Goes 100 % towards supporting C -SPAN's vital work, helping ensure that long -form, in -depth, and independent coverage continues to thrive in an era where it's needed more than ever.
Visit c -span .org slash donate, or scan the code on your screen to make your tax -deductible contribution today.
Together, we can ensure that C -SPAN remains a trusted resource for you and for future generations.
C -SPAN is your unfiltered view of government.
We're funded by these television companies and more.
Where are you going?
Or maybe a better question is how far do you want to go?
And how fast do you want to get there?
Now we're getting somewhere.
So let's go.
Let's go faster.
Let's go further.
Let's go beyond.
Midco supports C -SPAN as a public service along with these other television providers.
Next, a hearing on legislation intended to strengthen protections for patent holders.
Delaware Democratic Senator Chris Coons, the chair of the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Intellectual Property, recently introduced bipartisan legislation on the topic.
This is about 75 minutes.
This hearing of the Intellectual Property Subcommittee of the Senate Judiciary Committee will come to order.
I'd like to thank all four of our witnesses for participating today, and I'd like to especially thank my colleague, Ranking Member Tom Tillis, and his staff for putting this hearing together, again, on a consensus basis.
This is our tenth, our tenth, Intellectual Property Subcommittee hearing of this Congress, the most of any of the subcommittees of the full committee.
We have conducted oversight on the PTO and the Copyright Office, analyzed and worked through five different bipartisan bills.
I had a hearing on the intersection of AI and IP and probed foreign threats to American IP.
We've actually been doing the work our constituents sent us to Washington to do, legislating.
And at every step, Senator Tillis, you and your team have been fantastic partners.
Thank you.
And I look forward, God willing, to continuing our work together in the next Congress.
I expect other members of this subcommittee will be joining us today.
Today's hearing examines the restore Patent Rights Act, a bill I currently cosponsor with Senator Cotton of Arkansas.
This one -sentence bill would restore the presumption that a patent owner should receive an injunction when she demonstrates that a defendant has infringed her valid patent.
This is in no way a new or novel idea.
Our founding fathers made it clear that inventors should have exclusive rights to their inventions.
In other words, the Constitution in its script guarantees to inventors the ability to prevent others from using or selling their inventions without their permission.
For more than 200 years, our federal courts recognized this exclusive right, and in nearly 100 % of cases, courts issued permanent injunctions against patent infringers when patent owners sought them.
This system was predictable and orderly.
Parties who wanted to use patented technology negotiated with patent owners to pay for licenses rather than infringing up front and then risking a costly injunction shutting down manufacturing and distribution operations.
That changed in 2006 with the Supreme Court's decision in eBay versus Merck Exchange.
In that case, the Supreme Court held injunctions were not the per se remedy for patent infringement.
Instead courts were to apply the traditional four -factor equitable test before deciding whether to award either money damages or injunctive relief.
As you can guess after eBay courts have much more frequently concluded money damages rather than injunctions are sufficient to compensate a patent owner for infringement.
Studies conducted since eBay have shown the number of injunctions sought and the number of injunctions granted have decreased substantially.
The relative decrease in requests for permanent injunctions was 65 % for operating companies and 90 % for non -practicing entities.
And even when parties did seek injunctive relief, they were awarded it less frequently.
So grants of injunctions to patent holders who had proven validity and infringement dropped from 100 % to about 70%.
Putting these trends together means courts are simply issuing far fewer permanent injunctions against infringers than they were before this decision.
These numbers don't capture the full impact of the eBay decision.
Predatory infringement, an infringe now, pay later model, is broadly on the rise.
It stands to reason why should a potential licensee negotiate with a patent owner in good faith when they can infringe now for free?
And maybe at some point later pay a court -determined licensing fee.
Or better yet, maybe the infringer can wear the patent owner down with years of repeated litigation and with injunctive relief uncertain, extract licensing concessions.
Individual inventors, universities, and startups are especially vulnerable because they often lack the significant financial resources to sustain prolonged litigation.
As a result, In my view, the value of a patent has diminished.
If a patent owner can't be confident that they can exclude infringers from practicing the invention, how can they sell a high -value license?
They can't, and the post -eBay data show a huge increase in lower -value, non -exclusive licenses, meaning patent owners have a tougher time recovering their investment, which leads to abandoning innovative ideas or reducing R &D investment in the kind of ideas that can propel our economy.
It's for these reasons I introduced the Restore Patent Rights Act.
And as I've said before, in a single sentence, this would restore the rebuttable presumption and undo the harmful effects of eBay.
In all four of our previous hearings examining specific bipartisan bills, we have witnesses who both support and oppose the legislation.
We try to hear all sides on this.
This hearing is no different.
With Senator Tillis' cooperation, we have a panel with diverse views and perspectives both on the challenge and the operational impact of eBay and this bill and its potential consequence.
We want to hear from you about whether you think this bill is needed, whether it's crafted the right way, although at one sentence there's not a lot of Thank you,
Chair Coons, and thank you for holding the hearing on the Restore Patent Rights Act.
Before I make a few comments and we hear from the witnesses, I just want to thank you for another Great session of Congress working together.
Ten hearings, but what you may not know is how much work goes into those hearings for which I think we both are very grateful to the staff who do.
The lion's share of the work.
But I also think it's important to mention on the broader subject of intellectual property, how many meetings, work groups, the work of this committee I would put up against any subcommittee in the U .S. Senate for the past couple of Congresses.
And a lot of that has been through the cooperation, the active involvement of many members, but absolutely through our consensus -based leadership of the committee and through the hard work of the staff.
So I thank you all for the work that you've done.
We're going to hear from witnesses on both sides of the issue today whether or not you support or have concerns with the bill or oppose what we're trying to accomplish.
You all know what the bill does, so I'm not going to tell experts what it does.
I'm here as a business person trying to solve problems.
And I view this as another problem that is a threat to innovation.
It's particularly a threat to the innovation ecosystem when we're talking about some of the smallest, less resourced inventors and innovators.
There's got to be a way to get it right.
Now, what I do like, what I will tell the witnesses, thank you for coming, whether you're on the pro...
Thank you for coming here.
Good, fulsome discussion.
I don't want to hear any less from somebody who's opposed to the bill than someone who supports it, mainly because we want to get to a good, fair, balanced outcome.
But I am convinced that Senator Cotton and Senator Coons are onto something here, and I look forward to the testimony and look forward to the engagement afterwards.
Thank you all.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
And also, we apologize for starting 15 minutes late.
We had a vote that we had to take care of.
Thank you.
Thank you Senator Tillis.
Thank you Senator Hirono for joining us again.
I'd now like to introduce our witness panel.
First, we have Jacob Babcock, CEO of New Current, a 40 -person company based in Chicago that works on wireless power solutions and has a portfolio of more than 300 granted and pending patents.
Next, we have Joshua Landau, Senior Counsel for Innovation Policy at CCIA, the Computer and Communication Industry Association, where he advises the Association on Patent Issues.
Then, Professor Kristen Ocinga.
Professor of Law at the Richmond School of Law, where she focuses on patent litigation and patent law reform.
And last, Professor George Contreras, Professor at the University of Utah College of Law, where he works on IP issues and directs the law school's program on IP and technology law.
Grateful to have you all here.
After I swear in the witnesses, you'll each have roughly five minutes to provide an opening statement.
We'll then proceed.
Likely with two rounds of questioning, depending on attendance and time.
So, could you all please stand and be sworn?
Please raise your right hand and repeat after me.
Do you swear that the testimony you are about to give before this committee shall be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
So help you God.
Thank you all.
Mr. Babcock, you may proceed with your opening statement.
Chairman Coons, Ranking Member Tillis, and members of the subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to testify today.
When I graduated from Indiana University in 2004, I joined Teach for America to help close the education gap.
After finishing in 2006, I embarked on a career in tech and entrepreneurship, and in the nearly 20 years since, I've watched a new type of gap emerge, an innovation and IP gap, created by a systematic gutting of our once great patent system.
This didn't happen by accident.
Megatech special interests have driven judicial, legislative, and administrative changes that heavily tilt the system in their favor.
For example, the 2006 eBay decision eliminated injunctive relief, leaving inventors with inadequate compensation while infringers profit.
Other harmful cases have included the 2014 Alice decision and the 2018 Oil States decisions, which have combined to substantially weaken patent rights.
On the legislative front, the 2011 America Invents Act created the PTAB, which invalidates patents at an alarming rate and drains inventors' resources.
Finally, on the administrative front, the USPTO has turned patents into paper shields by lowering the standard of review, shifting the burden of evidence to patent holders, and allowing defendants multiple bites at the apple.
The result is a system that no longer protects innovators or provides clarity to investors.
Rewards those who exploit our ideas, shifting and stifling competition and creativity.
Let me share what this looks like to me in a practical sense and in my business and as an investor.
At New Current, the company I founded in 2009, we specialize in wireless power and data transfer.
We've filed over 400 patents and partnered with leaders like HP and Honeywell to bring breakthrough products to the market.
But despite our success, we've experienced firsthand how the system fails to protect innovators.
A major Korean OEM stole our patented technology, and they enabled their suppliers in China and Taiwan to profit from our work.
Without injunctive relief, we couldn't block them.
By the time financial remedies arrived years later, the damage was already done.
Billions of dollars in value flowed overseas, and that's value that we would have invested in American jobs and innovation.
This wasn't just theft.
It was a systematic failure of the U .S. patent system.
And here's the bigger problem.
The lack of injunctive relief distorts fair business dealings.
Mega corporations know that there's no urgency for them to act.
Without the threat of an injunction, they can choose to infringe now and pay later, as you mentioned.
If they pay at all.
A former Apple executive even called this strategy a fiduciary obligation.
Because for Megatech, litigation is just a small tax on doing business.
But for companies like mine, it's devastating.
Instead of inventing, building, and creating jobs, we're forced to fight endless legal battles.
This broken system also discourages the next generation of innovators.
As a founding investor in the 81 Collective Venture Fund, I see this every day.
81 % of U .S. GDP comes from industries like manufacturing, healthcare, and energy.
Industries that are reliant on hard tech.
Yet, these sectors receive less than half of venture capital investment.
Why is that?
It's because investors see the risks of a broken patent system outweighing the rewards of making the investment.
At mHub, a hard tech accelerator where I serve on the board, entrepreneurs often ask me, is filing a patent worth it?
Is it worth the investment?
Today, I often have to say no.
And this may be the biggest tragedy of all.
Every time I give that answer, I worry we're letting the next big American innovation slip away, only to be exploited by foreign competitors or entrenched players.
The good news is, we can fix this.
The Restore Act offers a common sense solution.
By instoring injunctive relief, it gives inventors the ability to stop proven infringers.
This really isn't complicated in my eyes.
If you're found guilty of breaking the law, you shouldn't get to keep profiting.
No other area of law works this way, except for in patents.
The Restore Act will empower inventors to protect their work, rebuild trust in the patent system, drive investment in critical sectors like manufacturing, energy, and healthcare.
And this is really about fairness.
It's about ensuring that when inventors take risks, work hard, and bring groundbreaking technologies to life, their rights are respected.
So to close, I'll say this.
This is our moment.
The Restore Act sends a clear signal.
That America values its innovators, protects its creators, and will not tolerate IP theft, whether from foreign competitors or domestic giants.
Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Babcock.
Mr. Landau.
Chairman Coons, Ranking Member Tillis, members of the subcommittee, thank you for inviting me to testify on behalf of the Computer and Communications Industry Association.
CCIA has advocated for competition and innovation in the technology and communications industries since 1972.
Thank you.
Thank you.
The eBay decision has helped to ensure that the U .S. patent system fairly rewards patentees without creating excessive burdens on innovators or awarding patentees windfalls.
It also encouraged innovation and commercialization.
After eBay was decided in 2006, research and development spending accelerated its rate of increase.
Patent filings likewise accelerated.
And not just any patent, but patents that were more likely to be cited by others and thus more likely to contribute to new innovation in the future.
Some studies have even found an overall increase in social welfare due to the eBay decision.
eBay did have an impact on innovation.
It accelerated it.
The Restore Act would reverse these benefits, and it would incentivize manufacturing outside of the United States at a time when bolstering domestic manufacturing is a national priority.
It's also simply unnecessary.
Prior to eBay, operating companies, companies that make products, could obtain injunctions in almost all cases.
And after eBay, Those companies can obtain injunctions in almost all cases.
For operating companies, eBay represented almost no change in their ability to obtain an injunction.
And for inventors that don't make anything themselves, but work with exclusive licensees, situations like a small inventor partnering with a manufacturer, or a university working with a startup, injunctions do remain available.
Now, there was a drop in injunctions after eBay.
We're good to go.
I think?
We're good to go.
Thank you.
Thank you.
We're good to go.
That makes sense when a patent covers the entire product.
But modern high -tech products are complex, multi -component devices that might involve tens or even hundreds of thousands of patents, each covering a tiny aspect of the product.
When a defendant is faced with the inability to make or sell its product, it can't negotiate for the fair value of the patented technology.
The risk of having your product taken off the market entirely is just too high.
A patent owner is entitled to be made whole for the infringement of their patent.
Thank you, Mr. Landau.
Professor Ozinga.
Chairman Kuntz, Ranking Member Tillis, and members of the subcommittee.
Thank you for this opportunity to speak with you today about why Congress should enact the Restore Patent Rights Act.
This bill, by establishing a rebuttable presumption in favor of injunctive relief for patent infringement, would bring back a patent system based on reliable and effective patent rights that serves as a foundation for this country's innovation ecosystem.
For over two centuries, if a valid patent was found to be infringed, the patent owner could generally rely on the court granting a permanent injunction to prevent further infringement.
And this stems from the Constitution's grant of power to Congress to secure exclusive rights to incentivize authors and inventors.
A patent grants only exclusive rights, no positive rights, just the right to exclude others from using the patented technology.
If a patent owner cannot stop an infringer from using their patented technology, the patent loses its value.
Because of this, prior to 2006, courts would presumptively grant a permanent injunction in nearly all cases where patent infringement was found.
Thank you.
We're good to go.
The decrease in granted injunctions where infringement is found is down 66 % for operating companies and 91 % for licensing firms.
The shift from a presumption of injunctive relief to a patent system where injunctive relief is uncertain has serious negative effects on the patent system.
First, the lack of injunctive relief has led to predatory infringement, where infringers who know they are unlikely to be enjoined make a calculated decision to infringe now and pay later.
We're good to go.
We're good to go.
Basically getting an interest -free loan during their period of infringement.
And infringement cases are expensive and take many, many years to conclude.
And third, there is empirical evidence that court -determined royalty rates are often lower than negotiated fees.
So after years of using the technology for free, infringers end up having to pay less than they would have if they had agreed to license the patent up front.
What is a win -win situation for the infringer, who is a bad actor, is a lose -lose situation for the patent owner.
We're good to go.
Thank you.
Thank you.
The problems created by eBay can be fixed by enacting Restore, which in fact restores the patent system to the state it was prior to eBay.
Injunctions would be generally granted unless there were a compelling reason not to do so.
Certainty in injunctions serves as a deterrent to predatory infringement and facilitates fair negotiations.
With these qualities, the patent system provides effective and reliable patent rights, which in turn drive the United States' innovation ecosystem.
Thank you, and I look forward to your questions.
Thank you, Professor.
Professor Contreras.
Professor, is your microphone on?
Oh, now it says talk.
Sorry about that.
I'll just continue.
That was intro.
Every empirical study to date shows that even after the eBay decision, permanent injunctions are still issued in roughly 75 % of patent infringement cases.
Thus, legislative measures responding to complaints that patent injunctions are lost or off the table are hardly necessary.
Second, Concerns that courts are allowing hordes of patent infringers to continue to violate patents with impunity are grossly exaggerated.
My own work shows that during the 15 -year period from 2006 to 2021, Courts have authorized continued infringement in exchange for an ongoing royalty after denying a permanent injunction only 32 times.
That's just twice per year across thousands of patent infringement lawsuits in this country, hardly an avalanche of infringement that will derail the innovation economy.
Third, there are already strong legal mechanisms in place to deter what has been called holdout and predatory infringement.
These include recovery of litigation costs and enhanced damages under the Patent Act in which a judge can penalize an infringer up to three times the awarded damages for willful infringement.
Following the Supreme Court's 2016 decision in Halo vs. Pulse, it has become even easier to get enhanced damages, and a recent study shows that between 2016 and 2020,
willfulness was found in approximately 65 % of patent infringement cases.
The very real likelihood of such damages multipliers is a significant deterrent to patent infringement, even without the threat of an injunction that does not meet the eBay standards.
By the same token, there is no evidence that eBay has depressed patent damages awards.
If you exclude default judgments, median patent damages awards significantly increased in the years after eBay.
So let me turn briefly to the proposed Restore Patent Rights Act.
The Act claims that it is intended to help undercapitalized entities, individuals, and institutions of higher education, which are entirely worthy goals.
But these entities are not likely to be the principal beneficiaries of the Act.
The entities that will most benefit are for -profit patent assertion entities, or PAEs, whose main source of revenue is suing larger companies for patent infringement, and many of which are based offshore.
As reported by Bloomberg, in 2022, all 10 of the top 10 filers of patent litigation in the United States were PAEs.
The top filer was single -handedly responsible for suing 179 separate defendants.
In contrast, the targets of PAE litigation are typically large domestic companies that employ millions of American workers and create the products and services that fuel the American economy.
For example, in 2022, the top defendants in patent infringement suits included Walmart, AT &T, Amazon, Apple, Microsoft, Google, Cisco and Verizon.
The act's creation of a presumption of irreparable harm would make it significantly easier for PAEs to obtain injunctive relief and use that leverage to extract higher payments from American companies at the cost of consumers.
It has also been argued that firms that don't readily enter into patent licensing agreements with PAEs are acting in a predatory or unethical manner.
Some have gone so far as to decry this refusal as contrary to the rule of law.
I think.
I think.
But if this were ever the case, things have changed.
In recent years, other countries, including Germany, have implemented their own rules regarding the need for proportionality.
We're good to go.
And thank you all.
I look forward to...
Our questions and your answers.
I'm going to start by just exploring the use and efficiency of injunctions so I better understand your testimony.
In a second round of questions, I'll get to the legislation itself and its likely impact.
Mr. Babcock, we just heard two witnesses really predominantly focus on patent assertion entities as outside the United States, predominantly extractive, not contributing anything.
To American Innovation and Manufacturing and they are the principal target of the concerns expressed by two of the witnesses.
Do you make anything?
Yeah, we design, we invest a lot in R &D and we design wireless power data and wireless power and data circuits and components that are then built and built into products for our customers.
So one thing that's unique about us is that we We work in an arm's length relationship with the engineering organizations, with our customers, which is usually distinct from what they're calling PAEs, which are just patent holders.
Usually are buying the patents from companies that have been put out of business because they couldn't get arms length deals done.
So could you tell us a little bit more about how did you discover your IP was stolen and what were the legal remedies available to you?
Because as you described it, a Korean entity stole a critical piece of IP and was literally able to generate, I think you said billions in value before you were able to find any meaningful relief.
Yeah, thanks for asking, too, because the timeline is one of the most egregious elements here.
So we didn't really even discover the infringement until a few years after it started, where the technology was put into phones.
So it had already been put into a couple hundred million phones at that point.
Then by the time we filed a lawsuit, worked through some of those issues, and ultimately decided to settle with them, it was about seven years after the initial infringement.
By that time...
What difference would it have made if you'd had a presumption of injunctive relief in your toolkit as you proceeded?
A license or the legal ability to provide that technology.
It was basically a free -for -all on the technology, and those companies got the benefit, but it didn't return the benefit to us, the inventors.
And you talked a little bit about, as did Professor Senga, efficient infringement.
What's the order of magnitude difference between your company and a Korean company you're describing that ultimately then took advantage of your technology?
Multiple orders.
These companies have trillion dollar market caps right now.
And, you know, despite the increase in investments in venture capital over the past 10 years, I think if you look at the increases in valuations of hard tech companies, you're not going to see a significant uptick in investment or in valuation.
So we're talking, you know, three, four, five orders of magnitude differences.
Professor Senga, you used the term predatory infringement.
Why, I think an Apple executive was cited as talking about efficient infringement or the obligation of shareholders to engage in infringement.
What do you mean by predatory infringement?
What do you mean by that term?
Thank you for the question.
And I think it's important because efficient infringement makes it sound like it's good.
We like efficiency.
Efficiency is a positive thing.
I think by continuing to We're sort of blessing it.
So I'd like to change the narrative to predatory infringement because what it is, what we often see, is a larger company that is better resourced, able to use the intellectual property of a smaller company who has less resources, may not be able to find the infringement,
may not be able to sustain litigation to stop the infringement.
That seems rather more predatory than efficient.
You used the example of someone being a squatter in your home.
I think that's accessible to people, the idea that
Thank you.
Yeah, so I think...
I believe, particularly with homes, there's a level of personhood.
And so we're much more attached to our homes.
Maybe you'd be less concerned if they lived in the corner of your yard.
But for some inventors, especially small inventors, small companies, oftentimes those also represent personhood as well as livelihood.
So I do think it's a lot more like homes.
I think we should think about it as squatters within homes.
I think it's a mistake to not think about intellectual property in the same way that we think about real property.
Let me just across the four of you.
Does everyone agree that injunctive relief is being sought and granted substantially less frequently post eBay?
Mr. Landau asserted that that really only applies to PAEs.
That primarily applies to PAEs.
I believe the study you're referring to when you said a 66 % decrease in effective rate is by Christina Acre.
I read that study.
I noted several problems with it.
For one, in 2016, she reports requests for permanent injunctions in 12 cases, grants in 11 cases.
I independently reviewed 2016 just at random.
And located 22 cases filed that resulted in not just a request, but a grant of that injunction.
So I don't know how trustworthy those numbers are.
The other problem with it is that her denominator is total patent cases when she looks at request rate.
And changes after the AIA in the joinder rules made it so that NPEs filed significantly more lawsuits than they used to.
Not that they were targeting more defendants necessarily, but because they couldn't target 10 defendants in one lawsuit, there's a larger number of cases overall.
Operating companies didn't experience that same shift.
As a result, using the operating company request rate, but putting the total number of cases at the bottom, distorts what the actual result is.
If you rerun it, there is a reduction, but it is much less significant than that reported in the ACRI.
Mr. Babcock, you were making an expression.
Yeah, my experience is different.
I'm not an academic or a lobbyist.
I just run businesses and invest in them.
And my experience working with lawyers in this case is they say, we're not even going to request injunctive relief in cases anymore because we can't get it.
It's just not given after the eBay decision.
And they just want to focus on what they think can be achieved, which is financial remedies.
Professor Senga and then Professor Contreras about whether or not injunctive relief is still sought.
I disagree with Mr. Landau's assertion that Professor Ackrey's work is a suspect.
I think she found a very clever way to look at...
The change in the system after eBay, a lot of what the numbers are often based on is how many of the requested injunctions are granted, and it really doesn't take into account how many cases in which the requests aren't even made, as Mr. Babcock said.
So I think Professor Ackrey's study is fair, and I do believe that the number has gone down substantially, both for operating and for licensing firms.
Professor Contreras, you get the last question of this round.
Yeah, thanks very much.
I mean, I also have some concerns about the study that was cited for many of the same reasons as Mr. Landau and a couple of others, but rather than go into that, I would say two things.
First, If the number of requests for injunctions has gone down, and I would be willing to concede that it probably has, that is probably a good thing because it probably weeds out meritless cases for injunctive relief,
and I think that that... ...saves judicial resources and makes litigation less expensive for everyone.
So if we can weed out meritless cases in that way, I think that is a positive.
That being said, I would disagree with Mr. Babcock's characterization of what practicing lawyers are doing and saying out in the field.
I work with lots of lawyers and am involved in many cases involving operating companies and PAEs and patents.
Thank you for your testimony.
Senator Tillis.
Thanks again for everyone being here.
Mr. Landau, I think you mentioned in your opening testimony that a plurality of the cases out there now are from patent assertion entities or patent trolls?
That's correct, and in some months it's the majority.
Where are the rest?
The rest are primarily operating companies.
And then to a much lower extent, you have university cases, some inventor -started company cases, others that are sometimes called NPEs but are not part of that sort of PAE situation.
What do you say to Mr.
Well, first off, I actually believe that there are patent assertion entities and there are patent trolls.
And one of the things we need to do is figure out how to distinguish between the two so that we can try a downward trend.
I don't think any of you would say, look, An inventor who has a legitimate case should be able to get compensated properly and at the same time we shouldn't disrupt that innovation being enjoyed and brought to market.
It's a very difficult thing and I've heard arguments from either side but I think that it's also important to mention that we're not all patent assertion entities are bad people.
Sometimes to Mr. Babcock's point they simply There are entities out there that didn't invent, but they own the patent.
They just simply are an entity that may have the scale to win if they pursue a patent infringement.
I think we need to be realistic about that.
So my team will spend a little bit more time really getting down into the details so that I better understand the good actors, the bad actors, and some of the actors that are in the middle.
Mr. Babcock, you were the only one who took a few notes when Mr. Landau was doing it.
Yeah, one thing that really stood out to me, again, just in practice as a business person,
I'm hearing a lot of concern about the PAEs, but I think a lot of the shift of burden shifting that's happened over the past decade or so, where the time, money, and power is now on the side of the infringers,
It takes a lot of money and time for these patent holders to assert.
What that's led to is a lot of challenges for those companies that might put them out of business or put them in jeopardy of getting more funding.
These PAEs are almost a creation of big tech by putting companies out of business and the patents then end up getting aggregated into more financial entities that assert them professionally at the scale you're talking about.
I don't think that gets brought up a lot in the discourse.
It's like, There's some belief that there's some natural order, that there's some PAEs, some NPEs, some operating companies, some professors that invent.
I think these are related, and I actually think that some of the evils in the system are created by the burden shifting that has happened.
Okay, and now for the professorial side of the dais here.
I'm kind of curious.
Tell me about if Restore Patent Rights Act were to pass, What elements of the eBay decision would still, if any, be applicable?
The way I understand the act, and I do congratulate you on writing a one -sentence statute, that's very good.
Thank you.
I believe The way I understand it, it's the rebuttable presumption of injunctive relief would bring us back to pre -Ebay times.
That wasn't the Wild West.
During pre -Ebay times, what was happening was actually injunctions were granted on the basis of equity.
And so if there was a reason, perhaps in the public interest or otherwise, for an injunction not to issue, it wouldn't.
And that's that rebuttable part of the presumption of injunction.
So I think it doesn't...
And Mr. Landau, I had a question for you on that.
I think pre -ebay decision injunction rates were pretty high.
What are they today?
So pre -ebay, the injunction rate, it varies depending on exactly which study you look at, but the overall injunction rate was about 95%.
For operating companies now after eBay, it's about, again, looking at different numbers, you get slightly different numbers, but about 2 % lower.
For NPs, for patent assertion entities, it is significantly lower than that.
Typically, I've seen numbers in the 20s.
I see Mr. Babcock agreeing with that.
I would say disagreeing.
I'm surprised at the only 2 % difference.
Yeah, it seems odd.
We'll dig into it.
We're looking at the same numbers.
It seemed odd to me, but I'm not an attorney, so I do ask questions.
I don't know the answer to them.
My staff may, but I was just more curious.
Look, to the point, I just...
I wanted to touch on a point because I think it was something said by an Apple executive about their performing their fiduciary responsibility.
I don't disagree with that, to be honest with you.
They need to press the system to the maximum extent possible.
So I say that to say that I'm not demonizing one end of the spectrum that I...
I think we're good to go.
But I do believe that I would like for cooler heads to prevail and try to figure out a way that we're getting to the root cause.
And this is fundamental fairness for inventors here who want to build things.
Where it seems to me the status quo puts some of them at a disadvantage.
And more importantly...
The invention that we never get to enjoy.
I don't know what impact that is, but that's what happens when innovation gets stifled and people think that they just can't, as a small inventor, break through.
So let's figure out how we continue the dialogue and get to a fair and just outcome.
Thank you, Senator Tillis.
Senator Hirono.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I thank both of you for having this hearing and for the panel.
I do want to start by saying that this subcommittee does work that tends to be bipartisan, so that's more than refreshing.
It enables us to get things done.
And on the topic of injunctions, I am a strong supporter of patent rights, especially the patent rights of small inventors, because I am also told that a lot of our competitiveness comes from the work of small inventors.
And I am all for enabling them to effectively protect There are inventions.
I co -sponsored the Stronger Patents Act in previous years and am inclined to support this legislation as well.
And I think back to all these many years ago when I took property law and my professor described property law as being a bundle of rights and the most important of these rights is the right to exclude and we won't even get into the rule of perpetuity and all that.
The right to exclude, and that is what we're talking about with, I would say, injunctive relief.
So it seems to me that I don't see how a decision like eBay could not have some sort of an impact on business dealings.
Because often the remedies that are available really turn on who bears the burden of going forward.
So under eBay, the burden lies with the inventor who's already been deemed that his or her invention has been infringed upon, and now the inventor bears the burden of showing that an injunctive relief should ensue.
So that is a pretty tough burden to...
Bear.
So I don't understand how it is that the eBay decision could not have the effect of making it a lot harder for inventors to protect their patents if it's much harder to get injunctive relief.
And I do recognize that Professor...
I'm sorry.
Is it...
Yes, coutures.
So you cited to, I think you cited to that we don't really have a problem here, but I can't see how we don't.
So I think I'd like to ask Mr. Babcock, the non -lawyer in the group, right?
Okay.
So over the past decades, as far as I'm concerned, we've seen a number of efforts to weaken patent rights.
I think that's been the impact of some of these laws that we've enacted.
I would cite the Supreme Court's eBay decision among those.
America Invents Act, I'm one of the few people that voted against that act because I thought it had a negative effect, especially on small inventors, to the growing number of things that are not patent eligible.
So for Mr. Badcock, what has the weakening of patent rights
Yeah, thank you for the question.
And I want to go back to something Mr. Tillis said and add to it.
The inventions that we don't see are the most important ones that we're missing, and it's really hard to quantify those.
Thank you.
Thank you.
I tend to agree with you.
So what would passing this measure mean, both financially and symbolically, if you want to think of it that way, to...
Yeah, I think it's one step in the right direction.
I think the pendulum has swung dramatically over the past 20 years.
You mentioned the legislation, you've mentioned some court cases, and there's also administrative changes that have happened.
This would be a step back in the right direction, get the pendulum swinging back towards a more moderate middle system.
And there's more that needs to be taken care of.
I think the P tab is particularly problematic, but this would be a very good starting point because it shifts the burden back to the defendants.
They can still avoid injunctive outcome, but they have to be the ones that prove it, and I think that's a fair way to put it.
I agree with you because I don't see why the infringer should not have the burden of going forward regarding whether an injunction should ensue.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you, Senator Hirono.
Mr. Babcock said that time, money, and power have shifted to, and I may mischaracterize, big tech infringers.
Mr. Landau...
Most of the largest technology companies, household names, Apple, Meta, are members of your association.
I'd be interested in your perspective on the impact of the Restore Patent Rights Act on members of your organization.
And are there any revisions to this bill that in your view could make it better?
Yeah, so I think I'll start at the end of your question with the revisions point.
At the end of my testimony, I actually do propose a revision that I think would really address a lot of the concerns you're hearing from myself, from Professor Contreras, while also strengthening that, providing a presumption of injunctive relief,
and that would be to attach it to some form of working requirement.
To say, you get the presumption.
If you are making a product or if you're working with an exclusive licensee to make a product, if you're working with a startup to make a product, if you're doing something with your patent, you get the presumption.
Otherwise, you have the eBay test as we have it today.
You can still receive an injunction.
It might just be a little harder to receive.
Thank you.
Mr. Babcock, you talked both about your company and also about mHub, an incubator that supports a lot of small startups.
And part of your assertion, let me make sure I understand it correctly, is that the cost and the uncertainty and the length of litigation were key barriers to pursuing injunctive relief.
How important is making sure that this system is balanced and that injunctive relief is available to small startups of the type that mHub supports?
It's critical because it gives some balance to those smaller companies that are, let's just face it, when you're a small company, It's unlikely you're going to be successful.
And so stacking more chips against those companies makes it less likely that they will raise the money they need to bring their innovations to market.
So giving them a small arrow in the quiver of competitiveness would be essential.
Well, you could give them a bigger arrow in the quiver.
Yes, please.
Professor Ozinga, some have argued that the Restore Patent Rights Act doesn't go far enough because it establishes only a rebuttable presumption.
Thank you.
I believe that the one -sentence bill is perfect.
Sorry.
I should record this moment.
Something that I've done is perfect.
For these reasons, first of all, the rebuttable presumption brings us back to the 200 years of history with the injunction of relief being an equitable remedy.
There are certain times when it doesn't and shouldn't apply, so a mandatory injunction would be not in line with equity, not in line with historical practices.
Going forward with the eBay test, as it is, as Mr. Babcock says, puts a lot of burden on the patentee to show that they deserve injunctive relief,
which is an extra layer that shouldn't have to be once they've already been able to prove that their patent has been infringed upon.
Mr. Landau's proposal also Adds a lot of burden to the patentee.
They're going to have to show that they're the good guy.
That they're doing the right things.
And so that doesn't alleviate some of the concerns that Mr. Babcock raises.
But also I want to point out that even in the eBay decision, in the majority opinion, they cite to the paper bag case to say basically, starting in 1908, right, that injunctive relief doesn't require a working...
Or operating company in order to receive it.
And so for all of those reasons, I think that the bill as proposed hits exactly all the right notes.
Professor Contreras and Professor Zinga, I'll let you kick this around.
Some commentators have argued that the result was actually not mandated by the eBay decision.
That it was an outgrowth of Justice Kennedy's concurrence.
That his...
I would say that's not correct.
Courts, when they are reviewing...
Thank you.
Thank you.
My research assistants and I reviewed every single case in which an injunction was not granted and an ongoing infringement was allowed, and they were not citing a concurring opinion except, you know,
possibly just by way of greater explanation.
Certainly the holding of the majority is what was being cited.
Professor Ozinga, would you disagree or agree with that characterization of the impact of Kennedy's concurrence?
Literally no impact.
I disagree with Professor Contreras.
Whether the courts are citing it or not, if you look to who isn't receiving injunctive relief, it falls into the categories that the Kennedy concurrence lays out.
It's the operating...
Mr. Landau's suggestion to a non -attorney who that doesn't necessarily Take a position that the one -sentence bill is perfect.
I've just tried to figure out...
Mrs. Ingle, you said something to the effect it adds an extra burden to identify the good guys.
But that was my point about patent assertion versus patent trolling.
Why isn't there some way to...
And Mr. Babcock, if you want to opine, I'm just assuming the attorneys are going to...
Give me an answer that my attorneys will have to explain.
But why isn't there something there to that concept?
At the end of the day, that's really what we're trying to do is just make the good guys not have a burden that could cause an invention never to occur.
So what am I missing in terms of trying to find a way that does that, that doesn't...
Jump on.
Well, since no one else seems to want to jump in, I will say that it would create a different burden, but I don't think it creates an additional burden to show a working...
Well, the reason I was asking is Mr. Babcock talked about if we had the...
If we created more of a sense that people were going to be able to assert their...
I thought what I heard you say Mr. Babcock.
Is that one of the reasons why angel investors and private equity are hesitant now is because they're not willing to invest in the science and technology to see if it's a deal worth investing in because they're not really sure if the intellectual property rights would be preserved if they did.
But is it fair to say that those folks would also, if they saw a promising invention or a promising idea, that they would likely have the resources to...
To prove that they're good actors or working with a good actor.
I'm just trying to figure out what I'm missing here.
I think a lot of it comes back to that burden at every step of the way.
So if you think about the process here, so you go through the invention, so you invent something meaningful.
Then you, maybe you had a little seed funding for that, or maybe you did that out of your own pocket or from friends and family.
Then you want to file patents and you pay tens of thousands of dollars to law firms and you go through a USPTO office to prosecute those patents to earn the patent.
Usually, I think historically, once you earn patents then you can fundraise significantly more money on top of those because it meant something.
Today I don't think it means that much.
I think that once you have that...
Okay.
So, Professor Ozinga, does that mean that...
Thank you.
I do think that...
Mr. Landau's proposal leaves us in the same eBay space.
It's just changing the words of the test.
Same result, different approach.
Correct.
Mr. Contreras, and then I'll let Mr. Landau finish up my time.
Yeah, thank you, Senator.
I mean, I have to say, in my view, that the eBay framework itself is the middle ground.
It offers the balance that we need.
So you're in the ain't broke category.
Excuse me?
You're in the ain't broke, not broke category.
In this case, I believe I am, yes.
All right.
Because it's industry dependent.
I mean, one thing we haven't really talked about is this is industry dependent.
In some industries, pharmaceuticals, for example, you get injunctions all the time, almost every time.
It's in industries where patent claims are...
And Mr. Landau?
So I hear a lot about the sort of excessive burden, but before I was doing this, I was a litigator.
I was a patent litigator.
And a big portion of any case is proving your damages.
And I don't think there are any inventors out there who would just abandon their damages case.
You're always going to want damages for past infringement, even if you do want an injunction for future infringement.
So you are always going to have this component of your case where you prove what harm you suffered.
And that's normal.
We don't award remedies that have no evidence behind them, nor should we.
So I don't think it is an excessive burden.
I think it changes the burden a little bit.
And I deeply respect Professor Contreras, but I think I disagree with him that this doesn't change anything from eBay.
Presumptions matter.
I can say innocent until proven guilty.
I can say guilty until proven innocent.
Those are very different things.
So putting a presumption of irreparable harm...
Thank you all.
Thank you all for being here.
We'll continue the dialogue.
Mr. Chair, you don't intend to get a markup and get this bill passed before the end of your...
Yes, tomorrow.
Okay.
So, you know, outside of a Hail Mary here, this is a dialogue to be continued, and hopefully we can continue it early next year.
Thank you.
Senator Cronin.
Thank you.
I'd like to make sure that I have clarification on this.
So this is for Professor Orsenga.
Didn't eBay shift the... burden of going forward to the patent holder in terms of getting an injunction?
Yes.
Thank you.
So one of the things that Mr. Badcock mentioned, and this is in line with Senator Telles' line of questioning, it has to do with the importance of the availability of venture capital for startups, and of course that would include small inventors in particular.
Mr. Badcock, you mentioned, you said that Yes.
And in my experience, probably 9 out of 10 venture capitalists you reach out to for fundraising purposes, once they understand that it's a hard -tech, patent -based business, they just say, that's not in our expertise, we don't invest in those businesses.
And do you think that if this bill were to pass to create more protective certainty, protection for certainty, that they may have a different view of investing in these kinds of startups, including small inventors?
I think it's a starting point.
I don't think it does enough, but I think it starts swinging the pendulum back towards fairness in the middle ground.
I think the availability of VC capital is very important.
So that's an added factor where I do think that we need to support a bill like this.
Thank you.
Given that a close friend of mine is about to give his farewell speech on the floor of the Senate, I'm going to defer to Senator Tillis to close this hearing out, and I look forward to hearing about Senator Blackburn's questioning.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I want to thank you all for being here and doing this hearing.
One of the things that has... ...concerns me.
And intellectual property and its protections are something we hear a lot about in Tennessee.
Whether it is our auto engineers or it's our singers or songwriters, our authors, our publishers, they're concerned about AI.
They're concerned about losing IP protections.
So I appreciate this.
And many times, China comes up.
And one of the things we've paid attention to, if you go back and you look at 2021, China really moved ahead when it came to patent filings.
And in 2021, they did 1 .59 million patent filings.
And that was more than double what we had in the US.
That acceleration rate is something that was of tremendous concern to me because we know China is repeatedly trying to take our R &D and take our IP.
And Mr. Babcock, you talked about this in your testimony, and I'll quote you.
You said...
To donate our R &D and American IP to aggressive foreign competitors was a statement you made.
Why don't you elaborate on that one for me?
Yes, we were trying to work in good faith with a Korean OEM for putting wireless power into their cell phones.
Once they realized the...
So then talk about how the Restore Act would help with that type situation.
Yeah, so the Restora can actually stop it from proliferating because it will actually enjoin those companies from being able to ship products if it has the infringing technology in it.
Versus the paradigm we're in today, they might just have to pay some amount of money at a future date and they might not have to if we don't come up with the money to go around and sue the entire cell phone industry.
Which is a very expensive proposition, risky and distracting when we want to spend our time inventing new technologies, not litigating the past.
Yeah, I can appreciate that.
Well, we have watched very closely as how China has significantly increased their R &D efforts and they lead the world in 57 critical and emerging technologies.
Now, in the early 2000s, We were the leader in those critical and emergency technologies.
And right now, we lead in just seven of those.
And this is of tremendous concern to me.
It's why Senator Welch and I did the Leadership in Critical and Emergency Technologies Act.
Which would require the PTO to put in place a pilot program that would expedite the examination of 10 ,000 patents in microelectronics,
artificial intelligence, quantum information.
And Mr. Landau, let me ask you, why would, in your opinion, why would the patent system
So I think that the patent system is, of course, the appropriate place to place that sort of process.
The patent system exists to promote the progress of science and the useful arts.
That's why we have a patent system.
It's actually one of the unique things about the U .S. patent system.
Ours is the only, or one of the only, that puts that progress.
As the reason, rather than some other rationale.
So I think it makes sense that if we think these are important technologies, and they are, my members are heavily involved in many of them.
We do want to have that sort of accelerated process through the patent office.
We do want to have an accelerated examination process.
I think that makes perfect sense.
Well, we think that this will help push the leadership, push us back into that leadership position on this so that it is something that is encouraging our innovators.
We don't want them leaving the country.
We want to keep this innovation here.
We don't want to have that IP stolen from them.
We don't want predatory infringement.
And Professor, I know you talked about that a little bit earlier.
And protecting these innovators and their constitutional right to benefit.
Well, thank you all for being here.
Senator Blackburn, before you leave, I'd like to seek unanimous consent to have Senator Coons, Chairman Coons, closing remarks submitted to the record.
I do, on behalf of Senator Coons, want to thank you all for being here.
I do agree with him.
I think injunctive relief is no longer near the certainty it used to be.
I'm just in the category of trying to figure out how we can produce certainty and not have unintended consequences, which I think is part of the concern with the opposition about the only thing I will read in his speak is he wants to especially thank me and my staff for being great partners at the hearing.
I don't want to miss that one.
But no, thank you all for being here.
The thing I like about this committee, and frankly, one of the only reasons why I continue to be on Judiciary, is we try to present ourselves in a professional, respectful manner.
Really just trying to get to a fair outcome.
I don't think either one of you want to prevent fewer Mr. Babcocks, and all of you want innovation.
It's about trying to figure out how we can tune the dial to get the best of both.
And if we engage in a constructive way, we'll come out with an outcome that maybe not everyone likes.
But if I'm convinced it's going to move the ball down the field, then I'm going to support it.
And I appreciate Senator Cotton and Senator Coons for... Pressing on this issue.
So thank you all for your testimony, and I should say that the record will be held open.
Any kind of questions will be due a week from today, but given the holidays, we're going to extend the deadline to 5 p .m. Friday, January the 3rd, so that if anyone has questions, wants to submit other information to the record,
you can by January the 3rd.
Thank you all.
Have a great holiday.
Meeting's adjourned.
During Christmas week, each night at 9 p .m. Eastern, C -SPAN will feature interviews with departing members of Congress, Republicans, Democrats, and Independents from both chambers.
They'll discuss their careers, key legislative achievements, the state of Congress and American politics, and their farewell speeches.
Monday, we'll hear from West Virginia Independent Senator Joe Manchin and Maryland Democratic Senator Ben Cardin.
Tuesday, We're good to go.
In an earlier conversation in this series, Evan Thomas discussed his 1986 book, The Wise Men.
There were six of them.
Messrs. Acheson, Bolin, Harriman, McCloy, Lovett, and Kennan.
Now, in this episode, we ask Edward "Ted" Aldridge to discuss his book titled "The Partnership: George Marshall, Henry Stimson, and the Extraordinary Collaboration that Won World War II." Mr. Aldrich writes, FDR paired Stimson as Secretary of War with General George Marshall, Chief of Staff of the Army, in the summer of 1940 in anticipation of the global war into which all these men knew the United States could shortly be drawn.
Edward Aldrich with his book, The Partnership, George Marshall, Henry Stimson, and the extraordinary collaboration that won World War II, on this episode of Book Notes Plus with our host, Brian Lamb.
Book Notes Plus is available on the C -SPAN Now free mobile app or wherever you get your podcasts.
For more than 45 years, C -SPAN has been your window into the workings of our democracy, offering live coverage of Congress, open forum call -in programs, and unfiltered access to the decision makers that shape our nation.
And we've done it all without a cent of government funding.
C -SPAN exists for you.
Viewers who value transparent, no -spin political coverage.
We're good to go.
Together, we can ensure that C -SPAN remains a trusted resource for you and future generations.
C -SPAN is your unfiltered view of government.
We're funded by these television companies and more.