The pace of patent litigation reform is speeding up

Managing IP is part of Legal Benchmarking Limited, 4 Bouverie Street, London, EC4Y 8AX

Copyright © Legal Benchmarking Limited and its affiliated companies 2025

Accessibility | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Modern Slavery Statement

The pace of patent litigation reform is speeding up

It was the day before the AIPLA Annual Meeting and, while IP lawyers busied themselves networking at the Marriott Wardman Park, over on Capitol Hill Chairman Goodlatte was revealing the Innovation Act. Just a month on, his bill has made remarkable progress

goodlatte-200.jpg

As we reported last week, the House Judiciary Committee has marked up the bill, and we learned yesterday that it will be debated in the House of Representatives on December 4 – exactly six weeks after it was proposed. That’s supersonic pace. Meanwhile, Senator Leahy has introduced a parallel bill in the Senate.

Why the rush? The reasons might be partly political – out-of-favour members of Congress have identified a populist cause – but the legislation also addresses needs felt strongly by many companies and patent commentators. That came over very clearly in the interview with Allen Lo of Google that we published last week and in a blog post where Horacio Gutierrez of Microsoft said his company backs the Innovation Act. And this week 60 IP professors suggested six reforms that are very similar to what is being discussed in Congress.

There are still many sceptics of course. But last week’s markup suggested that we are getting close to a compromise. Notably, the expansion of the CBM programme (which Google strongly supported) has been removed. That always seemed like a proposal that was ripe for negotiation: CBM is too recent, and is still regarded with some suspicion, for an expansion to be widely welcomed.

There’s still a long way to go. There may be further contributions in the House of Representatives, and the Senate still has a lot of work to do before we will see unified legislation. But we can fairly confidently predict both that there will be an Act passed in the next year or so, and that it will to a large extent resemble Goodatte’s (right) bill.

Whether the reforms eventually passed will address the problems identified – or whether those who abuse patent litigation will just find new ways round them – is of course another question entirely.

more from across site and SHARED ros bottom lb

More from across our site

The UK-India trade deal doesn’t mention legal services, showing India has again failed to agree on a move that could help foreign firms and local practitioners
Eva-Maria Strobel reveals some of the firm’s IP achievements and its approach to client relationships
Lateral hires at Thompson Hine and Pierson Ferdinand said they were inspired by fresh business opportunities and innovative strategies at their new firms
The launch of a new IP insurance product and INTA hiring a former USPTO commissioner were also among the top talking points this week
The firm explains how it secured a $170.6 million verdict against the government in a patent dispute surrounding airport technology, and why the case led to interest from other inventors
Developments of note included the court partially allowing a claim concerning confidentiality clubs and a decision involving technology used in football matches
The firm said adding capability in the French capital completes its coverage of all major patent litigation jurisdictions as it strives for UPC excellence
Marc Fenster explains how keeping the jury focused on the most relevant facts helped secure a $279m win for his client against Samsung
Clients are divided on what externally funded IP firms bring to the table, so those firms must prove why the benefits outweigh the downsides
Rahul Bhartiya, AI coordinator at the EUIPO, discusses the office’s strategy, collaboration with other IP offices, and getting rid of routine tasks
Gift this article