The STRONGER Patents Act: Important Legislation to Protect Our Innovation Economy

Today, Senators Chris Coons, Tom Cotton, Dick Durbin, and Mazie Hirono introduced the Support Technology & Research for Our Nation’s Growth and Economic Resilience (STRONGER) Patents Act of 2017. This important piece of legislation will protect our innovation economy by restoring stable and effective property rights for inventors.

First and foremost, the STRONGER Patents Act will bring some much-needed balance to the post-issuance review systems administered by the USPTO’s Patent Trial an Appeal Board (PTAB). Until now, the PTAB has been a “death squad”; an arm of the USPTO killing patents that the same USPTO had previously issued. There are even examples where the PTAB has invalidated a patent that had previously been upheld by the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals.

Data analyzing PTAB outcomes demonstrates just how dire the situation has become. Coordinated and repetitive challenges to patent validity have made it impossible for patent owners to ever feel confident in the value and enforceability of their property rights. Only 16% of patents reaching a final written decision at the PTAB have survived unscathed.

This is not surprising as the procedures have been stacked against patent owners from day one. We and others have noted how broadly construing claims, multiple filings against the same patent by the same challengers, and the inability to amend claims, among other abuses, severely disadvantage patent owners in PTAB proceedings. With the STRONGER Patents Act, these proceedings will move closer to a fair fight to truly examine patent validity. There are many aspects to this legislation that will improve the PTAB, such as:

  • Harmonizing claim construction with litigation, focusing on the “ordinary and customary meaning” instead of the broadest interpretation a bureaucrat can conceive. Sections 102(a) and 103(a).
  • Confirming the presumption of validity of an issued patent will apply to the PTAB just as it does in litigation. Sections 102(b) and 103(b).
  • Permitting only those who are “charged with infringement” of the patent to challenge that patent, thus preventing the abusive and extortionate practice of challenging a patent to extract a settlement or short a company’s stock. Sections 102(c) and 103(c).
  • Limiting abusive repetitive and serial challenges to a patent. Sections 102(d), (f) and 103(d), (f).
  • Authorizing interlocutory review of institution decisions when “mere institution presents a risk of immediate, irreparable injury” to the patent owner as well as in other important circumstances. Sections 102(e) and 103(e).
  • Prohibiting manipulation of the identification of the real-party-in-interest rules to evade estoppel or other procedural rules and providing for discovery to determine the real-party-in-interest. Sections 102(g) and 103(g).
  • Giving priority to Federal Court determinations on the validity of a patent. Sections 102(h) and 103(h).
  • Improving the procedure for amending a challenged patent, including a new expedited examination pathway. Sections 102(i) and 103(i).
  • Prohibiting the same administrative patent judges from both determining whether a challenge is likely to succeed and whether the patent is invalid. Section 104.
  • Aligning timing requirements for ex parte reexamination with inter partes review by prohibiting requests for reexamination more than one year after being sued for infringement. Section 105.

Second, the STRONGER Patents Act will make other necessary corrections to allow patents to promote innovation. For example, as Section 101 of the Act confirms, patents are property rights and deserve the same remedies applicable to other kinds of property. In eBay v. MercExchange, the Supreme Court ignored this fundamental premise by holding that patent owners do not have the presumptive right to keep others from using their property. Section 106 of the STRONGER Patents Act will undo the disastrous eBay decision and confirm the importance of patents as property.

Third, the STRONGER Patents Act will once and for all eliminate USPTO fee diversion. Many people do not realize that the USPTO is funded entirely through user fees and that no taxpayer money goes to the office.  Despite promises that the America Invents Act of 2011 would end fee diversion, the federal government continues to redirect USPTO funds to other government programs.  This misguided tax on innovation is long overdue to be shut down.

Each of the steps in the STRONGER Patents Act will help bring balance back to our patent system. In addition to the major changes described above, there are also smaller changes that will be important to ensuring a vibrant and efficient patent system. CPIP co-founder Adam Mossoff recently testified to Congress about the harms being done to innovation through weakened patent protection.  It is great news to now see Congress taking steps in the right direction.