Coalition for 21st Century Patent Reform Testifies at Judiciary Patent Hearing

“Patents matter to every company, inventor or institution involved in research and innovation” 

Washington, D.C. – Gary Griswold, President and Chief IP Counsel of 3M Innovative Properties Company, testified today on behalf of the Coalition for 21st Century Patent Reform before the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Courts, the Internet and Intellectual Property on patent reform.

“The Coalition’s members share a strong interest in strengthening the country’s competitive position by strengthening its patent system, both in regard to obtaining high-quality patents and providing for their proper enforcement,” Griswold said.  “While I have heard some say the patent reform debate only involves two industry sectors, let me assure you that is wrong.  Patents matter to all companies, inventors and institutions involved in research and development."

The coalition has over 40 members and includes many of the nation’s leading manufacturers and researchers.  The coalition has members in a variety of industry sectors including:  Aerospace & Defense, Chemical, Computers, Diversified Financials, Diversified Technology, Energy, Food Production, Forest & Paper Products, Health Care, Household & Personal Products, Industrial Equipment, Medical Equipment & Devices, Network & Communications, Payroll Services, Pharmaceutical/Biotechnology, Semiconductors & Electronic Components and Transportation Equipment. 

The coalition supports a number of measures in the bill that would improve the U.S. law, including the creation of a first-inventor-to-file system, expanding the opportunity to submit prior art to patent examiners, limiting willful infringement, and extending prior user rights.  There are several aspects of the bill that the coalition believes must be improved.  Three specific areas of concern on the bill that Griswold discussed included:  Section 5 regarding the apportionment of damages for patent infringement; Section 6 regarding the availability of a “second window” in the post-grant opposition system; and the absence of provisions reforming the law on inequitable conduct.

“Regarding the apportionment of damages, while we are pleased that a ‘reasonable royalty’ remains the floor for damages awards, we are troubled by the proposal to change the law because some believe that the awards against adjudicated patent infringers are ‘excessive.’” Griswold said about Section 5.  “Limiting damages for patent infringement tilts the balance in favor of infringers, at the expense of American researchers and innovators. It has profound implications for our system of intellectual property law.”

For a detailed analysis of the bill and specific one-pagers on patent issues, visit the coalition’s website: http://patentsmatter.com/issue/legalert_042507.php