Vermont recently became the first state to pass legislation specifically directed to patent issues (a law which, as noted by Camilla Hrdy at Patently-O, has interesting federalism implications and may or may not run into federal preemption issues). But even more patent-related activity has been taking place here in Washington, DC. Over the last
- A few weeks ago, we noted comments made by Renata Hesse of the DOJ that questioned whether a standard-essential patent holder who seeks an injunction on a FRAND-encumbered SEP might violate Section 2 of the Sherman Act. In Law360, Wendy Fu takes a closer look at this interesting question.
- This past week, the Supreme
RANDomness – Congressional hearing on abusive patent litigation
Last Thursday, March 14, the U.S. House Judiciary Subcommittee on Courts, Intellectual Property, and the Internet held a hearing titled “Abusive Patent Litigation: The Impact on American Innovation & Jobs, and Potential Solutions. Those testifying before the subcommittee included representatives from Cisco, SAS, J.C. Penney, Global IP Group, Johnson & Johnson, and Adobe Systems.
The new (and improved?) SHIELD Act
There’s been much ado in the patent community over the past week over the re-introduction of H.R. 845, the Saving High-Tech Innovators from Egregious Legal Disputes Act of 2013 — more commonly known as the SHIELD Act. This legislation, co-sponsored by Rep. Peter DeFazio (D-OR) and Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-UT), seeks to “protect American tech companies from frivolous patent lawsuits that cost jobs and resources” by implementing a “loser pays” fee-shifting paradigm for patent infringement cases brought by certain types of non-practicing entities. (A prior version introduced last year, H.R. 6245, was much more limited in its implementation of fee-shifting.)
While this is a bit off-topic for our blog, we thought this proposed legislation is sufficiently important to our readers that we’d do a brief post on it — especially given the penchant by some NPEs to assert standard-essential patents. The legislation (at least as it’s currently drafted) has raised a lot of questions and issues and has generated a lot of commentary (both pro and con) from the business and legal communities. After the jump, we’ll run through a quick summary of the provisions of the SHIELD Act, some first impressions about questions it may raise, and provide some links to a variety of others’ views on the proposed law.…
RANDomness – Reps. DeFazio, Chaffetz reintroduce SHIELD Act
- In a press conference held today, Rep. Peter DeFazio (D-OR) and Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-UT) introduced an updated version of the SHIELD (Saving High-Tech Innovators from Egregious Legal Disputes) Act. The aim of this legislation is to decrease the amount of frivolous NPE patent litigation by increasing financial burdens on NPEs. More on this legislation