Jim Skippen,“Anti-troll propaganda an impediment to American innovation”

The Innovation Act will again be an issue of contention this Fall in Congress. The controversial legislation is aimed in part at ending what’s been called ‘patent-trolling’, or the excessive litigation of patent infringement. However, opponents to the act argue a blanket solution is not what the industry needs, and the Innovation Act will in fact be detrimental to the innovative spirit that America’s been built on. https://www.congress.gov/bill/113th-congress/house-bill/3309

To better understand how the Innovation Act will impact patent holders, it’s important to first consider the two factions of the industry. Public Intellectual Property Companies (PIPCO) and Non Practicing Entities (NPE) both own and license patents on intellectual property. They differ in that, while NPEs own patents, they do not produce the patented technology, property or service. NPEs seem to be under an enhanced level of federal and public scrutiny, and many are quickly and unfairly being labeled ‘trolls’ if they act to enforce patents and licenses that they own. http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2015/08/23/are-patents-getting-their-mojo-back/id=60872/

Patents and trademarks were created to protect the rights and intellectual property of inventors and innovators so that they can have a chance to recoup the expenses they invested in their new product and make a profit. IP protection also serves another purpose: namely, it encourages innovation and advancement.  After all, those who dream up a new invention and patent it are assured they will have a chance of enjoying some financial gain. http://www.basicpatents.com/learnaip.htm

In the last decade, there’s been an unprecedented level of opposition to patent and copyright infringement enforcement techniques; techniques that have been long considered acceptable and legal within the United States. Cease and desist letters that warn of impending litigation if licensing fees are unpaid or patents continue to be infringed upon are now being considered a form of extortion. The lawyers who work with NPEs take on these cases and draft these letters on a contingency fee basis; these cases have been the lifeblood of intellectual property enforcement efforts for decades. http://www.theverge.com/2011/08/11/broken-patent-system

Resistance is also growing against copyright and patent portfolio consolidation by companies that are doing this for the purposes of licensing and enforcement. Despite the fact that licensing and enforcement of copyrights is the main business of music publishing companies, copyright protections have allowed the American music industry to become the most successful music industry on the globe and has allowed musicians and artists to profit from their work.

Even academia isn’t safe.  Licensing and commercialization activities by universities and other academic institutions have also come under attack.  Many higher learning institutes have developed in-house intellectual property licensing departments with the purpose of developing streams of revenue from intellectual property rights related to the research and the scholarly activities of faculty members.

“Some argue that the system as it currently exists is unfair because innocent individuals and companies are sometimes wrongly accused of infringement, but are forced to settle rather than incur the substantial legal costs associated with defending themselves,” Maurice Ross of The Summit wrote. “But, claims that innocent individuals and companies are wrongly accused of infringement seem vastly exaggerated.” http://thesummit.gjil.org/2013/11/troll-hunters-us-war-on-intellectual.html

The Innovation Act will force patent holders to pay the legal expenses of the defendant if the case is not won by the plaintiff.

Jim Skippen (https://ca.linkedin.com/pub/jim-skippen/3/35a/9a9), former CEO of IP and licensing protection company, WiLAN, who is well-informed of the arguments (http://www.iam-media.com/blog/Detail.aspx?g=5a6a19b1-eb2b-49a5-8c44-842c32b75802) each side offers, is skeptical that undermining the strength of patent law will have the desired effects.  Speaking specifically on the right to sell and transfer patents, Jim Skippen commented to CBC News (http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottawa/ottawa-home-to-robust-controversial-patent-licensing-industry-1.2440034) :  “I think at the end of the day if you didn’t have the right to transfer patents or buy inventions, you really have gutted the patent system … And you have to think carefully before you do that because that’s been a big impetus to the economic growth that we’ve seen in the U.S. and other western countries.”

Congresswoman Marcy Kaptur wrote of her disdain for the Innovation Act earlier this year, “The Innovation Act goes well beyond what is needed to address bad actions of a small number of patent holders, and instead raises costs for all legitimate patent holders to enforce their Constitutionally-given property rights in court.” http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2015/04/26/the-innovation-act-is-bad-news-for-americas-patent-system/id=57199/

The United States Patent and Trademark Office was officially opened in 1975, so there is little debate that policies and regulations need to be updated to reflect the rise of technology and nature of globalization. However, blanket reform that leaves the nation’s most creative individuals exposed and left out to fend for themselves is not the type of change that is required or needed.