The letter, dated November 6, was addressed to Senate Judiciary Committee chairman Patrick Leahy and Senator Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania, and outlines the companies’ concerns with S1145, which is pending in the US Senate. If passed, the bill would introduce substantial changes to the US patent system.
Prepared by the Innovation Alliance, a group that has come out strongly against S1145, the letter includes signatories such as The Vertical Group, Technology Partners and Split Rock Partners.
In October, Innovation Alliance authored a similar letter to the Senate signed by more than 430 organizations and companies representing over 25 industries.
The firms make reference to provisions of S1145 having to do with damages, venue and inequitable conduct in particular, three issues which also have many others in the patent community up in arms.
The letter says that “the venture capital community is the primary funding source for emerging technology and life-sciences companies” and indicates that the industry committed $25.5 billion towards innovative companies in 2006.
It also points to the specific IP-related burdens placed on small, emerging companies: “Venture backed companies need strong patents, and want to reduce litigation from nuisance suits. Small, emerging growth companies strive to commercialize innovation, often disrupting a marketplace of entrenched interests. Defending against infringement is disproportionately burdensome for small venture backed companies while the benefit of infringing relative to the cost is disproportionately attractive to large companies.”
S1145 has yet to make it to the Senate floor, but negotiations are continuing, and 3M chief Gary Griswold expressed scepticism about its chances of being passed this congressional session at the AIPLA annual meeting last month.
On September 7, the House of Representatives narrowly backed another bill dealing with patent reform – HR1908 – by 220 votes to 175, following a two-hour debate.
If S1145 were to pass in the Senate, it is likely that a conference will be held to reconcile the two bills, as they differ in several ways. The differences include their approach to capping the window for opposition to a patent and the way in which they each introduce the first-inventor-to-file rule.
