{
  "id": "R40378",
  "type": "CRS Report",
  "typeId": "REPORTS",
  "number": "R40378",
  "active": false,
  "source": "EveryCRSReport.com",
  "versions": [
    {
      "source": "EveryCRSReport.com",
      "id": 355094,
      "date": "2010-01-14",
      "retrieved": "2016-04-07T02:03:34.141576",
      "title": "The Design and Implementation of Patent Revocation Proceedings: Innovation Issues",
      "summary": "Congressional recognition of the role patents play in promoting innovation and economic growth has resulted in the introduction of legislation proposing changes to the patent system. Among other goals, these changes would potentially decrease the cost of resolving disputes concerning patents, increase commercial certainty regarding the validity of particular patents, address potential abuses committed by speculators, and account for the particular needs of individual inventors, universities, and small firms with respect to the patent system.\nIn pursuit of these goals, several bills introduced in the 111th Congress would alter the current system of \u201cpatent revocation proceedings\u201d administered by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO). The term \u201cpatent revocation proceeding\u201d commonly refers to a legal procedure through which members of the public may challenge the validity of an issued patent. \nCurrent law provides for two types of patent revocation proceedings: an ex parte reexamination and inter partes reexamination. Any individual may cite a patent or printed publication to the USPTO and request that an ex parte reexamination occur. If the USPTO determines that the request raises \u201ca substantial new question of patentability,\u201d then it will commence the ex parte reexamination. The USPTO will then review the patent with special dispatch. The proceeding results in either a certificate upholding the claims in original or amended form, or a certificate of cancellation rejecting all of the claims of the patent. Inter partes reexamination operates similarly to an ex parte reexamination, but allows more significant participation by the individual requesting the proceeding.\nSome observers believe that both types of reexamination have not been widely used and could be improved. As a result, previous legislative proposals have called for their elimination or modification. These bills would have also created a new, more expansive \u201cpost-grant review proceeding.\u201d This proposed procedure was intended to provide a predictable, cost-effective, and timely mechanism for resolving patent validity disputes and limit repetitive claims against the patent owner.\nPatent revocation proceedings involve a number of design parameters that may be adjusted in order to meet certain policy goals. Among these parameters are the time at which the proceeding may begin, the patentability issues that may be addressed, the availability of discovery, and the extent to which participants may reassert unsuccessful arguments in subsequent administrative or judicial proceedings. These parameters may be modified in order to encourage certain policy goals, including timely use and resolution of the proceedings, limiting the possibility of harassment of the patent owner, and providing predictable, effective, and transparent decisions.",
      "type": "CRS Report",
      "typeId": "REPORTS",
      "active": false,
      "formats": [
        {
          "format": "HTML",
          "encoding": "utf-8",
          "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/R40378",
          "sha1": "f044401e110946c68884838a8dbb160cc81187b6",
          "filename": "files/20100114_R40378_f044401e110946c68884838a8dbb160cc81187b6.html",
          "images": null
        },
        {
          "format": "PDF",
          "encoding": null,
          "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/pdf/R40378",
          "sha1": "629dbcb3ed72128b1b1427fcfdac9b87c2b75f09",
          "filename": "files/20100114_R40378_629dbcb3ed72128b1b1427fcfdac9b87c2b75f09.pdf",
          "images": null
        }
      ],
      "topics": []
    }
  ],
  "topics": [
    "American Law",
    "Economic Policy"
  ]
}