The Patent and Trademark Office inter partes review process improved patent quality and restored “public confidence in the patent system, which had eroded due to bad quality patents that were harming innovation,” said High Tech Inventors Alliance General Counsel John Thorne Wednesday. PTO Director Andrei Iancu testified before Congress that day (see 1804180073). The group warned against legislative proposals potentially “stripping the vitality of Section 101” of patent law and “creating high levels of uncertainty” in the patent granting process. The Supreme Court decisions discussed Wednesday “have benefited innovation” by striking down abstract patents, the group said.

Competition law enforcement worldwide needs to pay less attention to short-term pricing issues and more to innovation and growth that deliver long-term value to consumers, DOJ antitrust head Makan Delrahim said Thursday at the U.S. Embassy in Beijing, according to prepared remarks. He said remedies to antitrust violations must be approached cautiously, calling himself "generally skeptical" of behavioral remedies "and even more so" of licensing requirements that could disincent technological developments. Innovation "can be unsettling and disruptive," but ultimately it will result in the most consumer benefit, he said: But there can be situations where the exercise of patent rights "should attract antitrust scrutiny," and patent holders aren't immune from antitrust laws. He said China's establishment of dedicated IP courts is "a very positive step" toward engendering faith in the patent system, and such changes likely are connected Chinese companies moving from implementers of IP rights to innovators and holders of them. As China increasingly becomes an innovation economy, its progress "can be amplified -- and its prosperity increased" via promotion and protection of IP rights, he said. The Antitrust Division head's general skepticism of behavioral remedies makes it less likely to settle so AT&T can buy Time Warner (see 1801260002).

The Supreme Court ruled unanimously Monday in TC Heartland v. Kraft Foods Group Brands in favor of placing limits on eligible court venues for patent infringement lawsuits. Heartland Food Products Group asked the top court to review 28 U.S. Code Section 1400(b), which requires a plaintiff to bring a patent infringement suit only in a U.S. District court where the defendant resides or has an “established place of business.” The tech sector took a substantial interest because of the case's potential to restrict movement of patent cases to Texas' Marshall and Tyler-based district court and others perceived as friendly to plaintiffs (see 1701170066 and 1703270053). The Supreme Court said patent lawsuits can be brought only in the district court in which the defendant is incorporated. The 8-0 ruling, written by Justice Clarence Thomas, reverses the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit’s 1990 precedent in VE Holding Corp v. Johnson Gas Appliance that a patent infringement suit could be brought in any jurisdiction where a party conducted business. “While we are disappointed in the Supreme Court's ruling on this procedural matter, we respect the Court's opinion and do not believe it has any impact on the ultimate outcome of our case,” Kraft said in a statement. Heartland didn’t immediately comment. House Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte, R-Va., hailed the ruling as a decision “to restore reasonable limits on where patent lawsuits can be brought.” He said in February he would re-evaluate what language to include in future patent law revamp legislation based on the Supreme Court’s then-forthcoming Heartland decision (see 1702010069). Goodlatte said now he will continue exploring “other aspects of abusive patent litigation and how we keep our patent laws up to date to ensure a well-functioning patent system.” Congress still “needs to step in with comprehensive patent reform,” Computer & Communications Industry Association President Ed Black said. “While today’s ruling removes one tool used to manipulate the system, there are still others enabling the abuse of the patent system. It’s an area ripe for bipartisan cooperation as Congress looks for low cost and no cost ways to grow jobs and the economy.”

The Patent and Trademark Office said it began an initiative to use five years of data from Patent Trial and Appeal Board proceedings to improve the PTAB process. The data, particularly feedback on inter partes review proceedings, will “ensure that the proceedings are as effective and fair as possible within [PTO’s] congressional mandate to provide administrative review of the patentability of patent claims after they issue,” PTO said in a Monday news release. “This initiative will examine procedures including, but not limited to, procedures relating to multiple petitions, motions to amend, claim construction, and decisions to institute. It will evaluate the input already received from small and large businesses, startups and individual inventors, IP law associations, trade associations, and patent practitioners, and will seek to obtain more feedback regarding potential procedural enhancements.” PTO Senior Advisor Coke Morgan Stewart will lead the effort, the office said.

Some Supreme Court justices appeared to struggle during oral argument Monday in TC Heartland v. Kraft Foods Group Brands over how much they're willing to rewrite existing rules on the venue for patent infringement lawsuits. Heartland Food Products Group asked the top court to review 28 U.S. Code Section 1400(b), which requires a plaintiff to bring a patent infringement suit only in a U.S. District Court where the defendant resides or has an “established place of business.” The tech sector has taken a substantial interest because of the case's potential to restrict movement of patent cases to Texas' Marshall and Tyler-based district court and others perceived as friendly to plaintiffs (see 1701170066). Justice Stephen Breyer directly questioned how concerns about the Marshall/Tyler district court's oversized role in patent law affected the Heartland case, which involved a transfer of a suit from Delaware to Indiana. Chief Justice John Roberts indicated he was in favor of Heartland's argument. The Electronic Frontier Foundation, Public Knowledge and many top tech firms supported Heartland via amicus briefs. ACT|The App Association, BSA|The Software Alliance and the Software & Information Industry Association were among Heartland's tech backers. The sector strongly supported Heartland's petition to the Supreme Court for writ of certiorari (see 1610140042). House Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte, R-Va., said in February he would re-evaluate whether to include language in future patent legislation aimed at revamping rules for placement of patent infringement suits in federal courts depending on the Heartland ruling (see 1702010069). The Supreme Court “has a chance to help rein in decades of misuse of the patent system by taking away a key tool for patent trolls -- venue shopping,” said Computer & Communications Industry Association President Ed Black in a statement. “We hope they use it.”

Indications are growing that Congress may be able to act on patent law revamp legislation this year, said American Enterprise Institute Center for Internet, Communications and Technology Policy Visiting Fellow Michael Rosen in a Wednesday blog post. Rosen noted recent comments by Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, (see 1702160055) and House IP Subcommittee Chairman Darrell Issa, R-Calif., that indicate they're zeroing in on more targeted legislation that would address issues like a revamp of rules governing the court venue for patent infringement lawsuits. “One way or the other, Hatch and Issa will push reform forward,” Rosen said. “Whether they succeed remains to be seen.” House Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte, R-Va., said in February that he would need to re-evaluate whether to include patent venue language in future patent legislation depending on the outcome of the Supreme Court’s pending review of those rules (see 1702010069). The Supreme Court is set to hear oral argument March 27 in Heartland Food Products Group's requested review of 28 U.S.C. Section 1400(b), which requires a plaintiff to bring a patent infringement lawsuit only in a U.S. District Court where the defendant resides or has an “established place of business.” Tech groups are watching that case.

Less Government President Seton Motley urged President Donald Trump to remove Michelle Lee as Patent and Trademark Office director. House IP Subcommittee Chairman Darrell Issa, R-Calif., and the Computer & Communications Industry Association separately praised Trump's apparent decision to keep Lee at PTO, based on news reports (see 1701190046). The White House and PTO haven't confirmed that Lee will keep her position, leading Motley to suggest in a RedState blog post that Trump “should not” keep her on. Lee “is antithetical to the position of USPTO Director -- and Trump’s desire for IP protection enforcement,” Motley said. He said, given Trump's IP rights protection goals, Lee's past experience as Google's head of patents and patent strategy, when coupled with perceptions that former President Barack Obama's administration was pro-Google, make her a bad fit to lead PTO. “Trump should instead appoint someone who shares his respect for IP and patents” to lead the office, Motley said. PTO didn't comment.

Patent and Trademark Office Director Michelle Lee said she’s “optimistic” the incoming administration “will share our appreciation of the importance of IP.” President-elect Donald Trump “has promised economic growth and job creation, and IP will necessarily be key to achieving that goal,” Lee said during Friday's speech at CES, according to prepared remarks. PTO is “well situated to address the challenges and opportunities that lie ahead” given its accomplishments over the past three years, she said. Lee noted PTO has reduced the backlog of unexamined patent applications by approximately 30 percent. The office’s Patent Trial and Appeal Board proceedings aided in “providing a faster, more cost efficient quality check on the patents in the system,” Lee said. PTO’s Enhanced Patent Quality Initiative is continuing work that will “meaningfully move the needle on enhancing patent quality,” including increasing the clarity of the patent record, Lee said.

The Patent and Trademark Office's Enhanced Patent Quality Initiative and other initiatives aimed at improving patent quality are “here to stay” despite the upcoming change in White House administration, Director Michelle Lee said Tuesday. PTO officials “will be working hard to keep this snowball moving forward and growing,” Lee said during an agency event, according to a prepared version of her remarks. “Stakeholder input and collaboration from around the country -- and indeed, from around the world, including with our counterpart offices overseas -- will continue to be vital to our efforts.” PTO's efforts to improve patent quality have been aimed at issuing patents that are “correct in accordance with the law,” clearly delineate “the patent's boundaries” and are “issued consistently” across examiners, Lee said. “There is a cost to society when the USPTO issues a patent that should not issue, just as there is a cost to society when we don’t issue a patent that should issue. With patents that are overly broad or vague, we create inefficiencies and opportunities for abuse. With patents that are unduly narrow, we discourage incentives to innovate. At a time when IP is more important to our economy than ever before, neither is an option, we have to get this right.”

Patent and Trademark Office Director Michelle Lee said Tuesday that she is “optimistic” that President-elect Donald Trump's administration “will share our appreciation of the importance of intellectual property as a driver of economic growth.” IP stakeholders have said they believe the incoming administration will take a hands-off approach to IP policymaking, allowing the House and Senate Judiciary committees to take the lead (see 1611090039). Further discussions on patent litigation revamp legislation “will likely occur” later in the 115th Congress “after some of the other priorities including filling a Supreme Court vacancy, immigration and tax reform are addressed, and any legislative patent reform will likely be more targeted, rather than the comprehensive reforms we’ve seen in prior Congresses,” Lee said during a speech at an Intellectual Asset Management event: “I would hope any legislative proposal will take into account the numerous positive changes that have occurred recently in the patent system,” including recent federal court rulings. Legislative discussions may include “venue reform and possibly changes to Section 101” of the Patent Act and the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, Lee said in a prepared version of her speech.