Innovation Act Cosponsor Sees ‘Headway’ on Bill; Some Patent Stakeholders Urge Slowdown

Committee ranking member John Conyers, D-Mich., and Rep. Doug Collins, R-Ga., were the lead signatories on a letter to Goodlatte Thursday asking him to hold an additional hearing to “further study the text and impact” of the Innovation Act. “The impact of the proposed legislation will be profound,” the eight congressmen said. “An additional hearing is necessary to give these stakeholders time to fully voice their concerns and to give members of the committee more time to thoroughly examine the important issues at play.” The letter’s other signatories were Reps. Steve Chabot, R-Ohio, Louie Gohmert, R-Texas, Hakeem Jeffries, D-N.Y., Hank Johnson, D-Ga., Cedric Richmond, D-La., and James Sensenbrenner, R-Wis.

Holding said he and Goodlatte remain open to additional input on the Innovation Act. “You don’t get to go and revisit big issues like this every Congress, so when we do it, we want to get it right,” he said. “With intellectual property rights, it’s important that you have some certainty so people can make value judgments of investment. … It’s good to get it settled.” A committee aide told us Goodlatte publicly released the Innovation Act’s first and second discussion drafts well in advance of the bill’s introduction and revised it based on input from Congress and industry stakeholders. All committee members had an opportunity to ask questions at the bill’s late October hearing -- and the committee had previously held hearings on patent issues earlier this year and during the previous four Congresses, the aide said. “We continue to welcome additional comments and ideas from all interested parties, including members, as we look toward moving this legislation,” the aide said.

Industry groups at a separate GIPC panel said they generally agree some additional reforms are necessary, but differed on how quickly Congress should act. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce believes “this is an area that calls out for reasonable and fair reforms, but we also want to make sure the proverbial patent baby isn’t thrown out with the excessive litigation bathwater,” said Matt Webb, senior vice president of the group’s Institute for Legal Reform. American Intellectual Property Law Association Executive Director Todd Dickinson, speaking on behalf of the Coalition for 21st Century Patent Reform, said that group believes there’s room for targeted reforms. But the group also thinks Congress should be cautious about making new changes to the U.S. patent system so soon after implementation of the America Invents Act because there is not enough data yet, he said. Manus Cooney, a partner at the American Continental Group speaking on behalf of the Innovation Alliance, said Congress should be deliberate in crafting final legislation on patent abuse and shouldn’t rush through the process. The Innovation Alliance believes it can support the targeted provisions on fee-shifting, heightened pleading requirements and enhanced disclosure rules, but has concerns about the Innovation Act’s provisions extending the AIA-created closed business method (CBM) patent review program, Cooney said.

Internet Association President Michael Beckerman defended the CBM provision, arguing CBM patents are often regarded as being low-quality patents that are a frequent target for patent assertion entities. Ryan Triplette, a Franklin Square Group principal speaking on behalf of the Coalition for Patent Fairness, said that group supports the Innovation Act, along with the Patent Abuse Reduction Act (S-1013), the Patent Litigation Integrity Act (S-1612) and others.

The Innovation Act’s provisions have also drawn criticism for encroaching too much on the courts, patent experts said Friday at an event at the American University Washington College of Law. U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit Chief Judge Randall Rader urged Congress in a speech last week to “proceed with great caution” in creating legislation to address patent abuse, saying the courts already have all the tools they need to address the issue. Adam Mossoff, a professor at the George Mason University School of Law, said the Judicial Conference, which sets rules for federal courts, has serious reservations about the Innovation Act violating the separation of powers. Andy Gavil, FTC director-Office of Policy Planning, said Congress must ultimately approve the Judicial Conference’s rules. Matt Levy, the Computer and Communications Industry Association’s patent counsel, said the Innovation Act’s rules are fairly targeted, saying the fee-shifting provision only targets attorney’s fees rather than all court costs. Scott Burt, Conversant Intellectual Property Management’s chief intellectual property officer, said he was concerned the bill might take away some of the independence of the judicial branch and would discourage flexibility in the rules that district courts create for patent cases.