Public Knowledge Submits House Testimony on Patent Reform
Public Knowledge Submits House Testimony on Patent Reform
Public Knowledge Submits House Testimony on Patent Reform

    Get Involved Today

    The House Committee on the Judiciary will hold a hearing on Examining Recent Supreme Court Cases in the Patent Arena Thursday, Feb. 12. Public Knowledge will submit written testimony for the record. This testimony illustrates key Supreme Court patent cases and their impact, based on Public Knowledge’s expertise and experience in filing amicus curiae briefs in those cases and discussing the impact of those patent decisions on consumer interests.

    The following may be attributed to Charles Duan, Director of the Patent Reform Project at Public Knowledge:

    “Effective patent reform requires the participation of all parts of government, especially the judiciary. Decisions of the Supreme Court in patent cases can define or destroy new technologies, innovators and businesses. Thus, those cases have a substantial impact on the public interest in access to technology, innovation and progress.

    “Because the Supreme Court plays such an important role in patent reform, Public Knowledge has been highly active in filing amicus curiae briefs urging the Court to consider the public interest in a balanced patent system that does not turn patents into excessive and burdensome tools of monopolists. We have been successful. The cases decided last year, including Alice v. CLS Bank, Nautilus v. Biosig and Octane Fitness v. Icon Health, all demonstrate a commitment to a balanced, pro-consumer patent system.

    “Our testimony makes three main points. First, we believe that such a balanced, public interest-oriented patent system is necessary for innovation, and the current spate of abusive patent litigation reflects a lack of balance in current patent law. Second, the Supreme Court has played an important role in bringing patent law back to that proper balance. Third, because patent reform is so multifaceted, Congress must still act to pass patent reform legislation even after the Court's decisions.”

    You may read the full testimony here.