美国通过专利改革法案，各方意见大相径庭

美国众议院(House of Representatives)日前通过的专利改革法案，一般大型电子厂商都表示赞许，个人发明者却多所批评；针对这项可能会为许多方面带来中等程度冲击的法案，美国国会仍会继续完成立法。

IBM首席专利律师Manny Schecter

英特尔(Intel)智能财产策略副首席顾问David Simon指出：“这项法案在过去十年投入了庞大人力与时间，我们认为，众议院所通过的法案更进一步改善了今年稍早参议院通过的版本。” IBM首席专利律师Manny Schecter表示：“我不认为我们的专利收购策略会(因专利改革法案)有改变；但我们预期，当市场上不合理的专利减少，我们可以不需要像现在这样自我防卫。” 一位企业家Steve Perlman则批评：“这个已通过的法案通并非有关发明的法案，而是一个权威、无知与冷漠的法案，就像那些导致金融风暴与大萧条的法案。“ 他为了旗下某家新创公司的基础专利(patent fundamental)，等了8年。 美国国会在送出最终法案给总统奥巴马签署之前，必须先协调参、众两院法案内容的歧异；目前不清楚立法程序还需要多少时间，或是在过程中会有什幺样的变化。 “人们已经为这个法案付出很长时间，所以它有很大的机会可获得通过；但其中的债务上限(debt ceiling)议题，可能得花上一番工夫。“ Brinks Hofer Gilson & Lione律师事务所的专利律师暨合伙人Allen Baum表示。 美国专利改革法案中最具争议性的部分，是将原本的“发明优先(first-to-invent)制”改为“申请优先(first-to-file)制”，旨在与大多数世界其它国家的专利制度一致化；但像是Perlman那样的个人发明家警告，此举可能会引爆专利申请潮，而且大企业将占据优势。 对此IBM的Schecter表示，改采“申请优先制”对该公司的专利申请策略不会有实质上的影响：“我们并不会因此增加或减少申请案，或是改变提出申请案的做法。“ IBM在过去18年来，每年都是取得最多美国专利的企业。 IBM与Intel都表示，美国每年上百万件专利申请案中，只有约70件会产生谁是第一个发明者这方面的争议。专利律师Baum则认为，各家企业会因此思考如何以更快的速度提出专利申请：“拥有更多资源的大企业会占据优势，但目前制度对小公司一样不利。” Baum解释：“在目前的制度下，小型企业与个人发明家要提出纪录证明他们的发明优先，是很困难的；举行干预听证会(interference hearing)的代价非常高，很多小公司宁愿自己认输。” 本文下一页：美国专利法案的独特性与创新 本文授权编译自EE Times，版权所有，谢绝转载

相关阅读：
• 三星与Spansion和解，赔款、交叉授权一气呵成
• 苹果支付诺基亚巨额专利赔款，意在拖Google下水？
• 欧司朗起诉三星LG侵犯其LED专利权EqHesmc

{pagination} 美国专利法案的独特性与创新 与其它国家专利制度的一致化，预期将有助于减轻美国各大专利事务所的工作负担，例如现有技术检索(prior art searches)；此外也可简化那些有必要申请专利、将产品行销全球之企业的工作程序。 但美国专利法案与其它国家相较还是有其独特性，例如允许发明人在申请专利之前，拥有公开其发明(例如给潜在投资人)的一年宽限期(grace period)。 至于法案中难得取得各方共识的一点，是认为法案中让专利局保有所收取之业务费用的条款，是一种进步；目前美国专利局所囤积的申请案超过70万件，平均每项申请案得花上三年的审查时间。 “专利改革法案的一个关键，是终止了专利局业务费用的转移，让申请等待时间可望缩短，并提升获通过之专利品质。“ IP顾问暨分析机构UBM TechInsights 副总裁Mike Mclean表示：“众议院对相关条款的妥协，是往正确方向迈进了一步；但参议院的法案版本在这方面更为强硬，因此可能会是优先选项。” 此外专利改革法案也为专利局首创 “事后审查(post-grant review)“ 制度，以剔除早期不当专利，并减少针对专利有效性所提出的法律诉讼案件。 Baum表示，该审查制度允许专家声明、证词与侦查，会更像是对抗式审查程序(adversarial proceeding)，这种制度在欧洲已成功减少法庭诉讼。他也表示，此新制度虽可能带来数万美元的经费增加，是目前制度的两倍；但法庭诉讼案耗费成本更大：“这为小型企业提供一个更具意义性的挑战选项，大企业也会广泛利用此程序进行对抗。” 众议院版本法案也让已经在使用某项技术的企业，取得该技术的优先使用权，甚至是在该技术专利已经被授予其它公司之后。IBM与Intel都对此表示赞同，但Intel表示，相关法案条款内容应该更为明确，使其适用于产品与制程。 “我们花费很长时间开发(芯片)制程，也希望对相关技术保密、不使竞争对手得知；” Intel的Simon表示：”我们在这方面申请不少专利，例如三闸晶体管技术(tri-gate transistors)；但还有其它不少我们未申请专利、却需要保密的。” 另外法案中限制单一专利侵权诉讼涉及太多不相关公司的规定，也受到Intel与其它大公司的好评；Simon表示：”很多这类案件都是无用的麻烦。”该众议院版本法案也终止了针对企业以过期专利宣传产品所提出的诉讼案件；Baum表示：“专利律师经手数百件这种诉讼，它们让许多大企业抓狂，是对专利制度的一种滥用。” 编译：Judith Cheng 本文授权编译自EE Times，版权所有，谢绝转载 参考英文原文: Opinions divided on patent reform impact, by Rick Merritt

相关阅读：
• 三星与Spansion和解，赔款、交叉授权一气呵成
• 苹果支付诺基亚巨额专利赔款，意在拖Google下水？
• 欧司朗起诉三星LG侵犯其LED专利权EqHesmc

{pagination} Opinions divided on patent reform impact Rick Merritt SAN JOSE, Calif. – Large electronics companies generally praised and individual inventors criticized the patent reforms passed yesterday by the U.S, House of Representatives. Congress still has to complete the legislation which is expected to have moderate impact across a diverse range of issues. "A lot of people have put a lot of effort over the last ten years in this and our view is the House bill improved on the Senate bill passed earlier this year," said David Simon, associate general counsel for intellectual property policy at Intel. "I don’t think we will change our strategy for acquiring patents [due to the reforms], but we expect with fewer unjustifiable patents in the market we will not have defend ourselves as frequently as we do today," said Manny Schecter, IBM's chief patent counsel. "While a bill was passed, it was not a bill about invention, [it] was a bill about influence, ignorance and indifference, much like the bills that led to the financial collapse and the great recession," said Steve Perlman, a serial entrepreneur who waited eight years for a patent fundamental to one of his startups. Congress must reconcile differences in House and Senate legislation before sending a final bill to President Obama who has signaled he will sign it. It's not clear how long that will take or what items might get changed in the process. "People have been working on this a long time so there's a good chance it will get passed, but with the debt ceiling issue out there it could take time," said Allen Baum, a patent attorney and managing shareholder at Brinks Hofer Gilson & Lione. One of the most controversial provisions of the bill was its move from a first-to-invent to a first-to-file system to harmonize with most other patent offices around the world. Individual inventors such as Perlman warned the move would spark a rush to the patent office in which big companies would have an advantage. "Going to first-to-file won't have a material impact on our patent application strategy," said Schecter of IBM which has been awarded the most U.S. patents every year for the last 18 years. "We won't file more or less because of it, and we won't change the way we process our apps because of it," he said. Both IBM and Intel noted only about 70 out of nearly a million patents a year go into so-called interference disputes at the patent office about which was the first to invent. Patent attorney Baum said he believes companies will explore how they can file applications more quickly. "Large companies with more resources will be advantaged, but the current system disadvantages little guys anyway," Baum said. Today "it's hard for small companies and garage inventors to keep the kind of records needed to show they are first to invent, it's very expensive to conduct an interference hearing and little guys tend to lose them," Baum explained. The harmonization is expected to help major patent offices share more work, such as prior art searches. It is also expected to simplify the job of companies who must apply for patents and sell products globally. The harmonization is only partial. The U.S. is still unique in having a one-year grace period in which inventors can disclose their inventions—to potential investors, for example—before they have to apply for a patent. Patent office funding, reviews All sides agree letting the patent office set and keep all its fees is an improvement, given the agency has a backlog of more than 700,000 applications and takes on average three years to grant a patent. "The key to the reform bill is ending fee diversion to reduce wait times and improve quality of patents being issued," said Mike Mclean, a vice president at UBM TechInsights, an IP consulting and analysis group. "The compromise on that issue in the House bill is a step in the right direction, but the Senate bill is much stronger in that regard and as a result would be the preferred option," he said. The bill also creates a new post-grant review process at the patent office, aiming to weed out bad patents early and reduce a backlog of court cases challenging the validity of patents. The new review process "allows expert statements, deposition and discovery so it will be a much more adversarial proceeding," said Baum, noting the process has successfully reduced court challenges in Europe. The new patent office review could cost "a couple hundred thousand dollars," more than twice as much as today's post-grant reviews, Baum said. But that's still well below the alternative of a court challenges than can cost an order of magnitude more. "This gives small companies an option to have a more meaningful challenge, and big companies will use this extensively against one another, too," he said. The House bill also lets a company already using a technology have a prior use right to it, even after a patent application is granted to another company. IBM and Intel welcomed the provision, though Intel said the language could be clearer for applying it to products as well as processes. "We spend a very long time developing our [chip] manufacturing processes, and we want to keep them secret and not share them with competitors," said Simon. "We do patent a lot of it, and a lot of patents have issued on our tri-gate transistors for instance, but there's a lot of stuff we don’t patent but keep it secret," he said. The bill also limits the ability to bring a single suit against many unrelated companies for infringing a patent, a provision Intel and other large companies praised. "These cases become huge unworkable messes," said Simon. The House bill also ends the practice of suing companies for marking their products with patents that have expired. "Patent attorneys filed hundreds of these suits, and it's driving big companies nuts—it's an abuse of the system," said Baum.