{
  "id": "RL30451",
  "type": "CRS Report",
  "typeId": "REPORTS",
  "number": "RL30451",
  "active": false,
  "source": "EveryCRSReport.com",
  "versions": [
    {
      "source": "EveryCRSReport.com",
      "id": 101791,
      "date": "2000-02-29",
      "retrieved": "2016-05-24T20:38:46.482941",
      "title": "Patent Law Reform: An Analysis of the American Inventors Protection Act of 1999 and Its Effect on Small, Entrepreneurial Firms",
      "summary": "The American Inventors Protection Act of 1999,  P.L. 106-113 , worked substantial reforms to\nthe\nU.S. patent system. These reforms include provisions to protect inventors from deceptive invention\npromotion services; reduce certain fees associated with filing applications at the United States Patent\nand Trademark Office (PTO); create an infringement defense to first inventors of business methods\nlater patented by another; ensure that processing delays at the PTO would not adversely impact\npatent term; mandate the publication of certain pending patent applications; establish provisional\npatent rights following the publication of patent applications; provide for optional inter partes\nreexamination procedures; and establish the PTO as an independent agency within the Department\nof Commerce.\n  The eight different titles of the American Inventors Protection Act were shaped by diverse\nmotivations. However, many of the Act's provisions were influenced by concern for entrepreneurs\nand small, entrepreneurial firms, actors that are generally perceived as a principal source of\ninnovative products and processes in the U.S. economy. \n  This report assesses the potential impact of the American Inventors Protection Act upon\nentrepreneurs and small, entrepreneurial firms. It concludes that it is not possible to state the impact\nof the American Inventors Protection Act upon individual inventors and small businesses with great\nprecision. Within these limits of confidence, however, there is evidence that most of the recent\npatent law reforms do not significantly impact these companies any differently than larger, more\nwell-established enterprises. Whether a particular actor in the technological community will benefit\nfrom the Act, or is negatively impacted by its provisions, depends upon traits that likely arise without\nregard to the actor's size. These traits include the propensity of particular industrial sectors towards\npatent acquisition and enforcement, the marketplace importance of that actor's patent portfolio, and\nthe innovative activity of the actor's competitors.",
      "type": "CRS Report",
      "typeId": "REPORTS",
      "active": false,
      "formats": [
        {
          "format": "PDF",
          "encoding": null,
          "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/pdf/RL30451",
          "sha1": "8a6b670affc2945db1b5cfd564113e61945110a3",
          "filename": "files/20000229_RL30451_8a6b670affc2945db1b5cfd564113e61945110a3.pdf",
          "images": null
        },
        {
          "format": "HTML",
          "filename": "files/20000229_RL30451_8a6b670affc2945db1b5cfd564113e61945110a3.html"
        }
      ],
      "topics": []
    }
  ],
  "topics": [
    "Economic Policy"
  ]
}