Patent Reform Act of 2007 scheduled for consideration this monthFebruary 1, 2008

The Patent Reform Act of 2007 (S. 1145) is now officially back on the radar. It was recently placed on the Senate's calendar, and is likely to be considered by the full Senate sometime this month. This has resulted in a corresponding increase in the lobbying efforts by those on both sides of the debate.

Click below for more detail regarding the various lobbying efforts, as well as additional commentary on the bill.

The Innovation Alliance, who generally opposes the currently-proposed reforms, has coordinated with its members to send letters explaining the problems with the Patent Reform Act to Senators from its members' home states.

• Letter to Senators Lamar Alexander and Bob Corker of Tennessee Opposing the Patent Reform Act, January 29, 2008
• Letter to Senator John Cornyn from Texas Opposing the Patent Reform Act, January 24, 2008
• Letter to Senators Arlen Specter and Robert P. Casey Jr. Opposing the Patent Reform Act, January 24, 2008
• Letter to Senators Mitch McConnell and Jim Bunning from Kentucky Opposing the Patent Reform Act, January 23, 2008
• Letter to Senators Harry Reid and John Ensign from Nevada Opposing the Patent Reform Act, January 23, 2008
• Letter to Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison from Texas Opposing the Patent Reform Act, January 22, 2008
• Letter to Senators McCain and Kyl from Arizona Opposing the Patent Reform Act, January 18, 2008
• Letter to Senator Wayne Allard from Colorado Opposing the Patent Reform Act, January 18, 2008
• Letter to Senators Chambliss and Isakson from Georgia Opposing the Patent Reform Act, January 12, 2008
• Letter to Senators Durbin and Obama from Illinois Opposing the Patent Reform Act, September 24, 2007
• Letter from 480 organizations opposing the Patent Reform Act of 2007

In addition, the Biotechnology Industry Organization (BIO) has released a study indicating that the three papers most frequently cited as showing a "need" for patent reform are not actually based on emprical data, but instead rely largely on "conjecture, anecdotes and individual publicized cases." According to the study, the empirical data actually show that the patent system is working to promote innovation, and that the problems asserted are being solved with market-based solutions and via the courts. Below are the relevant links:

• Mills & Tereskerz study commissioned by BIO
• The three reports analyzed by the Mills & Tereskerz study:
  • To Promote Innovation: The Proper Balance of Competition and Patent Law and Policy (full report, executive summary)
  • A Patent System for the 21st Century
  • Reaping the Benefits of Genomic and Proteomic Research: Intellectual Property Rights, Innovation, and Public Health

There has also been a resurgence of news and commentary on the subject:

• Gernot Pehnelt, a German economist, in the Des Moines Register against reform
• Dennis Crouch at Patently-O against reform (with a response from Troll Tracker)
• Former USPTO commissioners Gerald Mossinghoff & Stephen Kunin (via Peter Zura) in favor of reform
• Michael Martin at the Patent Prospector against reform
• Reuters report
• Law.com, discussing the efforts of Cisco General Counsel Mark Chandler in favor of patent reform
• New York Times, quoting those on both sides of the debate

The debate keeps getting more heated as the bill appears to get closer to passage. We'll continue monitoring the bill's progress.