Tag Archive for inter partes review

FTC Hearings #4: Patents, Intellectual Property, and Innovation

This post has been cross-posted to DisCo. Last week, the FTC held the fourth in its set of hearings focusing on “Competition and Consumer Protection in the 21st Century.”  The first day focused on a review of the current landscape of intellectual property and competition.  The second day featured a variety of panels focusing on…

Yet More Evidence That NPEs Are Harmful To Innovation

Profs. Cohen, Gurun, and Kominers first published a paper collecting evidence of the impacts of NPEs on innovation in 2014.  Recently, they updated the paper, incorporating additional evidence and research from the past four years.  The key takeaways? “NPE litigation has a real negative impact on innovation at targeted firms: firms substantially reduce their innovative…

NPE Resurrects Canceled Patent To Go After Restaurants

A few years ago, a company called MacroSolve stopped creating products and started creating patent litigation.  Its tool was a patent that claimed to cover mobile questionnaires.  But after several of their targets decided to fight back, filing an ex parte reexamination request that wound up cancelling all of the claims of its patent, MacroSolve…

RALIA Would Take Us Back To The Patent Law Stone Age

At the end of June, Rep. Thomas Massie (R-KY) introduced the “Restoring America’s Leadership in Innovation Act of 2018,” H.R. 6264 (RALIA).  RALIA, rather than restoring American innovation, aims to overturn the advances in American patent law that help protect innovation.  Last week, I addressed Rep. Rohrabacher’s ‘Inventor Protection Act’ (IPA) [1][2], and I’ve previously…

Finding A Few Problems In New “Inventor Protection Act”

There’s a bit of a glut of anti-innovation bills in Congress right now, ranging from the STRONGER Patents Act to Rep. Massie’s RALIA bill (which I hope to write about at a later date) and now, Rep. Rohrabacher’s H.R. 6557, the “Inventor Protection Act.”1   The bill begins with legislative findings.  Unfortunately, the “findings” that…