BustNChops
02-17-2010, 07:53 AM
Recently our company was given some info by our patent attorneys and some attorneys from Washington DC regarding a new bill that will negatively affect entrepreneurs and patents. The DC and Holland & Hart are strongly recommending that people in Nevada contact Senator Harry Reid regarding modifying the Patent bill before he presents it on the Senate floor in March. Since Senator Reid is up for election, he is listening to the people in Nevada.
If you are so inclined, I am attaching a sample letter that can be sent to our Representatives regarding a new bill that will severely impact the protection of patents. If you would like to respond …the easiest way is to use the attached letter. Then cut and paste the letter into the links below.
=============================================
http://gov.state.nv.us/Contact_Us_NORTHX.htm
http://berkley.house.gov/contact/email.html
https://heller.house.gov/Contact/ContactForm.htm
https://forms.house.gov/titus/contact-form.shtml
reid.senate.gov/contact/index.cfm
http://ensign.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Contact.ContactForm
=============================================
Re: Patent bill (Patent Reform Act, bill number S. 515)
I am writing to voice my concerns with the patent bill (Patent Reform Act, bill number S. 515). I want to ask you to make sure that the “estoppel” rules of Section 5 (“Post Grant Procedures”) are fixed before this bill comes to the Senate floor. I ask Senator Reid not to bring S. 515 to the Senate floor until this problem with this legislation is solved.
I am an entrepreneur and our company has a couple of patents. Myself like many entrepreneurs in Nevada work hard to develop and protect their patents. We are entrepreneurs and live in Nevada among other entrepreneurial-spirited businesses. I am writing to ask that you protect our patent rights.
We’ve been discussing the patent bill (Patent Reform Act, bill number S. 515) with our patent attorneys, and we have big concerns. What this change will do is give infringers TWO opportunities to invalidate our patents. The first opportunity will be at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) and the second will be in court. Each will take a long time, be very expensive, and delay our ability to stop the infringement for years.
Currently, if we sue someone for infringement, they can start a “reexamination” of our patent at the PTO. Or they can do it in court. But they can’t do both. This bill will allow them to do both. This is because bill changes the law of “estoppel” – a concept which has long been firmly established in American law generally and for very good reason. Currently the law of estoppel limits an alleged infringer to one challenge to a patent’s validity -- “one bite at the apple” so to speak. This concept is based in fairness to the parties and to preventing waste of resources, including government and judicial resources, in revisiting issues that have already been addressed in a dispute resolution process, whether it be an administrative contest between the parties or an a dispute first handled in court. Once the dispute has been heard once in one of these forums, that is it. The dispute cannot then be started anew between the parties in yet another forum It forces him has to lay all his arguments on the table the first time so we can resolve the dispute and move on.
If a party loses at the Patent Office and then tries to challenge validity again in court, under traditional law of “estoppel,” the court will deny that party the opportunity if he or she is using an argument that he or she “raised or could have raised” in the first dispute proceeding. But Section 5 of S. 515 removes “could have raised” from the law of estoppel. As a result, an infringer can challenge my patents at the PTO and yet again in court by limiting the scope of what the infringer presents in the first PTO dispute so that it can be raised in a second dispute proceeding in court.
All the infringer has to do is save one or more of his arguments, not raise it or them at the PTO, and then the infringer can use that argument to start a new challenge in court if he loses at the PTO. Why is it a big deal to face two validity challenges?
• Each challenge is expensive, costing tens of thousands, sometimes hundreds of thousands, of dollars.
• Each challenge takes a long time. An “inter partes reexamination” proceeding at the PTO can take six years or more. Then a court challenge takes years more.
• Each challenge delays investment in the patent.
This is just not fair and is a waste of resources, and that is why the U.S. Court system has long had the law of estoppel to prevent just this sort of thing. This legislation alters this standard rule of fairness and efficiency and makes the already expensive and time consuming litigation processes even more expensive, time consuming, and just plain unfair to the patent owner.
There is already too much abuse occurring. Law firms like “Patent Assassins” are already using patent reexaminations to wear down smaller companies. Big companies often seek to wear the smaller companies down in conventional litigation.
S. 515 is going to make the situation far worse, especially for small business, entrepreneurs -- the most important engines of growth, employment, and expansion of human knowledge.
I ask you not to bring S. 515 to the Senate floor until this problem with this legislation is solved. I would be happy to ask my patent counsel to work out a solution with you, but they way the bill stands now is very troubling for us. It will cause a lot of damage to Nevadans and to Americans generally.
Could you make sure this issue gets worked out before the bill gets floor time?
If you are so inclined, I am attaching a sample letter that can be sent to our Representatives regarding a new bill that will severely impact the protection of patents. If you would like to respond …the easiest way is to use the attached letter. Then cut and paste the letter into the links below.
=============================================
http://gov.state.nv.us/Contact_Us_NORTHX.htm
http://berkley.house.gov/contact/email.html
https://heller.house.gov/Contact/ContactForm.htm
https://forms.house.gov/titus/contact-form.shtml
reid.senate.gov/contact/index.cfm
http://ensign.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Contact.ContactForm
=============================================
Re: Patent bill (Patent Reform Act, bill number S. 515)
I am writing to voice my concerns with the patent bill (Patent Reform Act, bill number S. 515). I want to ask you to make sure that the “estoppel” rules of Section 5 (“Post Grant Procedures”) are fixed before this bill comes to the Senate floor. I ask Senator Reid not to bring S. 515 to the Senate floor until this problem with this legislation is solved.
I am an entrepreneur and our company has a couple of patents. Myself like many entrepreneurs in Nevada work hard to develop and protect their patents. We are entrepreneurs and live in Nevada among other entrepreneurial-spirited businesses. I am writing to ask that you protect our patent rights.
We’ve been discussing the patent bill (Patent Reform Act, bill number S. 515) with our patent attorneys, and we have big concerns. What this change will do is give infringers TWO opportunities to invalidate our patents. The first opportunity will be at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) and the second will be in court. Each will take a long time, be very expensive, and delay our ability to stop the infringement for years.
Currently, if we sue someone for infringement, they can start a “reexamination” of our patent at the PTO. Or they can do it in court. But they can’t do both. This bill will allow them to do both. This is because bill changes the law of “estoppel” – a concept which has long been firmly established in American law generally and for very good reason. Currently the law of estoppel limits an alleged infringer to one challenge to a patent’s validity -- “one bite at the apple” so to speak. This concept is based in fairness to the parties and to preventing waste of resources, including government and judicial resources, in revisiting issues that have already been addressed in a dispute resolution process, whether it be an administrative contest between the parties or an a dispute first handled in court. Once the dispute has been heard once in one of these forums, that is it. The dispute cannot then be started anew between the parties in yet another forum It forces him has to lay all his arguments on the table the first time so we can resolve the dispute and move on.
If a party loses at the Patent Office and then tries to challenge validity again in court, under traditional law of “estoppel,” the court will deny that party the opportunity if he or she is using an argument that he or she “raised or could have raised” in the first dispute proceeding. But Section 5 of S. 515 removes “could have raised” from the law of estoppel. As a result, an infringer can challenge my patents at the PTO and yet again in court by limiting the scope of what the infringer presents in the first PTO dispute so that it can be raised in a second dispute proceeding in court.
All the infringer has to do is save one or more of his arguments, not raise it or them at the PTO, and then the infringer can use that argument to start a new challenge in court if he loses at the PTO. Why is it a big deal to face two validity challenges?
• Each challenge is expensive, costing tens of thousands, sometimes hundreds of thousands, of dollars.
• Each challenge takes a long time. An “inter partes reexamination” proceeding at the PTO can take six years or more. Then a court challenge takes years more.
• Each challenge delays investment in the patent.
This is just not fair and is a waste of resources, and that is why the U.S. Court system has long had the law of estoppel to prevent just this sort of thing. This legislation alters this standard rule of fairness and efficiency and makes the already expensive and time consuming litigation processes even more expensive, time consuming, and just plain unfair to the patent owner.
There is already too much abuse occurring. Law firms like “Patent Assassins” are already using patent reexaminations to wear down smaller companies. Big companies often seek to wear the smaller companies down in conventional litigation.
S. 515 is going to make the situation far worse, especially for small business, entrepreneurs -- the most important engines of growth, employment, and expansion of human knowledge.
I ask you not to bring S. 515 to the Senate floor until this problem with this legislation is solved. I would be happy to ask my patent counsel to work out a solution with you, but they way the bill stands now is very troubling for us. It will cause a lot of damage to Nevadans and to Americans generally.
Could you make sure this issue gets worked out before the bill gets floor time?