The following post, by Robert R. Sachs, first appeared on the Bilski Blog, and it is reposted here with permission.
It’s been one year since the Supreme Court’s decision in Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank. On its face the opinion was relatively conservative, cautioning courts to “tread carefully” before invalidating patents, and emphasizing that the primary concern was to avoid preemption of “fundamental building blocks” of human ingenuity. Read more
In the last two weeks, the House and Senate Judiciary Committees marked up wide-ranging patent legislation ostensibly aimed at combating frivolous litigation by so-called “patent trolls.” But while the stated purpose of the House and Senate bills—H.R. 9 (the “Innovation Act”) and S. Read more
February 2, 2015
The Center for the Protection of Intellectual Property (CPIP) is proud to join today’s open letter to Congress providing a set of guidelines for considering laws and regulations governing intellectual property.
The letter outlines some of the fundamental economic and moral considerations that underscore the benefits of strong intellectual property rights. Read more
PDF summary available here
I. Introduction
A recent draft study about patent licensing companies entitled “Patent Trolls: Evidence from Targeted Firms” is making the rounds on Capitol Hill and receiving press coverage. This attention is unfortunate, because the study is deeply flawed and its conclusions cannot and should not be relied upon. Read more
By Steven Tjoe
Much of today’s patent policy debate focuses on the dynamics of patent litigation. Sensational anecdotes of abusive demand letters, litigants strategically exploiting bad patents, and tales of so-called “patent trolls” (reinforced by now debunked empirical claims) have captured the public’s imagination and spurred Congress to rush to revise the patent system. Read more
By Steven Tjoe
On Thursday March 13, the House Judiciary Committee held a hearing on the Digital Millennium Copyright Act’s (DMCA) notice and takedown system. Among the witnesses testifying at the hearing was CPIP Fellow Professor Sean O’Connor (Washington University School of Law), who offered his insights on Section 512 from his unique position as a law professor, former musician, and counsel to web businesses. Read more
In conjunction with today’s House Judiciary Committee hearing on the DMCA, CPIP Senior Scholar Prof. Mark Schultz published a critique of the notice and takedown system this morning on AEI’s TechPolicyDaily Blog.
In his critique, Prof. Schultz discusses CPIP’s policy brief by Prof. Read more
Below is the text of the oral testimony provided by Professor Adam Mossoff to the Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee, the Consumer Protection, Product Safety, and Insurance Subcommittee, in its November 7, 2013 hearing on “Demand Letters and Consumer Protection: Examining Deceptive Practices by Patent Assertion Entities.” Read more
As we previously reported, there are serious concerns with the studies asserting that a “patent litigation explosion” has been caused by patent licensing companies (so-called non-practicing entities (“NPEs”) or “patent trolls”). These seemingly alarming studies (see here and here) have drawn scholarly criticism for their use of proprietary, secret data collected from companies like RPX and Patent Freedom – companies whose business models are predicated on defending against patent licensing companies. Read more
