House bill would endanger patent rights in U.S.

America has always been a nation of inventors. Technical and intellectual advancements are part of the fabric of our culture, not to mention the lifeblood of our economy.

Intellectual property in this country is estimated to be worth about $5.5 trillion. The intellectual-property industry generated an astounding 40 million jobs in 2010 alone, or 27.7 percent of all jobs, according to the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office.

Patents exist today because our forefathers understood the value of incentivizing invention and embedded the concept in our Constitution. Unfortunately, this patent protection is now being challenged in a misguided effort to solve a problem with our legal system.

The U.S. House is expected this week to consider HR 3309, the Innovation Act, which, if passed, could weaken intellectual-property rights.

For example, the customer-suit exception in the legislation is too broad. It should be made more specific so it targets those being harmed, the smallbusiness end-users and retailers who are the true victims of patent abuse.

Unless the provision is narrowed, it will create much more litigation and infringement. This will not only harm American inventors, it will also undermine the innovation that is a crucial driver of progress and economic growth in Arizona and throughout the country.

Some unscrupulous lawyers are bringing lawsuits against

JON KYL innocent businesses that use various technologies, claiming that use violates some undescribed patent held by the plaintiff. Huge settlements are obtained because it is cheaper to settle than to litigate such cases.

The plaintiffs are called “patent trolls,” entities that have bought large numbers of patents but never manufactured or licensed others to make a product.

The solution to this problem is to reform this aspect of the legal system (by requiring the plaintiff to state clearly what exact patent is allegedly being violated and how), rather than taking away patent rights of inventors who are not also manufacturers.

Researchers at universities have made incredible breakthroughs, resulting in patents that benefit those universities — not because they then manu- facture the innovation (they leave that to others, licensing their patents), but because, without their effort, there would have been no breakthrough.

The very idea of patents laid out in the Constitution reflects the reality that not all inventors would be manufacturers. Our patent system was the first in the world that allowed inventors to strictly invent, without having to produce what they create.

It is why Thomas Edison was allowed to work as a full-time inventor, yielding many important inventions, rather than just one.

To respect patents means protecting inventors like Edison, or today, garage entrepreneurs or universities, just as we do the large corporations with lawyers dedicated solely to protecting and enforcing their in- tellectual-property rights.

It is neither fair nor sensible to diminish a patent holder’s rights simply because the patent was sold or licensed to another.

The fact that a patent holder can choose to sell his or her patent promotes economic efficiency by allowing individuals or firms that are good at innovating to focus on developing inventions and firms that are good at commercializing to focus on licensing or manufacturing.

There are ways to address litigation abuse without putting the strength of our intellectualproperty rights — and, thus, the creative ecosystem created by the patent system — in peril.