Council for Innovation Promotion

⏰ Briefing: The Sunwater Institute Study on #Patent Quality in the United States On Wednesday, October 2, the Council for Innovation Promotion (#C4IP) hosted a briefing to celebrate the release of the Sunwater Institute’s study, “Patent Quality in the United States: Findings and Suggestions for #Policymakers.” The event featured a presentation from the Sunwater Institute on the findings and methodology of the study, which reviewed the U.S. patent system to analyze the quality of patents that are granted compared to those that are rejected. Notably, the study refuted the myth that the patent system is plagued by “bad” patents, finding that more valid patent applications are rejected than invalid patents are granted. It also found that, despite misleading arguments from some policymakers and activists, patent invalidation rates at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) or district courts are not accurate measures of overall patent quality. #Intellectualproperty experts and thought leaders, including C4IP Co-Chairs and former U.S Patent Office Directors Andrei Iancu and David Kappos, also delivered remarks on the study’s insights and its implications for future #policy. Check out our press release on the study, as well as additional photos and a recording of the briefing at the link below!

From heart health to household appliances, every aspect of our lives has benefited greatly from #IP, as shown by these historical examples from the month of October: 💖 On October 9, 1962, Wilson Greatbatch received a #patent for the first implantable cardiac #pacemaker. On average, having a pacemaker more than doubles a heart disease patient's 10-year survival rate, meaning that the device is constantly saving millions of lives. ⏳ On October 18, 1921, Charles Strite received a #patent for the first toaster with a timer and automatic ejection mechanism. Today, these features are ubiquitous and pop-up toasters make up over two-thirds of the overall toaster market. 🧵 On October 9, 1855, Isaac Singer received a #patent for an improved sewing machine, which formed the basis for his company, Singer Corporation. While Singer was not the first person to patent a sewing machine, his improvements made the machine practical and reliable for the first time — showcasing how patents promote competition and #innovation. Check out our blog post for more info:

🔊 Listen to Council for Innovation Promotion (#C4IP) Co-Chair and former USPTO Director Andrei Iancu debunk #patent myths on the #IP Protection Matters podcast: "...The reality is if you look at all the drugs in the market... the active life on average of #patent protection overall, of all the patents on a particular drug, is... approximately half of the 20-year period. So 10, 11, 12 years overall is the active total life of patent protection. It's very rare that a particular drug will have protection for more than 20 years, no matter how many inventions you have. And the reason for that is that drug companies enter into settlement agreements, so to speak, globally with the generic industry to allow earlier access for various market and economic reasons. So, the concept of evergreening is absolutely false. You cannot by law extend the life of a particular patent." Listen to the full episode below ⬇️

📅 October was a busy month for the Council for Innovation Promotion! Highlights include:  ✅ #C4IP Co-Chair David Kappos spoke about the impacts of current and proposed standard-essential patent (#SEP) regulations on #innovation during a panel discussion hosted by the George Mason University Center for Intellectual Property and Innovation Policy (C-IP2). ✅ C4IP's public comment on the USPTO's recent #AI #patent eligibility guidance was quoted in a Law360 article highlighting other groups’ and companies’ calls for greater clarity on AI #patenting rules. ✅ C4IP Co-Chairs Andrei Iancu and David Kappos published an op-ed in RealClearHealth underlining how the proposed Medication Affordability and Patent Integrity Act would cause unnecessary government waste, make #intellectualproperty vulnerable to theft, and fail to benefit #patients. Read more about our recent work in our coalition updates blog post:

#ICYMI Check out the Council for Innovation Promotion's latest fact check from our #IP #Policy Roundup Newsletter: Throughout October, activists affiliated with the Initiative for Medicines, Access & Knowledge (I-MAK) and R Street Institute propagated false narratives about how #patents stifle competition in the drug industry and keep generic drugs from coming to market. These erroneous arguments include the ideas that drug developers 'game' the FDA's Orange Book, that they file unnecessary #patents to extend their market exclusivity, and that these practices deprive U.S. patients of accessible #genericmedicines. The allegations being made by I-MAK and R Street Institute reflect commonly cited myths that do not stand up to scrutiny. ❌ Myth: Abuses of the patent system by drugmakers are restricting patients' access to generic medicines. ✔️ Fact: The practices that I-MAK and R Street cite as abuses, which include "#patent thickets" and "product hopping," have previously been debunked as myths by #C4IP. But beyond that, the claim that U.S. #patients lack access to generic drugs is not based in reality. 90% of all U.S. #prescriptions are currently filled with generic drugs. Our use of generic medicines dwarfs that of other developed nations, which prescribe generic drugs only 41% of the time on average. Because of our strong patent system, the United States experiences the best of both worlds: we get innovative new medicines first, and we also have a plethora of generic options available for most conditions. If lawmakers respond to activist pressure by weakening our patent system in order to address these fictitious "abuses," they will upset the competition that makes America's pharmaceutical market the most robust and innovative in the world. Find out more:

🔍 According to a new study, invalidation rates in federal court and at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (#PTAB) are unreliable metrics for judging overall #patent quality. Here's why: 👉 Patents challenged and invalidated in court and at the PTAB are systematically filtered, making them a biased, unrepresentative sample of the larger pool. ⚖️ Invalidation rates of 40-60% are to be expected, reflecting the uncertainty surrounding the small subset of litigated patents that reach a final judgment. 📊 Because of the biased selection of challenged and invalidated patents, invalidation rate data is not a reliable metric for judging the quality of the overall pool of patents. Check out our issue brief on The Sunwater Institute's recent study for more info on the U.S. #patent landscape:

2024 Canada-US Legal Symposium | Intellectual Property, Copyright, and AI Are our copyright and IP protections sufficient in the age of AI? Tune in for a panel discussion featuring Stephen D. Burns (Bennett Jones), Jamie Simpson (Council for Innovation Promotion), Heather West (Venable LLP), and Steven Paille (Charles Schwab). The 2024 Canada-US Legal Symposium kicks off tomorrow at 9:30am. Register and learn more below. https://lnkd.in/ePNWuzce

📣 "One of the key findings is that simple counts of patents don't necessarily indicate anything about the length of exclusivity a drug is going to have before a generic enters the market... On the Hill, we hear a lot about 'patent thickets,' looking just at numbers of drugs. And this report suggests that just looking at those numbers is not really a good way to assess the amount of exclusivity. The second point it makes is that follow-on patents don't necessarily affect the ability of a generic to enter the market… another thing that we've heard a lot about on the Hill is this concept of 'evergreening,' or the idea that a follow-on invention after the core inventions surrounding a drug will further block generic competition. And, as this report shows, later #patents don't, in most cases, block the earlier generics." - Council for Innovation Promotion Chief Policy Officer and Counsel Jamie Simpson on some key findings from the USPTO's "Drug #Patent and Exclusivity Report" Listen to her full remarks at our recent briefing on the report ⬇️

Activist groups routinely accuse companies of "abusing" the #patent system by engaging in practices such as "patent thicketing," "evergreening," and "product hopping," which they allege prevent generic competition. By debunking these myths, the Council for Innovation Promotion hopes to foster a more honest public policy debate and correct the misconception that America's patent system needs an extreme overhaul. ❌ Patent Thickets: Some activists claim that companies file multiple patents for a single product to "game" the patent system. But there's nothing insidious or abnormal about this practice. 📱 High-tech products like smartphones and medicines routinely combine numerous inventions, each of which requires its own patent. For example, Apple filed around 200 patents for the first iPhone. 💊 There are often many distinct and novel innovations that go into a single medicine. Patents can cover separate -- yet equally important -- characteristics of a drug such as its ingredients, method of administration, and dosage. 💡 Deriding the patents the USPTO issues on such critically important inventions is to deride the inventions themselves. 📅 Crucially, if an inventor files a patent for a variant of their product that would not qualify for its own standalone patent, the new patent is given the same expiration date as the product's original patent. Otherwise, the patent for the new variant is denied. To learn more about anti-patent myths, check out this resource:

📜 The #RESTORE #Patent Rights Act, introduced in July by a bipartisan group of senators and representatives, would be a pivotal legislative milestone for promoting #innovation, if enacted into #law. This bill would reestablish injunctive relief as the default legal remedy for patent infringement, preventing patent infringers from using others' #IP and ultimately facing little more than the consequence of having to pay the royalty they should have paid anyway. In doing so, it would empower America's small #innovators to continue developing innovative products and bolster our nation's economic competitiveness. In September, former Congressman Trey Gowdy (R-SC) published an op-ed in the Washington Examiner opposing this bill on the basis that it would harm American #manufacturers and benefit foreign adversaries. However, his argument relies on several factually inaccurate claims: ❌ Claim: The RESTORE Patent Rights Act would empower bad actors "to abuse our courtrooms with impunity." ✔️ In reality: The post-eBay status quo (following the Supreme Court's 2006 decision in eBay v. MercExchange) already allows significant potential for abuse by bad actors, which would be reduced by the RESTORE #Patent Rights Act. Under the status quo, deep-pocketed companies and those backed by wealthy interests are able to engage in expensive litigation and can readily afford to pay monetary damages if caught infringing patents. On the other hand, under the RESTORE Patent Rights Act, these companies would have less of an incentive to infringe patents because if an injunction is granted, they will lose access to the patented #technology instead of simply losing money. If the RESTORE Patent Rights Act becomes law, it will help to nullify the current advantages that wealthy businesses currently enjoy in patent litigation. For more on the myths vs. facts of the #RESTORE Patent Rights Act, visit our latest blog post: