112TH CONGRESS
`1st Session
`
`"
`
`HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
`
`!
`
`REPT. 112–98
`Part 1
`
`AMERICA INVENTS ACT
`
`JUNE 1, 2011.—Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the State of
`the Union and ordered to be printed
`
`Mr. SMITH of Texas, from the Committee on the Judiciary,
`submitted the following
`
`R E P O R T
`
`together with
`
`DISSENTING VIEWS AND ADDITIONAL VIEWS
`
`[To accompany H.R. 1249]
`
`[Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]
`The Committee on the Judiciary, to whom was referred the bill
`(H.R. 1249) to amend title 35, United States Code, to provide for
`patent reform, having considered the same, reports favorably there-
`on with an amendment and recommends that the bill as amended
`do pass.
`
`CONTENTS
`
`Page
`1
`......................................................................................................
`The Amendment
`38
`Purpose and Summary ............................................................................................
`40
`Background and Need for the Legislation .............................................................
`57
`Hearings ...................................................................................................................
`58
`Committee Consideration ........................................................................................
`58
`Committee Votes ......................................................................................................
`63
`Committee Oversight Findings ...............................................................................
`63
`New Budget Authority and Tax Expenditures ......................................................
`63
`Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate ..........................................................
`73
`Performance Goals and Objectives .........................................................................
`73
`Advisory on Earmarks .............................................................................................
`73
`Section-by-Section Analysis
`....................................................................................
`85
`Agency Views ...........................................................................................................
`89
`Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, as Reported .....................................
`Dissenting Views
`..................................................................................................... 162
`Additional Views ...................................................................................................... 163
`
`99–006
`
`VerDate Mar 15 2010 23:58 Jun 01, 2011 Jkt 099006 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6646 E:\HR\OC\HR098P1.XXX HR098P1
`
`jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with REPORTS
`
`Philips Exhibit 2024
`Zoll Lifecor v. Philips
`IPR2013-00609
`
`Page 1 of 21
`
`

`

`38
`
`SEC. 28. STUDY ON IMPLEMENTATION.
`(a) PTO STUDY.—The Director shall conduct a study on the manner in which
`this Act and the amendments made by this Act are being implemented by the Of-
`fice, and on such other aspects of the patent policies and practices of the Federal
`Government with respect to patent rights, innovation in the United States, competi-
`tiveness of United States markets, access by small businesses to capital for invest-
`ment, and such other issues, as the Director considers appropriate.
`(b) REPORT TO CONGRESS.—The Director shall, not later than the date that is
`4 years after the date of the enactment of this Act, submit to the Committees on
`the Judiciary of the House of Representatives and the Senate a report on the results
`of the study conducted under subsection (a), including recommendations for any
`changes to laws and regulations that the Director considers appropriate.
`SEC. 29. PRO BONO PROGRAM.
`(a) IN GENERAL.—The Director shall work with and support intellectual prop-
`erty law associations across the country in the establishment of pro bono programs
`designed to assist financially under-resourced independent inventors and small busi-
`nesses.
`(b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—This section shall take effect on the date of the enact-
`ment of this Act.
`SEC. 30. EFFECTIVE DATE.
`Except as otherwise provided in this Act, the provisions of this Act shall take
`effect upon the expiration of the 1-year period beginning on the date of the enact-
`ment of this Act and shall apply to any patent issued on or after that effective date.
`SEC. 31. BUDGETARY EFFECTS.
`The budgetary effects of this Act, for the purpose of complying with the Statu-
`tory Pay-As-You-Go Act of 2010, shall be determined by reference to the latest state-
`ment titled ‘‘Budgetary Effects of PAYGO Legislation’’ for this Act, submitted for
`printing in the Congressional Record by the Chairman of the House Budget Com-
`mittee, provided that such statement has been submitted prior to the vote on pas-
`sage.
`
`Purpose and Summary
`The Constitution explicitly grants Congress the power to ‘‘pro-
`mote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited
`times to . . . inventors the exclusive right to their respective .
`.
`.
`discoveries.’’ 1 Congress has responded by authorizing patents to
`issue to inventors of new and useful inventions or improvements on
`inventions.2 The patent law thus accomplishes two objectives, con-
`sistent with the authorization granted by the Constitution: first, it
`encourages inventors by granting them limited, but exclusive rights
`to their inventions; second, in exchange for the grant of those ex-
`clusive rights, the patent law requires disclosure of the invention
`and terminates the monopoly after a period of years.3 This disclo-
`sure and limited time benefits both society and future inventors by
`making the details of the invention available to the public imme-
`diately, and the right to make use of that invention after the expi-
`ration of 20 years from the date the patent application was filed.
`Congress has not enacted comprehensive patent law reform in
`nearly 60 years.4 The object of the patent law today must remain
`true to the constitutional command, but its form needs to change,
`both to correct flaws in the system that have become unbearable,
`and to accommodate changes in the economy and the litigation
`
`1 U.S. Const. Art. 1, § 8.
`2 See 35 U.S.C. § 101.
`3 See Perspectives on Patents: Post-Grant Review Procedures and Other Litigation Reforms:
`Hearing before the Subcomm. on Intellectual Prop. of the Senate Comm. on the Judiciary, 109th
`Cong. (2006) (statement of Nathan P. Myhrvold, Chief Executive Officer, Intellectual Ventures);
`Perspectives on Patents: Hearing before the Subcomm. on Intellectual Prop. of the Senate Comm.
`on the Judiciary, 109th Cong. (2005) (statement of Dean Kamen, President, DEKA Research and
`Development Corp.).
`4 The last major revision of the patent laws was the Patent Act of 1952, P.L. 82–593.
`
`VerDate Mar 15 2010 23:58 Jun 01, 2011 Jkt 099006 PO 00000 Frm 00038 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\HR098P1.XXX HR098P1
`
`jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with REPORTS
`
`Page 2 of 21
`
`

`

`39
`
`practices in the patent realm. The need to update our patent laws
`has been meticulously documented in 15 hearings before the Com-
`mittee or its Subcommittee on Courts, the Internet, and Intellec-
`tual Property, as well as eight hearings before the United States
`Senate Committee on the Judiciary. In addition, these legislative
`findings are augmented by the Federal Trade Commission and the
`National Academy of Sciences,5 both of which published authori-
`tative reports on patent reform, and a plethora of academic com-
`mentary.6
`While Congress has considered patent reform legislation over the
`last four Congresses, the need to modernize our patent laws has
`found expression in the courts, as well. The Supreme Court has re-
`versed the Federal Circuit in six of the patent-related cases that
`it has heard since the beginning of the 109th Congress.7 The
`Court’s decisions have moved in the direction of improving patent
`quality and making the determination of patent validity more effi-
`cient. The decisions reflect a growing sense that questionable pat-
`ents are too easily obtained and are too difficult to challenge.8 Re-
`cent decisions by the Federal Circuit reflect a similar trend in re-
`sponse to these concerns.9 But the courts are constrained in their
`decisions by the text of the statutes at issue. It is time for Congress
`to act.
`The voices heard during the debate over changes to the patent
`law have been diverse and their proposals have been far from uni-
`form. They have focused the Committee’s attention on the value of
`harmonizing our system for granting patents with the best parts of
`other major patent systems throughout the industrialized world for
`the benefit of U.S. patent holders; improving patent quality and
`providing a more efficient system for challenging patents that
`
`5 The National Academy of Sciences (NAS), and the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) con-
`ducted multi-year studies on the patent system and its need for reform. See National Research
`Council of the National Academies, A Patent System for the 21st Century (2004) (hereinafter
`‘‘NAS Report’’); and Federal Trade Comm’n, To Promote Innovation: The Proper Balance of Com-
`petition and Patent Law and Policy (2003) (hereinafter ‘‘FTC Report’’).
`6 See, e.g., Mark A. Lemley and Carl Shapiro, Patent Holdup and Royalty Stacking, 85 Tex.
`L. Rev. 1991 (2007); Donald S. Chisum, Reforming Patent Law Reform, 4 J. Marshall Rev. Intell.
`Prop. L. 336 (2005); Gerald J. Mossinghoff, The First-to-Invent Rule in the U.S. Patent System
`has Provided no Advantage to Small Entities, 87 JPTOS 514 (2005); Joseph Farrell & Robert
`P. Merges, Incentives to Challenge and Defend Patents: Why Litigation Won’t Reliably Fix Patent
`Office Errors and Why Administrative Patent Review Might Help, 19 Berkeley Tech. L.J. 943,
`958 (2004); see also Adam B. Jaffe & Josh Lerner, Innovation and Its Discontents: How Our Bro-
`ken Patent System is Endangering Innovation and Progress, and What to Do About It (2004);
`Kevin G. Rivette & David Kline, Rembrandts in the Attic, Unlocking the Hidden Value of Pat-
`ents (2000).
`7 See Bilski v. Kappos,lll U.S. ll, 130 S.Ct. 3218 (2010) (reversing the Federal Circuit
`and holding that the machine-or-transformation test is not the sole test for determining the pat-
`ent eligibility of a process); Quanta Computer, Inc. v. LG Elecs. Inc., 553 U.S. 617 (2008) (revers-
`ing the Federal Circuit and holding that patent exhaustion applies to method patents when the
`essential or inventive feature of the invention is embodied in the product); Microsoft Corp. v.
`AT&T Corp., 550 U.S. 437 (2007) (reversing the Federal Circuit and limiting the extraterritorial
`reach of section 271(f), which imposes liability on a party which supplies from the U.S. compo-
`nents of a patented invention for combination outside the U.S.); KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc.,
`550 U.S. 398 (2007) (reversing the Federal Circuit and strengthening the standard for deter-
`mining when an invention is obvious under section 103); MedImmune, Inc. v. Genentech, Inc.,
`549 U.S. 118 (2007) (reversing the Federal Circuit and holding that the threat of a private en-
`forcement action is sufficient to confirm standing under the Constitution); eBay Inc. v.
`MercExchange, L.L.C., 547 U.S. 388 (2006) (reversing the Federal Circuit and holding that the
`generally applicable four-factor test for injunctive relief applies to disputes in patent cases).
`8 See generally Patent Reform in the 111th Congress: Legislation and Recent Court Decisions,
`Senate Judiciary Committee, 111th Cong. (2009) (statement of Professor Mark A. Lemley, Stan-
`ford Law School).
`9 See, e.g., In re Seagate Tech., LLC, 497 F.3d 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (holding that willful in-
`fringement requires at least a demonstration of objectively reckless behavior and removing any
`affirmative obligation to obtain an opinion of counsel letter to combat an allegation of willful
`infringement).
`
`VerDate Mar 15 2010 04:27 Jun 02, 2011 Jkt 099006 PO 00000 Frm 00039 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\HR098P1.XXX HR098P1
`
`jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with REPORTS
`
`Page 3 of 21
`
`

`

`40
`
`should not have issued; and reducing unwarranted litigation costs
`and inconsistent damage awards.
`The purpose of the ‘‘America Invents Act,’’ as reported by the
`Committee on the Judiciary, is to ensure that the patent system in
`the 21st century reflects the constitutional imperative. Congress
`must promote innovation by granting inventors temporally limited
`monopolies on their inventions in a manner that ultimately bene-
`fits the public through the disclosure of the invention to the public.
`The legislation is designed to establish a more efficient and stream-
`lined patent system that will improve patent quality and limit un-
`necessary and counterproductive litigation costs.
`If the United States is to maintain its competitive edge in the
`global economy, it needs a system that will support and reward all
`innovators with high quality patents. The Committee has taken
`testimony from and its members have held meetings with inter-
`ested parties that have different and often conflicting perspectives
`on the patent system. The Committee has taken all of those views
`into consideration, and drafted and then amended the ‘‘America In-
`vents Act’’ to balance the competing interests. The legislation or-
`dered reported by the Committee on a vote of 32–3 is a consensus
`approach that will modernize the United States patent system in
`significant respects.
`Background and Need for the Legislation
`First Inventor to File
`The ‘‘America Invents Act’’ creates a new ‘‘first-inventor-to-file’’
`system. Every industrialized nation other than the United States
`uses a patent priority system commonly referred to as ‘‘first-to-file.’’
`In a first-to-file system, when more than one application claiming
`the same invention is filed, the priority of a right to a patent is
`based on the earlier-filed application. The United States, by con-
`trast, currently uses a ‘‘first-to-invent’’ system, in which priority is
`established through a proceeding to determine which applicant ac-
`tually invented the claimed invention first. Differences between the
`two systems arise in large part from the date that is most relevant
`to each respective system. In a first-to-file system, the filing date
`of the application is most relevant;10 the filing date of an applica-
`tion is an objective date, simple to determine, for it is listed on the
`face of the patent. In contrast, in a first-to-invent system, the date
`the invention claimed in the application was actually invented is
`the determinative date. Unlike the objective date of filing, the date
`someone invents something is often uncertain, and, when disputed,
`typically requires corroborating evidence as part of an adjudication.
`There are significant, practical differences between the two sys-
`tems. Among them is the ease of determining the right to a claimed
`invention in the instance in which two different people file patent
`applications for the same invention. In a first-to-file system, the ap-
`plication with the earlier filing date prevails and will be awarded
`the patent, if one issues. In the first-to-invent system, a lengthy,
`complex and costly administrative proceeding (called an ‘‘inter-
`ference proceeding’’) must be conducted at the United States Patent
`and Trademark Office (‘‘USPTO’’) to determine who actually in-
`
`10 When the term ‘‘filing date’’ is used herein, it is also meant to include, when appropriate,
`the effective filing date, i.e., the earliest date the claim in an application-claims priority.
`
`VerDate Mar 15 2010 23:58 Jun 01, 2011 Jkt 099006 PO 00000 Frm 00040 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\HR098P1.XXX HR098P1
`
`jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with REPORTS
`
`Page 4 of 21
`
`

`

`41
`
`vented first.11 Interference proceedings can take years to complete
`(even if there is no appeal to the United States Court of Appeals
`for the Federal Circuit), cost hundreds of thousands of dollars, and
`require extensive discovery.12 In addition, because it is always pos-
`sible that an applicant could be involved in an interference pro-
`ceeding, companies must maintain extensive recording and docu-
`ment retention systems in case they are later required to prove the
`date they invented the claimed invention.
`Another important difference between the two systems is that in
`some first-to-file systems, prior art can include the inventor’s own
`disclosure of his invention prior to the filing date of his application.
`Such systems do not provide the inventor any grace period during
`which time he is allowed to publish his invention without fear of
`its later being used against him as prior art. The Committee heard
`from universities and small inventors, in particular, about the im-
`portance of maintaining that grace period in our system.13 They ar-
`gued that the grace period affords the necessary time to prepare
`and file applications, and in some instances, to obtain the nec-
`essary funding that enables the inventor to prepare adequately the
`application. In addition, the grace period benefits the public by en-
`couraging early disclosure of new inventions, regardless of whether
`an application may later be filed for a patent on it.
`Numerous organizations, institutions, and companies have advo-
`cated that the U.S. adopt a first-to-file system similar to those used
`in the rest of the world.14 The National Academy of Sciences made
`a similar recommendation after an extensive study of the patent
`system.15 When the United States patent system was first adopted,
`inventors did not typically file in other countries. It is now common
`for inventors and companies to file for protection in several coun-
`tries at the same time.16 Thus, United States applicants, who also
`
`11 See 35 U.S.C. § 135.
`12 See, e.g., Robert W. Pritchard, The Future is Now—The Case for Patent Harmonization, 20
`N.C. J. Int’l L. & Com. Reg. 291, 313 (1995).
`13 See, e.g., Perspectives on Patents: Harmonization and Other Matters: Hearing Before the
`Subcomm. on Intellectual Prop. of the Senate Comm. on the Judiciary, 109th Cong. (2005) (state-
`ment of Charles E. Phelps, Provost, University of Rochester, on behalf of the Association of
`American Universities); Patent Law Reform: Injunctions and Damages: Hearing Before the
`Subcomm. on Intellectual Prop. of the Senate Comm. on the Judiciary, 109th Cong. (2005) (state-
`ment of Carl Gulbrandsen, Managing Director, Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation
`(WARF)); Perspective on Patents: Hearing Before the Subcomm. on Intellectual Prop. of the Sen-
`ate Comm. on the Judiciary, 109th Cong. (2005) (statement of William Parker, Diffraction, Ltd.).
`14 See, e.g., Perspectives on Patents: Harmonization and Other Matters: Hearing Before the
`Subcomm. on Intellectual Prop. of the Senate Comm. on the Judiciary, 109th Cong. (2005) (state-
`ment of Gerald J. Mossinghoff, Former Assistant Secretary of Commerce and Commissioner of
`Patents and Trademarks); Perspectives on Patents: Harmonization and Other Matters: Hearing
`Before the Subcomm. on Intellectual Prop. of the Senate Comm. on the Judiciary, 109th Cong.
`(2005) (statement of Q. Todd Dickinson, Former Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual
`Property and Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office); Patent Law Reform:
`Injunctions and Damages: Hearing Before the Subcomm. on Intellectual Prop. of the Senate
`Comm. on the Judiciary, 109th Cong. (2005) (statement of Jeffrey P. Kushan, Partner, Sidley
`Austin Brown & Wood, LLP); Patent Law Reform: Injunctions and Damages: Hearing Before the
`Subcomm. on Intellectual Prop. of the Senate Comm. on the Judiciary, 109th Cong. (2005) (state-
`ment of Mark A. Lemley, Professor, Stanford Law School); Perspectives on Patents: Hearing Be-
`fore the Subcomm. on Intellectual Prop. of the Senate Comm. on the Judiciary, 109th Cong.
`(2005) (statement of Robert A. Armitage, Senior Vice President and General Patent Counsel, Eli
`Lilly and Company); Perspectives on Patents: Hearing Before the Subcomm. on Intellectual Prop.
`of the Senate Comm. on the Judiciary, 109th Cong. (2005) (statement of Michael K. Kirk, Execu-
`tive Director, American Intellectual Property Law Association).
`15 See NAS Report at 124; see also Perspectives on Patents: Hearing Before the Subcomm. on
`Intellectual Prop. of the Senate Comm. on the Judiciary, 109th Cong. (2005) (statement of Rich-
`ard C. Levin, Yale University).
`16 See Perspectives on Patents: Harmonization and Other Matters: Hearing Before the
`Subcomm. on Intellectual Prop. of the Senate Comm. on the Judiciary, 109th Cong. (2005) (state-
`Continued
`
`VerDate Mar 15 2010 23:58 Jun 01, 2011 Jkt 099006 PO 00000 Frm 00041 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\HR098P1.XXX HR098P1
`
`jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with REPORTS
`
`Page 5 of 21
`
`

`

`42
`
`want to file abroad, are forced to follow and comply with two dif-
`ferent filing systems. Maintaining a filing system so different from
`the rest of the world disadvantages United States applicants who,
`in most instances, also file in other countries.17 A change is long
`overdue.18
`Drawing on the best aspects of the two existing systems, the
`America Invents Act creates a new ‘‘first-inventor-to-file’’ system.
`This new system provides patent applicants in the United States
`the efficiency benefits of the first-to-file systems used in the rest
`of the world by moving the U.S. system much closer to a first-to-
`file system and making the filing date that which is most relevant
`in determining whether an application is patentable. The new sys-
`tem continues, however, to provide inventors the benefit of the 1-
`year grace period. As part of the transition to a simpler, more effi-
`cient first-inventor-to-file system, this provision eliminates costly,
`complex interference proceedings, because priority will be based on
`the first application. A new administrative proceeding—called a
`‘‘derivation’’ proceeding—is created to ensure that the first person
`to file the application is actually a true inventor. This new pro-
`ceeding will ensure that a person will not be able to obtain a pat-
`ent for the invention that he did not actually invent. If a dispute
`arises as to which of two applicants is a true inventor (as opposed
`to who invented it first), it will be resolved through an administra-
`tive proceeding by the Patent Board. The Act also simplifies how
`prior art is determined, provides more certainty, and reduces the
`cost associated with filing and litigating patents.
`The Act maintains a 1-year grace period for U.S. applicants. Ap-
`plicants’ own publication or disclosure that occurs within 1 year
`prior to filing will not act as prior art against their applications.
`Similarly, disclosure by others during that time based on informa-
`tion obtained (directly or indirectly) from the inventor will not con-
`stitute prior art. This 1-year grace period should continue to give
`U.S. applicants the time they need to prepare and file their appli-
`cations.
`This provision also, and necessarily, modifies the prior-art sec-
`tions of the patent law. Prior art will be measured from the filing
`date of the application and will typically include all art that pub-
`licly exists prior to the filing date, other than disclosures by the in-
`ventor within 1 year of filing. Prior art also will no longer have any
`geographic limitations. Thus, in section 102 the ‘‘in this country’’
`
`ment of Gerald J. Mossinghoff, Former Assistant Secretary of Commerce and Commissioner of
`Patents and Trademarks) .
`17 See Perspectives on Patents: Hearing Before the Subcomm. on Intellectual Prop. of the Senate
`Comm. on the Judiciary, 109th Cong. (2005) (statement of Richard C. Levin, President, Yale
`University, and Mark B. Meyers, Visiting Executive Professor, Management Department at the
`Wharton Business School, University of Pennsylvania), estimating that it costs as much as
`$750,000 to $1 million to obtain worldwide patent protection on an important invention, and
`the lack of harmonization regarding filing systems adds unnecessary cost and delay.
`18 The NAS recommended changing the U.S. to a first-to-file system, while maintaining a
`grace period. See NAS Report at 124–27. See also Patent Reform in the 111th Congress: Legisla-
`tion and Recent Court Decisions: Hearing Before the Senate Comm. on the Judiciary, 111th
`Cong. (2009) (statement of Steven Appleton, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, Micron
`Technologies, Inc.); Patent Reform in the 111th Congress: Legislation and Recent Court Deci-
`sions: Hearing Before the Senate Comm. on the Judiciary, 111th Cong. (2009) (statement of Phil-
`ip S. Johnson, Chief Patent Counsel, Johnson & Johnson); Patent Reform in the 111th Congress:
`Legislation and Recent Court Decisions: Hearing Before the Senate Comm. on the Judiciary,
`111th Cong. (2009) (statement of Herbert C. Wamsley, Executive Director, Intellectual Property
`Owners Association); Patent Reform in the 111th Congress: Legislation and Recent Court Deci-
`sions: Hearing Before the Senate Comm. on the Judiciary, 111th Cong. (2009) (statement of
`Mark A. Lemley, Professor, Stanford Law School).
`
`VerDate Mar 15 2010 23:58 Jun 01, 2011 Jkt 099006 PO 00000 Frm 00042 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\HR098P1.XXX HR098P1
`
`jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with REPORTS
`
`Page 6 of 21
`
`

`

`43
`
`limitation as applied to ‘‘public use’’ and ‘‘on sale’’ is removed, and
`the phrase ‘‘available to the public’’ is added to clarify the broad
`scope of relevant prior art, as well as to emphasize the fact that
`it must be publicly accessible. Prior art based on earlier-filed
`United States applications is maintained,19 as is current law’s
`grace period, which will apply to all actions by the patent owner
`during the year prior to filing that would otherwise create § 102(a)
`prior art.20 Sections (and subsections) of the existing statute are re-
`numbered, modified, or deleted consistent with converting to a
`first-inventor-to-file system.21 Finally, the intent behind the CRE-
`ATE Act to promote joint research activities is preserved by includ-
`ing a prior art exception for subject matter invented by parties to
`a joint research agreement. The Act also provides that its enact-
`ment of new section 102(c) of title 35 is done with the same intent
`to promote joint research activities that was expressed in the Coop-
`erative Research and Technology Enhancement Act of 2004 (Public
`Law 108–453), and that section 102(c) shall be administered in a
`manner consistent with such intent.
`Inventor’s oath or declaration
`The U.S. patent system, when first adopted in 1790, con-
`templated that individual inventors would file their own patent ap-
`plications, or would have a patent practitioner do so on their be-
`half. It has become increasingly common for patent applications to
`be assigned to corporate entities, most commonly the employer of
`the inventor.22 In fact, many employment contracts require employ-
`ees to assign their inventions to their employer.23
`Current law still reflects the antiquated notion that it is the in-
`ventor who files the application, not the company-assignee. For ex-
`ample, every inventor must sign an oath as part of the patent ap-
`plication stating that the inventor believes he or she is the true in-
`ventor of the invention claimed in the application.24 By the time an
`application is eventually filed, however, the applicant filing as an
`assignee may have difficulty locating and obtaining every inven-
`tor’s signature for the statutorily required oath. Although the
`USPTO has adopted certain regulations to allow filing of an appli-
`cation when the inventor’s signature is unobtainable,25 many have
`advocated that the statute be modernized to facilitate the filing of
`applications by assignees.26
`The Act updates the patent system by facilitating the process by
`which an assignee may file and prosecute patent applications. It
`
`19 Compare current § 102(e) with new § 102(a)(2).
`20 See generally 157 Cong. Rec. S.1496–97 (daily ed. March 9, 2011), S. 1370–71 (daily ed.
`March 8, 2011).
`21 The Committee does not intend a substantive change by replacing the word ‘‘negatived’’ in
`section 103 of title 35 with ‘‘negated.’’
`22 See John R. Allison & Mark A. Lemley, The Growing Complexity of the United States Patent
`System, 82 B.U. L. Rev. 77, 97 (2002) (study showing that approximately 85% of the patents
`issued between 1996–98 were assigned by inventors to corporations; an increase from 79% dur-
`ing the period between 1976–78).
`23 See Jerry C. Liu, Overview of Patent Ownership Considerations in Joint Technology Develop-
`ment, 2005 Syracuse Sci. & Tech. L. Rep. 1 (2005).
`24 35 U.S.C. § 115.
`25 See 37 C.F.R. § 1.47, which permits an applicant to petition the Director of the USPTO to
`have the application accepted without every inventor’s signature in limited circumstances, e.g.,
`when the inventor cannot be found or refuses to participate in the application.
`26 See Perspectives on Patents: Harmonization and Other Matters: Hearing Before the
`Subcomm. on Intellectual Prop. of the Senate Comm. on the Judiciary, 109th Cong. (2005) (state-
`ment of David Beier, Senior Vice President of Global Government Affairs, Amgen).
`
`VerDate Mar 15 2010 23:58 Jun 01, 2011 Jkt 099006 PO 00000 Frm 00043 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\HR098P1.XXX HR098P1
`
`jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with REPORTS
`
`Page 7 of 21
`
`

`

`44
`
`provides similar flexibility for a person to whom the inventor is ob-
`ligated to assign, but has not assigned, rights to the invention (the
`‘‘obligated assignee’’).
`Section 115 of title 35 is amended to allow a substitute statement
`to be submitted in lieu of an inventor’s oath when either the inven-
`tor (i) is unable to submit an oath, or (ii) is both unwilling to do
`so and under an obligation to assign the invention. If an error is
`discovered, the statement may later be corrected. A savings clause
`is included to prevent an invalidity or unenforceability challenge to
`the patent based on failure to comply with these requirements, pro-
`vided that any error has been remedied. Willful false statements
`remain punishable, however, under Federal criminal laws.27
`Section 118 of title 35 is also amended to make it easier for an
`assignee to file a patent application. The amendment now allows
`obligated assignees—entities to which the inventor is obligated to
`assign the application—to file applications, as well. It also allows
`a person who has a sufficient proprietary interest in the invention
`to file an application to preserve that person’s rights and those of
`the inventor.
`Defense to infringement based on earlier inventor
`Under current law, ‘‘prior user rights’’ may offer a defense to pat-
`ent infringement when the patent in question is a ‘‘business meth-
`od patent’’ 28 and its inventor uses the invention, but never files a
`patent application for it.29 If the same invention is later patented
`by another party, the prior user may not be liable for infringement
`to the new patent holder, although all others may be.
`Many counties include a more expansive prior-user rights regime
`within their first-to-file system. In the United States, this is par-
`ticularly important to high-tech businesses that prefer not to pat-
`ent every process or method that is part of their commercial oper-
`ations. The Act responds to this point by revising US law as fol-
`lows: First, the prior-use defense may be asserted against any pat-
`ent (not just method patents), provided the person asserting the de-
`fense reduced the subject matter of the patent to practice and com-
`mercially used the subject matter at least 1 year before the effec-
`tive filing date of the patent. Second, the defense cannot be as-
`serted if the subject matter was derived from the patent holder or
`persons in privity with the patent holder. And third, the defense
`cannot be asserted unless the prior user both reduced the subject
`matter of the patent to practice and commercially used it at least
`1 year before the effective filing date of the patent or the date that
`the patentee publicly disclosed the invention and invoked the
`§ 102(b) grace period, whichever is earlier.
`This narrow expansion of prior-user rights balances the interests
`of patent holders, including universities, against the legitimate con-
`cerns of businesses that want to avoid infringement suits relating
`to processes that they developed and used prior to another party
`acquiring related patents.
`
`27 See 18 U.S.C. § 1001.
`28 35 U.S.C. § 273(a)(3) states: ‘‘The term ‘method’ means a method of doing or conducting
`business.’’
`29 See 35 U.S.C. § 273.
`
`VerDate Ma