Concerns About the Goodlatte Innovation Act

10 February 2015 PharmaPatents Blog

On February 5, 2015, House Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.) introduced the Innovation Act, which is touted as “address[ing] the ever increasing problem of abusive patent litigation.” The bill was introduced as H.R. 9, and is the same as the bill that passed the House in 2013 as H.R. 3309. As I wrote in this article, while the Goodlatte Innovation Act is focused on patent litigation, it includes significant changes to a variety of substantive provisions of U.S. patent law. With momentum building for patent reform, it is time for stakeholders to pay attention to the aspects of the bill that will impact an applicant’s ability to obtain a patent in the first place. 

The Substantive Changes in Section 9

Section 9 of the Innovation Act is titled “Improvements and technical corrections to the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act,” and includes a number of changes related to patent trial proceedings (inter partes review, post-grant review, and covered business method patent review) and other substantive changes.

  • Narrow estoppel arising from Post Grant Review: Remove “reasonably could have raised” from the estoppel provisions of § 325(e)(2).
  • District Court-style claim construction in Inter Partes Review and Post Grant Review: Mandate the use of a district court-style claim construction in inter partes review and post-grant review proceedings.
  • “Codification” Of Obviousness-Type Double-Patenting For First-Inventor-To-File Patents: Add a new statutory provision (35 USC § 106) relating to obviousness-type double patenting that would apply to applications and patents examined under the first-inventor-to-file version of 35 USC § 102.
    • Please see this article for a more in-depth discussion of  proposed new 35 USC § 106 and potential unintended consequences.
    • This provision may have more significance in the wake of the Federal Circuit decision in Gilead.
  • Elimination of Post-RCE Patent Term Adjustment for “B” Delay: Codfiy the USPTO’s original construction of the PTA statute that did not award any PTA for “B” delay once an RCE has been filed.
    • This would overrule the Federal Circuit decision in Novartis, but would apply only to applications pending on–or filed after–the date of enactment.

Stakeholders Need to Voice Their Concerns

It is likely that the patent litigation and patent trial provisions of the Innovation Act will receive the most attention and garner the most debate. Stakeholders who are concerned about the implications and effects of the other substantive changes included in the Innovation Act should make their voices heard, through their involvement with patent bar associations, and by contacting their Congressmen and Senators.

This blog is made available by Foley & Lardner LLP (“Foley” or “the Firm”) for informational purposes only. It is not meant to convey the Firm’s legal position on behalf of any client, nor is it intended to convey specific legal advice. Any opinions expressed in this article do not necessarily reflect the views of Foley & Lardner LLP, its partners, or its clients. Accordingly, do not act upon this information without seeking counsel from a licensed attorney. This blog is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship. Communicating with Foley through this website by email, blog post, or otherwise, does not create an attorney-client relationship for any legal matter. Therefore, any communication or material you transmit to Foley through this blog, whether by email, blog post or any other manner, will not be treated as confidential or proprietary. The information on this blog is published “AS IS” and is not guaranteed to be complete, accurate, and or up-to-date. Foley makes no representations or warranties of any kind, express or implied, as to the operation or content of the site. Foley expressly disclaims all other guarantees, warranties, conditions and representations of any kind, either express or implied, whether arising under any statute, law, commercial use or otherwise, including implied warranties of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Foley or any of its partners, officers, employees, agents or affiliates be liable, directly or indirectly, under any theory of law (contract, tort, negligence or otherwise), to you or anyone else, for any claims, losses or damages, direct, indirect special, incidental, punitive or consequential, resulting from or occasioned by the creation, use of or reliance on this site (including information and other content) or any third party websites or the information, resources or material accessed through any such websites. In some jurisdictions, the contents of this blog may be considered Attorney Advertising. If applicable, please note that prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Photographs are for dramatization purposes only and may include models. Likenesses do not necessarily imply current client, partnership or employee status.

Insights

A Review of Recent Whistleblower Developments
19 July 2019
Legal News: Whistleblower Developments
Cloud security inadequate for Cyber threats, are you surprised?
19 July 2019
Internet, IT & e-Discovery Blog
Blockchain: A Tool With a Future in Healthcare
18 July 2019
Health Care Law Today
Do You Know What IMMEX Stands For?
16 July 2019
Dashboard Insights
Review of 2020 Medicare Changes for Telehealth
11 December 2019
Member Call
2019 NDI Executive Exchange
14-15 November 2019
Chicago, IL
MAGI’s Clinical Research Conference
29 October 2019
Las Vegas, NV
Association for Corporate Counsel Annual Meeting 2019
27-30 October 2019
Phoenix, AZ