Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[SuperLagat]

I'm wondering if the new patent law reform passed by the senate will result in a dramatic decrease in patent law jobs.  ""The bill also set rules for allowing patents to be challenged after they are granted, which supporters say is cheaper than litigation." (Reuters)

"Productive companies are spending billions of dollars in money and resources to defend themselves against patent lawsuits. The cost of defending an average patent lawsuit is between $2 million and $4.5 million. Furthermore, prior to 1990 there had been only one patent damages award in history larger than $100 million, yet in the past five years, there have been at least ten judgments and settlements in that category, and at least four that topped $500 million. One topped $1.5 billion. This is money that could be otherwise re-invested in the companies, spurring innovation and creating high-paying jobs." Patent Fairness Coalition

Seems to me now companies won't be putting this money into protecting their patents; so will this bill actually REDUCE the number of patent law jobs because now less legal quibbling will be needed by companies?

TIA

[horsechute]

If it creates stonger patents, then people might have more faith in them, and want to invest in them more.

I am a little skeptical about the prospect of an opposition system in the U.S., but I doubt the bill will pass anyhow. They have larded it up with the ususal attmept to prevent fee diversion, which I doubt congress will go along with, especially with congress so incredibly desperate to raise money.

[Isaac]

I am a little skeptical about the prospect of an opposition system in the U.S., but I doubt the bill will pass anyhow. They have larded it up with the ususal attmept to prevent fee diversion, which I doubt congress will go along with, especially with congress so incredibly desperate to raise money.

Fee diversion is not a show stopper in my opinion.   If the House doesn't want to end fee diversion, they might well simply pass an HR bill without that provision.

[horsechute]

True. Actually, I just checked, and it looks like it was the opposition provision which was recently stripped out by the Senate:

Excluded from the bill was a controversial amendment, backed by many tech companies, that would have eased the process for initiating an in-house administrative review process at the Patent Office for challenges to patents that have been granted, a measure billed as a less costly alternative to private litigation.

[AnotherCog]

If anything, the bill will probably increase the number of patent law jobs, at least on the prosecution side of things. 

Going to a first-to-file system will mean far more companies going the provisional to non-provisional route in order to get the best priority date possible. 

On a side note, there will probably also be an uptick in the number of malpractice lawsuits since Congress hasn't thought about the effects of a first-to-file system on patent lawyers.

[Isaac]

Productive companies are spending billions of dollars in money and resources to defend themselves against patent lawsuits. The cost of defending an average patent lawsuit is between $2 million and $4.5 million. Furthermore, prior to 1990 there had been only one patent damages award in history larger than $100 million, yet in the past five years, there have been at least ten judgments and settlements in that category, and at least four that topped $500 million. One topped $1.5 billion. This is money that could be otherwise re-invested in the companies, spurring innovation and creating high-paying jobs." Patent Fairness Coalition

The cost of defending a patent is an argument for having a cheap patent challenge process, but I don't understand why the size of damage awards is relevant.  Judgments come only after a defendant has had the opportunity to challenge the validity of the patent.   Is the PFC advocating allowing defendants to keep their ill-gotten gains? 

[Robert K S]

Is the PFC advocating allowing defendants to keep their ill-gotten gains?

In the words of everybody's favorite Vatican assassin warlock, "Duh!--Winning!"