One of the most prominent changes proposed is a switch from 'first to invent' to 'first to file', a move that would harmonize the US with the rest of the world. At present, only the US gives priority to the application that claims the earliest invention date, rather than the first party to file an application. Although on the surface, the first to invent system seems to reward the inventor fairly, it has in practice become costly and complicated to uphold. Contesting a granted patent involves a lengthy 'interference' process to determine who was the original inventor, and can involve many expensive legal hearings. Opponents to this change argue that this approach would result in a race to the mailbox, which might disadvantage smaller companies that have less patent experience. Other reforms proposed by the Bill include greater rule-making authority being given to the US Patent and Trademark Office, and open-ended postgrant opposition, whereby a patent is given no presumption of validity and could be challenged throughout its term. It is reforms such as the latter that organizations such as BIO (the Biotechnology Industry Organisation) are opposed to, claiming that it would weaken the enforceability of validly issued patents and so be detrimental to the future of US innovation.
The next step in the Patent Reform Act's journey through Congress would be a vote by both the House and the Senate. However, following the hearing, a group of Judiciary Committee senators have written a letter to the Chair to express their views that more hearings are necessary to address issues in the Reform Act that have broad implications for the US economy. They urge the Committee not to move the Bill to the next stage until more discussions have taken place. Therefore, it seems that while many individuals and organizations seem to agree on some of the proposed reforms, there is some way to go before specific reforms on which a majority agree on are worked out.
This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution