{ "id": "R44962", "type": "CRS Report", "typeId": "REPORTS", "number": "R44962", "active": true, "source": "EveryCRSReport.com", "versions": [ { "source": "EveryCRSReport.com", "id": 590555, "date": "2017-09-21", "retrieved": "2019-04-18T15:28:23.142407", "title": "Patent Law: A Primer and Overview of Emerging Issues", "summary": "In an increase over prior terms, the Supreme Court of the United States issued six opinions involving patent law during its October 2016 Term. These decisions addressed issues ranging from patent exhaustion, multicomponent products, and biosimilar patents to procedural issues like venue and the statute of limitations for infringement claims. The growing number of Supreme Court opinions involving patent law over the past decade may also speak to the rising importance of intellectual property more broadly; a reported 84% of the S&P 500 Market Value in 2015 is ascribed to intangible assets. With this increased attention on patent law, an understanding of patent law and the cases issued during the High Court\u2019s recently concluded term will likely be of interest to Congress.\nThe patent law regime in the United States is grounded in the U.S. Constitution itself; article I, section 8, clause 8 of the Constitution provides: \u201cThe Congress Shall Have Power ... To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to ... Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective ... Discoveries.\u201d Nonetheless, the rights associated with patents do not arise automatically. Rather, to obtain patent protection, the Patent Act of 1952 requires inventors to apply with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (PTO).\nA patent may be obtained by \u201c[w]hoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter,\u201d subject to the requirements of the Patent Act. A valid patent bestows upon its holder the right to take action against anyone who \u201cmakes, uses, offers to sell, or sells any patented invention, within the United States or imports into the United States any patented invention during the term of the patent,\u201d unless authority to do so is secured from the patent holder. In addition to examining patent applications, the PTO conducts other proceedings to determine the validity of issued patents, which can result in the revocation of previously issued patents. These proceedings play a central role in the country\u2019s patent system. Final decisions from the PTO are appealable to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, which has exclusive, nationwide jurisdiction over most patent appeals.\nWith the Supreme Court hearing an increasing number of cases involving patent law and other areas of intellectual property over the last decade, the Court is playing a larger role in the development of patent law. During its October 2016 Term, the Court issued two patent law opinions involving procedural issues that will affect when and where patent cases may be filed. In another pair of cases heard during the October 2016 Term, the High Court dealt with issues related to patents on multicomponent products\u2014one in the context of determining infringement and another in the context of calculating damages. A final pair of patent cases decided during the Term may have major implications for the pharmaceutical industry\u2014one addresses whether post-sale restrictions, commonly used in the pharmaceutical industry, are enforceable under patent law, and the other will likely affect the speed at which biosimilars come to market.\nIn addition to the effects of the Supreme Court\u2019s patent decisions issued during its October 2016 Term on patent law, there are a number of patent-related issues on the horizon. The constitutionality of one of the PTO\u2019s post-grant review proceedings has been called into question in a case that will be heard during the Court\u2019s upcoming October 2017 Term. In addition, with patent reform being of perennial concern to Congress, certain legislative proposals have the potential to alter various areas of patent law.", "type": "CRS Report", "typeId": "REPORTS", "active": true, "formats": [ { "format": "HTML", "encoding": "utf-8", "url": "https://www.crs.gov/Reports/R44962", "sha1": "a100bf4390eec83df618940b8978da2fb2d2915d", "filename": "files/20170921_R44962_a100bf4390eec83df618940b8978da2fb2d2915d.html", "images": {} }, { "format": "PDF", "encoding": null, "url": "https://www.crs.gov/Reports/pdf/R44962", "sha1": "3d2dbc0cb1cce68f44a2c6213812181024f5b704", "filename": "files/20170921_R44962_3d2dbc0cb1cce68f44a2c6213812181024f5b704.pdf", "images": {} } ], "topics": [ { "source": "IBCList", "id": 4754, "name": "Intellectual Property" }, { "source": "IBCList", "id": 4785, "name": "Supreme Court Jurisprudence" }, { "source": "IBCList", "id": 4880, "name": "FDA Product Regulation & Medical Research" } ] } ], "topics": [ "Constitutional Questions", "Foreign Affairs" ] }