2018年回顾：美国专利制度的进展和不足
↑ 标星或置顶“大岭IP”，工作日早7点分享
经典案例 | IP英文 | 实务文章
这是大岭为您分享IP英文的第160天：
本文回顾了整个2018年美国专利法领域的进展，热点还是在于：Alice案后的客体问题，IPR程序问题，以及管辖问题。
根据文本，2018年，美国超过80％的专利诉讼是由patent trolls提起的。这似乎仍然是美国专利制度面临的难题。
如何平衡专利权人和社会公众间的利益，成为专利制度永恒的主题。
相比之下，我们中国专利制度倒是迎来了越来越好的发展机遇。
年底忙乱，每天给大家写导语时竟有点心绪难平，总是少不了絮叨一句，年复一年，惟愿大家都健康快乐吧。
还是那句话，欢迎分享或点击文末“好看”，让大岭一直给你好看。
Patent Progress and Its Discontents: 2018 in Review
BY JOE MULLIN | DECEMBER 23, 2018
In 2018, technologists and users continued to be plagued by abstract, ridiculous software patents. The good news is there are more ways than ever before to fight back against those patents—some of them pretty effective.
Unfortunately, patent trolls and abusive patent owners are working overtime to knock down those recent improvements, and bring the patent system back to the proverbial “bad old days.” Before the Alice v. CLS Bank decision—four years old as of last June—it could cost millions of dollars just to convince a court to invalidate a single abstract patent. That was true even when those patents clearly described aspects of everyday life, like running a contest, displaying a menu with pictures, or teaching a foreign language.
Lobbyists for patent trolls and patent lawyers keep seeking to roll back Alice, promoting terrible legislation like the STRONGER Patents Act. Such proposals weaken our systems to challenge bad patents, and will hurt U.S. entrepreneurs and send innovation overseas. Despite that, we expect bills like that to come back in 2019, and we’ll be ready to fight back on behalf of startups and innovators.
Patent owners are pushing to neutralize Alice through the courts, as well. The most recent attempt is a case called Berkheimer v. H-P, in which a panel of Federal Circuit judges ruled that patent eligibility under Alice can require a full trial. This makes Alice much harder and more expensive to apply and, in our view, is inconsistent with the Supreme Court’s ruling.Last month, we asked the Supreme Court to take up the case and consider overturning Berkheimer.
A second crucial reform that needs defending is the inter partes review system, often abbreviated as IPR, that Congress created in 2012. IPRs allow those accused of patent infringement, or outside groups like EFF, to have an administrative law judge at the Patent Office take a second look at a patent grant. It’s a way of figuring out what patents should be allowed that’s far less expensive and more efficient than drawn-out court litigation.
IPR has been so effective at knocking out bad patents that, perhaps unsurprisingly, the process is under attack. In the most important patent case this year, Oil States Energy Services, LLC v. Greene’s Energy Group, LLC, the U.S. Supreme Court took up arguments that the IPR process violated the U.S. Constitution. No surprise, dozens of patent trolls and heavy patent licensors stepped forward, urging the Supreme Court to throw out IPRs. Together with Public Knowledge, Engine Advocacy, and the R Street Institute, EFF filed a brief [PDF] explaining how IPR is a legitimate exercise of Congressional power. In April, the high court voted 7-2 to uphold IPR, a big relief for those of us looking for a balanced patent system.
2018 also saw progress in stopping venue abuse, in which patent trolls wrangled defendants into far-off, troll-friendly venues like the Eastern District of Texas. Once there, companies accused of infringement couldn’t transfer out, or even convince judges to consider motions under the rules set forth by Alice. At one point, the Eastern District of Texas was home to almost half of all patent lawsuits nationwide.
The Supreme Court tightened up this venue loophole last year, in a case called TC Heartland v. Kraft Foods. A recent LexMachina analysis shows that in May of 2017, two judges in the Eastern District of Texas got 35 percent of the nation's patent lawsuits assigned to them. In the same period of 2018, the same two judges received only 13 percent. That’s still an outsized share for a remote district without much of a technology industry, but it’s a big improvement.
Venue reform, IPR, and the Alice litigation rules, are all changes that have made the patent system more fair for everyday people. It was the IPR process that allowed EFF to challenge the so-called “podcasting patent” owned by Personal Audio LLC. This year, we killed off that outrageous patent for good, and its owner can’t threaten podcasters anymore. The Alice decision means we can all stand up against other abusive patent threats, like one EFF fought off this year, in which a publishing company claimed it owned a patent on teaching language, and tried to force our client (a language teacher) to stop providing online lessons.
Some patent-maximalist lobbyists are already talking about the “overreach” of these reforms, but the fact is, they don’t go far enough. Throughout 2018, more than 80 percent of patent lawsuits in the tech sector were filed by patent trolls. Even in the post-Alice era, we’re seeing thousands of lawsuits filed by shell companies, which produce nothing but headaches for real inventors.
We need to keep moving in the direction of a patent system that considers users, entrepreneurs, and citizens, not just patent owners. That’s what we’ll be fighting for in 2019.
Source: https://www.eff.org
Each article is copyrighted to their original authors. The news is for informational purposes only and does not provide legal advice.
--End--
P.S. 我开设了一个专利实务知识学习平台，我会带领大家共同学习两本中文教程、三本英文教程、中国、美国和EPO的专利审查指南，以及近十年最高院发布的专利指导案例，以及美国、EPO的重要判例，共计100余件。我还会指导大家进行法律分析和写作。可以随时加入，时间为加入后的一年，按照自己的进度完成每周任务即可，目前已经有290+伙伴加入，具体情况见→：专利实务能力提升计划
加入计划，扫描下图中的二维码
点击“好看”，支持大岭一直给你好看↓