`Lightstone Ventures
`MediaFriends, Inc.
`Medical Device Manufacturers Association
`MH Systems, Inc.
`Micron Technologies
`Microsoft
`Miramar Labs, Inc.
`Morgenthaler Ventures-Life Sciences
`National Association of Manufacturers (NAM)
`Neodyne Biosciences, Inc.
`NeoTract, Inc.
`NeuroPace, Inc.
`NeuroWave Systems Inc.
`Nevro Corp.
`NuGEN Technologies, Inc.
`NuVasive, Inc.
`OL2, Inc. (OnLive)
`Orbital Research Inc.
`Patent Office Professional Association
`Power Auctions LLC
`Precision Combustion
`PreEmptive Solutions
`Procter & Gamble
`Prometheus Research, LLC
`Qualcomm
`Rearden Companies, LLC
`Restoration Robotics, Inc.
`Sapheon, Inc.
`Software Partners LLC
`Soleon Robotics LLC
`Tessera
`The Foundry LLC
`TM Technologies, Inc.
`Trading Technologies
`U.S. Business and Industry Council
`Vibrynt, Inc.
`Xerox Corporation
`
`Cc: Members of the Senate Committee on the Judiciary
`Members of the House Committee on the Judiciary
`
`