U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

97–416 PDF 2016

S. HRG. 114–137 

PATENT REFORM: PROTECTING INNOVATION 

AND ENTREPRENEURSHIP 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON SMALL BUSINESS 

AND ENTREPRENEURSHIP 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

MARCH 19, 2015 

Printed for the Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship 

( 

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.fdsys.gov 
(II) 

COMMITTEE ON SMALL BUSINESS AND ENTREPRENEURSHIP 

ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS 

DAVID VITTER, Louisiana, Chairman 

BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland, Ranking Member 

JAMES E. RISCH, Idaho 

MARCO RUBIO, Florida 

RAND PAUL, Kentucky 

TIM SCOTT, South Carolina 

DEB FISCHER, Nebraska 

CORY GARDNER, Colorado 

JONI ERNST, Iowa 

KELLY AYOTTE, New Hampshire 

MICHAEL B. ENZI, Wyoming 

MARIA CANTWELL, Washington 

JEANNE SHAHEEN, New Hampshire 

HEIDI HEITKAMP, North Dakota 

EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts 

CORY A. BOOKER, New Jersey 

CHRISTOPHER A. COONS, Delaware 

MAZIE K. HIRONO, Hawaii 

GARY C. PETERS, Michigan 

ZAK BAIG, Republican Staff Director 

ANN JACOBS, Democratic Staff Director 
(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

OPENING STATEMENTS

Page 

Vitter, Hon. David, Chairman, and a U.S. Senator from Louisiana ................... 1 

Cardin, Hon. Benjamin L., a U.S. Senator from Maryland ................................. 2 

WITNESSES

Mr. David Winwood, President-Elect, Association of University Technology 

Managers, Chief Business Development Officer, Louisiana State University’s Pennington Biomedical Research Center, Baton Rouge, LA .................. 4 

Mr. Robert N. Schmidt, Co-Chair, Small Business Technology Council, National Small Business Association, Fort Meyers, FL ........................................ 23 

Tim Molino, Director, Policy, BSA | The Software Alliance ................................. 40 

Ms. Rachel King, Founder & CEO, GlycoMimetics, Chair of the Maryland 

Life Sciences Advisory Board, Gaithersburg, MD ............................................. 48 

Mr. Craig Bandes, President & CEO, Pixelligent Technologies, Baltimore, 

MD ......................................................................................................................... 57 

ALPHABETICAL LISTING AND APPENDIX MATERIAL SUBMITTED

American Continental Group, Inc. 

Chart titled ‘‘Litigation Rate 1991–2014’’ ....................................................... 114 

American Hotel and Lodging Association 

Statement dated March 19, 2015 .................................................................... 75 

Application Developers Alliance on Patent Reform 

Statement dated March 19, 2015 .................................................................... 77 

Association of American Universities 

Letter dated March 2, 2015 ............................................................................. 80 

Association of Public and Land-grant Universities 

Statement dated March 3, 2015 ...................................................................... 81 

Bandes, Craig 

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 57 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 60 

Responses to questions submitted by Chairman Vitter and Senator Booker .................................................................................................................... 164 

Big Ten Since 1896 

Letter to Senator Cardin dated January 21, 2015 ......................................... 82 

Biotechnology Industry Organization 

Statement dated March 3, 2015 ...................................................................... 84 

Cardin, Hon. Benjamin L. 

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 2 

Engine 

Statement of Julie Samuels, Executive Director ........................................... 85 

Patent One Page Executive Summary 2015 ................................................... 87 

Patent White Paper 2015 ................................................................................. 88 

Innovation Alliance 

Statement dated March 3, 2015 ...................................................................... 97 

Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE–USA) 

Letter to Senator Coons dated March 4, 2015 ............................................... 98 

Kappos, David J. 

Report titled ‘‘The Great Patent Debate: Changing Horizons’’ ..................... 99 

Report titled ‘‘An Overview of the United States Patent System, 2015’’ ..... 114 

King, Rachel 

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 48 
Page

IV 

—Continued 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 51 

Medical Device Manufacturers Association 

Statement .......................................................................................................... 116 

Molino, Tim 

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 40 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 42 

National Association of Home Builders 

Statement dated March 19, 2015 .................................................................... 118 

National Association of Realtors 

Letter dated March 17, 2015 ........................................................................... 122 

National Retail Federation 

Statement dated March 19, 2015 .................................................................... 124 

National Venture Capital Association 

Statement dated March 3, 2015 ...................................................................... 133 

Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America 

Statement dated March 3, 2015 ...................................................................... 134 

Schmidt, Robert N. 

Letter dated March 4, 2015 ............................................................................. 16 

Letter dated March 13, 2015 ........................................................................... 20 

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 23 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 25 

Responses to questions submitted by Chairman Vitter ................................ 148 

Startup Investors 

Letter dated March 17, 2015 ........................................................................... 135 

Vitter, Hon. David 

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 1 

Winwood, David 

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 4 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 7 
(1) 

PATENT REFORM: PROTECTING INNOVATION 

AND ENTREPRENEURSHIP 

THURSDAY, MARCH 19, 2015 

UNITED STATES SENATE, COMMITTEE ON SMALL BUSINESS

AND ENTREPRENEURSHIP, Washington, DC. 

The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:02 a.m., in Room 

428, Russell Senate Office Building, Hon. David Vitter, Chairman 

of the Committee, presiding. 

Present: Senators Vitter, Risch, Gardner, Ernst, Cardin, Cantwell, Shaheen, Booker, Coons, Hirono, and Peters. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. DAVID VITTER, CHAIRMAN, 

AND A U.S. SENATOR FROM LOUISIANA 

Chairman VITTER. Let’s go ahead and get started. 

Good morning and welcome, everybody, and welcome to our hearing on ‘‘Patent Reform: Protecting Innovation and Entrepreneurship.’’ 

I want to thank our panel of witnesses for taking time away from 

their jobs and, in many cases, making the trip to Washington for 

this important hearing. We look forward to your testimony. 

As many in this room are aware, there is a growing call for the 

Senate to act swiftly and make patent reform legislation a priority 

for floor consideration once committees have done their work. 

Today, we are here to answer a sole question: How do we address 

patent reform while protecting innovation and not impose negative 

consequences on small businesses and entrepreneurs? It is important to ensure that any bill that moves to the U.S. Senate floor 

achieves this goal. 

Certainly, we want to combat frivolous lawsuits and patent trolling, but we also want to maintain a level playing field for small 

business investors and large companies alike. 

Patent jurisprudence has changed considerably over the past 

three years, and there are ample ongoing changes to the patent 

system which are still being implemented. 

Protecting small business and safeguarding those innovations is 

the responsibility of this Committee, not to mention the bedrock of 

the American entrepreneurial spirit. 

Similarly, it is essential to remember that many legitimate owners of intellectual property do not manufacture anything but, nonetheless, have very important legitimate claims of patent infringement against other parties. These include independent inventors, 

research and development companies, and universities, who all 
2 

qualify as nonpracticing entities. Therefore, Congress should act 

decisively, but it should also act with prudence. 

We have heard pleas from businesses across the board that the 

patent system is increasingly becoming a forum for financial speculation and litigation rather than innovation. American innovators 

and small businesses across the country are being forced to divert 

critical resources to defend themselves against vague claims of patent infringement, resulting in substantial drains on our economy. 

Main Street businesses using off-the-shelf technology need to be 

protected against frivolous demand letters and suits. This must 

stop, but it would be similarly disturbing if we uprooted a major 

portion of the U.S. economy to address harmful behavior from a 

few bad actors. 

The discussion surrounding patent reform must include a detailed analysis of how legislation would further impact small businesses, investors, and universities. 

And as chair of this Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship, I certainly feel an obligation to highlight that our patent 

system fuels the economy. 

Unfortunately, many businesses have seen some bad actors, and 

patent abuse by bad actors certainly wastes vital funds that could 

otherwise go to productive activity. It is this reason that I fully 

support bringing the patent discussion forward to address specific 

targeted legislative fixes as long as that discussion carries the necessary protection for smaller businesses and startups. 

Unfortunately, when dealing with bad actors, there is very rarely 

a one-shot solution. I have seen disturbing efforts that, in an attempt to demonstrate a greater level of ‘‘growing abuse,’’ lump innocent, well-intended business suits in that of trolling. 

So legislation should not have the effect of allowing one group to 

strong-arm another smaller group simply because of immediate access to resources. Efforts to unbalance the system using misguided 

information will ultimately lead to less prosperity in our system. 

Licensing one’s patents is not a bad thing. It is for that reason 

I believe the discussion deserves the necessary room to include 

what the legislation’s further impacts will be on small businesses 

and investors and universities. 

And so it is my hope that today with our witnesses and experts 

across the spectrum, we can discuss how best to balance a path forward. And I certainly look forward to carrying this issue and discussion on as a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee as well. 

With that, let me turn the mic over to Senator Cardin. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, A U.S. 

SENATOR FROM MARYLAND 

Senator CARDIN. Well, Chairman Vitter, first of all, thank you for 

convening this hearing. This is our first committee hearing here in 

Washington of the Small Business and Entrepreneurship Committee of this Congress, and I want to thank Senator Vitter and 

his staff for the cooperative arrangements that we have in putting 

together this particular hearing. 

It is very interesting; there are lots of committees in the Congress that deal with issues that affect small business. 
3 

The Finance Committee deals with the tax code, and there is 

major impact on small businesses. 

The Environment and Public Works Committee deals with the 

regulatory environment for an environment that affects small business. 

The Banking Committee deals with the financial systems in this 

country that affect small business. 

And the Judiciary Committee deals with pensions and pension 

laws that affect and patent laws that affect—excuse me. They deal 

with patent laws that affect small businesses. 

Only this Committee focuses on the small business community, 

and it is very appropriate that we have a hearing dealing with the 

impact of these policies as they affect small business. So, Mr. 

Chairman, I am very pleased that we are having this hearing to 

deal with patents so that we can take a look at the impact it has 

on small business. 

We are trying to balance two different thoughts on how the patent system is working. We have our universities and large biotech 

companies that have one view, and we have smaller companies 

that have different views. 

And I would hope that we could harmonize those views. That 

may be asking a little bit too much, but I think this hearing can 

help us in trying to figure out how is the best way to deal with 

these conflicting roles. 

The role of small business is critical to the dialogue on patents. 

Small business produces 16 times more patents than larger businesses. And the ability of entrepreneurs to obtain patents often 

acts as a precursor to investors’ willingness to provide funding at 

critical stages. 

An effective and functioning patent system is critical to the economic growth of the United States. Intellectual property has been 

a fundamental source of American innovation and economic prosperity since our nation’s founding. 

Of late, there have been many efforts to improve the system. The 

administration issued a series of executive actions, and Congress 

passed the America Invents Act in 2011, which put in place our 

First-to-File system, procedural changes, fee revisions, and postgrant review. 

I look forward to hearing from today’s witnesses as to how those 

reforms and executive actions are working in practice, the impact 

it has on businesses in our community. 

I also look forward to hearing from our witnesses about their experiences with the patent assertion entities, also known as patent 

trolls. Small businesses are particularly vulnerable, as the chairman pointed out. They do not have the deep pockets. They are particularly vulnerable to claims that their work is invalid or requires 

significant investment of time and money to litigate. 

Research institutions also play a significant role in the patent 

arena. University-owned research labs spur innovation by transferring patentable inventions developed in their labs to the private 

sector for commercialization as new technologies. 

In the State of Maryland, I have seen how technology transfer 

programs at the University of Maryland, the National Institutes of 
4 

Health, the Johns Hopkins University have had to stimulate 

growth in my State; indeed, in the entire country. 

Nationwide, similar programs have generated hundreds of billions of dollars of economic activity and three million jobs in the 

past three decades alone. 

So, Mr. Chairman, this is an issue that this Committee is ideally 

suited, I hope, to find a common ground. The Small Business and 

Entrepreneurship Committee has had a reputation of working in a 

bipartisan way to help small business, and we will be challenged 

in this area, but I think today’s hearing can help us find a way forward. 

I am very impressed by the witnesses that we have before us, 

and we look forward to your testimony and helping us understand 

how the current system is working, the challenges we have, how 

we can balance innovation moving forward, protecting intellectual 

property of creative people but also allowing companies to be able 

to move forward in more discoveries for the benefit of our economy. 

Chairman VITTER. Great. Thank you, Ben. 

We do have five great witnesses. I am going to introduce the first 

three before each of their testimony, and then Senator Cardin will 

introduce the remaining two. 

First, we will hear from Mr. David Winwood, President-Elect of 

the Association of University Technology Managers and Chief Business Development Officer of LSU’s Pennington Biomedical Research Center. 

Prior to his current position, David served in research, business 

development, and company leadership roles in three startup businesses. 

Welcome, David, and please proceed. 

STATEMENT OF DAVID WINWOOD, PRESIDENT-ELECT, ASSOCIATION OF UNIVERSITY TECHNOLOGY MANAGERS, AND 

CHIEF BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, LOUISIANA 

STATE UNIVERSITY’S PENNINGTON BIOMEDICAL RESEARCH 

CENTER 

Mr. WINWOOD. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman Vitter, Ranking Member Cardin, committee members, 

I am grateful for the opportunity and privilege to testify today. 

I am President-Elect of the Association of University Technology 

Managers, AUTM, a nonprofit organization dedicated to enhancing 

the global academic technology transfer profession, and as mentioned, I am also the Chief Business Development Officer of Louisiana State University’s Pennington Biomedical Research Center 

in Baton Rouge. 

The Center’s mission is to discover the triggers of chronic diseases through innovative research that improves human health 

across a life span. 

Well, university research has brought huge benefits to the American economy, national security, and health care. An independent 

survey released just this week indicates that since 1996 academic 

industry patent licensing has contributed up to $1.18 trillion to the 

U.S. economy, bolstered U.S. GDP by up to $518 billion, and supported up to 3.82 million U.S. jobs. 
5 

In that same 18-year period studied, AUTM reported the creation 

of more than 4,200 startup companies based on academic and nonprofit research. 

And, in 2013 alone, AUTM reported 24,000 inventions from academic research, inventions that helped launch 719 new products 

and served as the basis for the creation of more than 800 startup 

companies. 

The Bayh-Dole Act in 1980 helped unleash the power of the patent and provided a framework in which universities are encouraged 

to engage with corporate partners to take inventions from the lab 

to the marketplace. Under Bayh-Dole, universities exercise a preference for licensing to small entities, including startup companies. 

Now Congress has been a partner with universities by funding 

the basic research that industry no longer performs, and the process by which federally funded inventions are moved to the market 

has been refined and improved as the technology transfer profession has matured over the years. 

Patenting is a complex, lengthy, unpredictable, and expensive 

process. Yet, it is crucial for the commercialization of most inventions, with patents often being used effectively as collateral to attract early stage investments to allow commercialization to proceed. 

And certainly, Chairman, the innovative proof of concept funding 

program recently implemented by the LSU Board of Supervisors to 

turn LSU research into companies and products requires evidence 

of IP protection before funding is approved. 

But there is a real concern among universities and small businesses regarding the sweeping changes to the U.S. patent system 

that some in Congress are advocating in bills such as H.R. 9., a 

concern that our efforts to fill a vital role in the innovation ecosystem will be stifled. 

Fee-shifting and joinder provisions proposed in the pending legislation could effectively exclude universities and our licensed startup companies from enforcing our legitimate patent claims, resulting in significant losses to the entrepreneurial and innovation ecosystem that propels the U.S. economy. 

Now going to court is always a last resort for patent holders, but 

if going to court becomes too risky then patents will lose their 

value to licensees and to investors. We believe the investment community would clearly be much less inclined to risk-making, early 

stage funding commitments, including to startups, if H.R. 9 became 

law. 

Now the university community understands the concerns of lawmakers and industry groups regarding what has become known as 

the patent troll issue. Indeed, in a February 2015 press release, six 

higher education associations commenting on H.R. 9 clearly stated 

that our associations want Congress to pass legislation this year 

that would put an end to the abusive behavior of patent trolls. 

But in saying that, we mean a targeted, narrow approach that 

focuses on the abusive behavior, such as that recently proposed by 

Senator Coons in the STRONG Act, which is aimed at protecting 

small businesses, universities, and entrepreneurs from abusive patent litigation, addressing the problem but without the negative side 

effects the other legislation might cause by impeding legitimate 
6 

patent holders from enforcing their patent rights. So we are happy 

to work with Congress toward that end. 

At AUTM, we see a broad landscape as having changed over the 

past year or so. The Supreme Court has issued rulings giving 

judges more discretion to assess legal fees to losers in litigation if 

the judge believes the case is unjustified. The FTC has recently 

pursued a patent troll who sent out misleading demand letters to 

hundreds of small retailers, and the Commission says it plans to 

do more. And, the PTO itself has new procedures in place that are 

helping remove bad patents before they ever get to trial. 

So, in closing, I would urge this Committee to express itself to 

the Senate Judiciary Committee and raise these concerns as that 

committee begins to work on its own version of patent litigation reform because we simply cannot allow overzealous pursuit of trolls 

to take the American patent system out of reach for universities, 

small businesses, and small inventors who are counting on you to 

protect them from legislation that overreaches. 

So I thank you for providing the opportunity for us to make these 

comments, and I will be happy to answer questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Winwood follows:] 
7 
8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 

Chairman VITTER. Great. Thank you very much. 

Next, we have Robert N. Schmidt, Co-Chair at the Small Business Technology Council and also with the National Small Business Association. 

For the past 25 years, Bob has been founding and growing companies in the medical device and aerospace fields. He is a professional engineer, an attorney, and specifically, a patent attorney. He 

has 31 patents to his name, and the 5 companies he has founded 

control over 160 U.S. patents and applications plus additional foreign patents. 

And also, one of the groups, Bob, as part of the National Small 

Business Association, along with its coalition partners, recently 

sent a letter to Representatives Goodlatte and Conyers and Senators Grassley and Leahy, imploring Congress to slow down and 

fully consider that legislation. 

And so I want to move that we make that part of the record. 

Without objection, so ordered. 

[The information follows:] 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 

Chairman VITTER. Bob, please proceed. 

STATEMENT OF ROBERT N. SCHMIDT, CO-CHAIR, SMALL BUSINESS TECHNOLOGY COUNCIL, NATIONAL SMALL BUSINESS 

ASSOCIATION 

Mr. SCHMIDT. Senator Vitter, Senator Cardin, members, thank 

you very much for asking me to testify today on this very important matter for technology startups and small businesses. 

For the past 25 years, I have founded and led these companies, 

and we have about 80 employees in total and a dozen doctorate degrees and over $10 million in annual revenues. That gives you a 

scale of what we do, but we sell our products on seven continents. 

So I am here today as the co-chair of the Small Business Technology Council, speaking on behalf of the 5,000 firms who participate in the SBIR and SDTR programs. I do so to raise our concerns 

regarding the detrimental effects that patent reform, bills such as 

H.R. 9, the so-called Innovation Act, will have on small inventing 

companies. 

We would like to add small business to the list of individuals, of 

individual inventors, universities, venture capitalists, patent examiners, former patent commissioners, and patent court judges that 

oppose such legislation. Crafting a narrow and targeted alternative 

to this harmful legislation is important to small business inventors 

as patents are critical to all innovative firms and especially SBIR 

firms. 

The Federal Reserve found that patents are the number one indicator of regional wealth. 

Small businesses employ 37 percent of the scientists and engineers, 50 percent more than all the large corporations combined. 

SBIR firms have received about 121,000 patents. 

The Fortune 500 firms’ share of R&D 100 Awards, the world’s 

most valuable innovations, has dropped from over 40 percent in the 

1970s and early 1980s to just 6 percent, or 1 in 16, while SBIR 

firms receive 4 times as many of these R&D 100 Awards as the 

Fortune 500 firms together. 

In short, SBIR firms and small business is where innovation 

happens. 

Large firms can, and do, survive without strong patents; small 

businesses cannot. Weakening patent rights threatens the very interest of universities and small business. Without strong patents, 

we cannot commercialize our inventions, and technology jobs will 

go overseas. 

The over-broad and sweeping proposed legislation in H.R. 9 will 

have the effect of suppressing patent rights of all patentees and, 

in particular, will hurt the small, high-tech, job-creating SBIR businesses and, thus, the economy. 

Simply stated, patents are far more important to small business 

survival and growth than to large businesses, and licensed patents 

are the only way universities can commercialize their research. 

The Senate is now presented with a choice between two bills— 

the House’s H.R. 9, the ill-named Innovation Act, or S. 632, appropriately termed STRONG Patents Act of 2015. 

H.R. 9, which I believe should be more aptly named the Ending 

the American Dream Act, with functions such as those providing 
24 

for endless review, clouds title to patents, weakens the patent holder’s ability to economically enforce their patents, and undermines 

fundraising and licensing activities. 

In contrast, the STRONG Patents Act ends the invention tax by 

securing PTO user fees from diversion away from the Patent Office, 

ensuring that resources are commensurate with examination workload. And, the STRONG Patents Act protects patent holders from 

large patent ogres, those who would otherwise infringe small firms’ 

invalid patents with impunity. 

Let me repeat. H.R. 9 does not eliminate trolls, but it will engender the large monopolistic and market dominant firms, encouraging 

more patent ogre activity. 

Finally, I want to put to rest the myth that small business supports the Innovation Act. H.R. 9 does not solve the troll problem. 

Virginia Gavin, a small business owner who had received two demand letters and paid twice, she was as anti-troll as one could be. 

But once she understood each and every provision of H.R. 3309, 

which was H.R. 9’s predecessor, she stated, ‘‘There is nothing in 

this bill that will help me and several items that will harm my 

business.’’ 

Thus, we oppose H.R. 9. 

However, we do support legislation proposed in the STRONG 

Patents Act and the Troll Act. 

Thank you very much. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Schmidt follows:] 
25 
26 
27 
28 
29 
30 
31 
32 
33 
34 
35 
36 
37 
38 
39 
40 

Chairman VITTER. Thank you. Thank you very much, Bob. 

And next, we have Tim Molino, Director of Policy for BSA the 

Software Alliance. 

Mr. Molino has a long history of policy work related to patents, 

including as a former top Senate staffer and as chief counsel for 

Senator Amy Klobuchar. During his law career, Tim focused on 

patent litigation in the areas of software, medical devices, and 

biotech, and he also prosecuted patent applications and provided 

counseling regarding non-infringement and validity issues. 

Welcome, Tim, and please proceed. 

STATEMENT OF TIM MOLINO, DIRECTOR, POLICY, BSA | THE 

SOFTWARE ALLIANCE 

Mr. MOLINO. Chairman Vitter, Ranking Member Cardin and 

members of the Committee, thank you for the opportunity to testify 

on this very important topic of patent reform. 

BSA is the world’s leading voice for the software industry. From 

the way our children learn, how we communicate with colleagues 

and loved ones, the cars we drive, and to the medical devices that 

save our lives, software is making the world a better place. 

In order to keep this innovation thriving, BSA member companies believe that there is an urgent need for legislation to address 

abuse that all too often happens during patent litigation. 

The Small Business Committee is the ideal venue for an organization like BSA to present our views. Although our members range 

in size from very small to large, each of them was founded by one 

or two individuals with passion, an idea, and a vision for bringing 

that idea to the marketplace. Software-related patents are especially important for our members and other small businesses in 

many sectors of the economy that rely on the patent system—a patent system that is strong, predictable, efficient, and fair. 

In today’s world, much of the innovation that is occurring comes 

through the development of software, whether it is building energy 

efficient offices and homes, running factories more safely and productively, or making transportation systems more efficient. Software patents play a vital role for small businesses by protecting 

their ideas against copiers, preserving the value of their innovation 

as they build their businesses, and providing a foundation to attract the investment capital needed to launch and grow. 

But the promise of software patents rings hollow if an inventor 

cannot properly enforce their rights or defend themselves when 

sued. 

There is no escaping the reality that patent litigation is enormously expensive and the costs are only growing. Unfortunately, 

the escalation often comes because bad actors drive up litigation 

costs by employing abuse tactics. 

And, more and more, they prey on smaller companies with limited experience of the patent system and limited resources. A small 

business that is the victim of abusive litigation tactics often faces 

the need to use scarce resources to fund the litigation rather than 

grow its business. 

To be clear, however, we firmly believe that the ability to legitimately enforce a valid patent is the foundation of a strong and effective patent system. We are just trying to end the abuse. 
41 

Abusive litigation tactics serve none but the abuser. They do not 

create jobs. They do not deliver new products and services. And, 

they do not contribute to our innovation economy. 

Senate action to end abusive litigation is urgently needed. 

We believe that effective litigation must provide genuine notice 

by requiring plaintiffs to clearly set forth their allegations in their 

complaint, make discovery more efficient by having courts issue an 

early claims construction decision that will narrow the issues relevant to the suit before the expensive part of discovery begins, and 

deter weaker frivolous cases by awarding fees only when a party 

asserts objectively unreasonable claims, and then ensuring a party 

that is awarded fees has an efficient mechanism to collect them. 

By enacting such legislation, Congress will help foster innovation 

and entrepreneurship for businesses of all sizes. 

Some argue that no legislative changes are needed to the patent 

system because the Supreme Court has ruled on several patent 

cases in the last few years. The Supreme Court’s decisions, however, only nibble at the edges of abuse. At bottom, the abuses have 

not ended and are not likely to end unless Congress takes action. 

Some have also proposed making changes to the America Invents 

Act passed by Congress in 2011. In BSA’s view, doing this would 

be premature. The AIA has only been up and running for about 

two years. The lack of a track record under these programs argues 

against making any changes at this time. 

In conclusion, BSA is committed to ensuring that our robust patent system remains the envy of the world. To advance this goal, we 

believe patents should be available for all types of inventions, including software. We also believe that there is urgent need to end 

abusive litigation by focusing on legislation that addresses opportunistic behavior. We do not see these efforts as being inconsistent 

but, rather, complementary in promoting innovation and entrepreneurship. 

We urge the Senate to move quickly to enact reforms that support a robust patent system while deterring abuse. 

I look forward to answering your questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Molino follows:] 
42 
43 
44 
45 
46 
47 
48 

Chairman VITTER. Great. Thank you, Mr. Molino. 

And now I will turn to Senator Cardin who will introduce our 

next two witnesses. 

Senator CARDIN. Well, let me first welcome Rachel King, the 

CEO of GlycoMimetics, to our Committee. 

GlycoMimetics is a small pharmaceutical company with about 40 

employees. Ms. King guided the company as it gathered $38 million 

from venture companies—quite a task. 

GlycoMimetics’ current patent portfolio includes two main pharmaceutical patents targeting sickle cell disease and leukemia. It is 

currently in a Phase II trial for sickle cell drugs. 

All their technology is homegrown within the company’s own 

labs. It is located along the 270 corridor in Gaithersburg, one of the 

real high-tech areas of Maryland. 

We have a lot of high-tech areas in our State, and I think what 

Ms. King represents is really one of the growth areas in our country for good jobs and innovation. 

STATEMENT OF RACHEL KING, FOUNDER AND CEO, 

GLYCOMIMETICS, AND CHAIR OF THE MARYLAND LIFE 

SCIENCES ADVISORY BOARD 

Ms. KING. Thank you very much and thank you, Chairman Vitter 

and Ranking Member Cardin, for inviting me to testify today. 

And, thank you also for the opening remarks that you both 

made. I feel very encouraged by the perspective that you are bringing, the support of innovation, the critical recognition that we need 

balanced and bipartisan legislation that will continue to support 

entrepreneurship and small businesses. This is really critical and 

very important to biotechnology and to companies like ours. So 

thank you very much. 

I run a company, as Senator Cardin said, called GlycoMimetics 

based in Maryland. We are focusing on developing drugs for unmet 

medical needs, focused initially on sickle cell disease and on leukemia. 

And I have spent my career working in biotechnology, both in 

startup companies like these and on the venture capital side. So, 

from that perspective—from those perspectives, I have seen the 

really critical role that patents play in encouraging investment and 

how very important it is that we ensure a robust, dependable system. 

So, based on my experience in those different settings, I can say 

that I think biotechnology is probably one of the most dependent 

areas of the economy on a robust patent system. And one of the 

reasons for this is that our patents are—we often have products 

that depend on very small numbers of critical patents. 

So we do not have 20, 50, or 100 patents on our products. We 

might have 1 or 2 that are critically important for us to defend in 

order to bring our products forward. 

And, we have to do that in a setting where we have got to raise 

millions of dollars over many years at great risk. 

So the amount of money, the amount of time, and the amount 

of risk in our industry make it really critical that we have strong 

patents. 
49 

In our company’s case, we raised about $60 million through private venture capital. We had to raise that money to complete our 

initial study in sickle cell patients. We then had to do another 

major partnership with a pharmaceutical company to bring in more 

money. We raised another $64 million in an IPO last year. So our 

own company’s story is one of many years of long, risky investment. 

And, if we are successful, it will probably take something like 15 

years and tens of millions of dollars until we actually have a drug 

that could be available to patients. And, during that time we really, 

critically, have to be able to defend our patents. 

If patents can be invalidated under overly broad criteria or if we 

have difficulty enforcing them, then it makes it very difficult for us 

to raise funds. 

So I want to urge Congress as you look at issues related to patent trolls, I want you to also keep in mind the need to protect patent innovators, so to protect the people who actually generate patents in the first place, not to only look at abuses by patent owners 

but abuses perpetrated against patent owners and against 

innovators. 

And, in particular, one of the things that is of a great deal of concern to us in the biotech industry is this new system of patent challenges called Inter Partes Reviews, which is really having a gamechanging effect on our industry because so many patents can be invalidated under that process. Something like 80 percent of the 

challenges that are brought result in the innovator’s patent being 

invalidated. 

And, it is so bad now that people who have no standing are 

bringing these challenges because they are betting on the ability to 

invalidate these patents. 

We have cases in our industry, for example, where hedge funds 

will short a biotech company’s stock, file an IPR, make money 

when then the company’s stock goes down as a result of the announcement of the IPR just having been filed. 

I think that should be criminal. It is manipulation. It invalidates 

patents inappropriately. And, this whole IPR process basically sets 

a lower standard than the current district court standard has, 

which is very well-developed, with a lot of experience. 

And we cannot—we are particularly vulnerable to that type of 

challenge. So I really think that needs to be addressed. 

And so I am particularly appreciative of the STRONG Patents 

Act, and I want to thank Senators Coons, Durbin, and you, Senator 

Hirono, for sponsoring that Act. That would address a lot of the 

problems with the IPR case in our view and, I think, could be very 

important to continuing to support innovation in biotechnology. 

So I want to make the point—obviously, I am biased—I think 

biotechnology is not like just any other business. It is a business 

that we really, critically, have to support because of the important 

work that we are doing. 

We are not finished in developing cures for cancer, Alzheimer’s 

disease, diseases like sickle cell. These are critically important 

needs that we need to continue to address in our society. 

And I want to ask you to specifically be concerned about the role 

that patents play in biotechnology and to continue to support us. 
50 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. King follows:] 
51 
52 
53 
54 
55 
56 
57 

Senator CARDIN. Well, thank you for your testimony. 

Mr. Craig Bandes is President and CEO of Pixelligent Technologies. It is a Baltimore-based company that creates nano materials that allow more light to be derived out of LED light bulbs, 

panel display, and optical components. 

Pixelligent started with 9 employees and currently has 42 employees. They have received funding through both government and 

private investment sources during the course of their development. 

Pixelligent holds 25 patents, spends hundreds of thousands of 

dollars each year developing its patents and attorneys to ensure 

patent protection. 

They currently have an international reach and are looking to 

start distribution in Europe soon. 

It is a pleasure to have Mr. Bandes here. 

As I explained earlier, in Maryland we are proud throughout our 

State of having a lot of high-tech type operations in the Baltimore 

region and the Washington region and throughout our State. 

Mr. Bandes. 

STATEMENT OF CRAIG BANDES, PRESIDENT AND CEO, 

PIXELLIGENT TECHNOLOGIES 

Mr. BANDES. Thank you, Senator Vitter and Senator Cardin, for 

the opportunity to come speak today. 

There has been a lot of discussion on the panel already, which 

I will save us all from repeating. 

Our company is very focused on—and patent protection is critical 

to our ultimate success as a company. We believe when we think 

about patents that there is both the focus on protecting patents 

and protecting innovation but also accelerating the innovation that 

we have here in the United States. 

So, again, my name is Craig Bandes. I am the CEO of Pixelligent 

Technologies. 

And the materials that we make here in Baltimore enable us to 

take materials, put them into a number of devices, and materials 

that are commonly used in electronics today. Our main focus is in 

LED lighting, which is sweeping the world really in next-generation lighting, and OLED lighting, where using our materials makes 

those lights more efficient, gets more light out, and actually creates 

better economics. 

Our materials also go into things like touch screens to help improve scratch resistance and overall image quality. 

The company has been funded today through a combination of 

private equity funding, some venture but a lot of what you would 

call ‘‘super angel’’ type of investment, about $23 million to date, 

and we also have received about $11 million of funding from government programs. 

All of this funding has really gone to initially focus on building 

a team of technologists, manufacturing experts, sales and marketing folks, but it is all based on the core of our IP. 

Ultimately, when we go to market and we are selling to big multinationals, which include today 3M and Dow Chemical and 

Samsung and OSRAM and LG, on a global basis, the first thing 

they do is take a sample and see if it works. Then they figure out, 

okay, well, the economics work to get a product into their system. 
58 

All that is very hard and takes anywhere from six months to a 

year. So it is easier said than done. 

And then, if you get through all of that, you then go through a 

process of having to show that the IP they are going to incorporate, 

our IP, into their products will not infringe when they go to the 

marketplace. And it goes through a pretty exhaustive process 

called the Freedom to Operate. 

So here is where the challenges come in, where invariably just 

because of how many technologies there are in our space—nano has 

become a very active space for patenting—that they will find something that may give them some concern. 

Our job then is to show them that we can beat back that concern. 

The best way we can do it is having very strong patents that are 

defensible and having a broad set of patents that show they really 

cover the landscape and the areas that we focus on, which are 

making the material, how we coat that material, how we put it into 

our customers’ material, and then how we manufacture that material. 

And we have to be able to prove that we have protection really 

across that to convince someone like a 3M, for example, because ultimately if there is a problem, someone that would come after the 

company more will focus on a 3M with much deeper pockets than 

a Pixelligent which is just now starting to commercialize. 

So our focus really is making sure that the patents that we have 

and we put into the Patent and Trademark Office come out and are 

strong and defensible. 

One of the challenges that we see today is less because we have 

not been directly involved in any kind of troll situation. And I 

think the panel here has covered the universe on the issues there, 

and a balanced approach clearly is the best answer. 

But our focus is when we file a patent it takes 2.3 years to get 

that patent out of the Patent and Trademark Office. There are currently 600,000 patents in backlog in the PTO. You think about the 

amount of economic value and real value that is being held up in 

that. 

Now these folks work hard. Examiners work hard. They care 

about their jobs. There just are not enough of them. 

And when you think about the PTO, it is one of the few agencies 

in the government that actually self-funds and actually makes 

what we call in our world a net profit—about $300 million addition, 

or 350, on almost every year beyond the $3 billion they get appropriated to go spend. And then there is a battle over who gets that 

money. 

Imagine if you reinvested that money like a business would, to 

create a more efficient system, bring in more people, and drive 

more value. 

Not only will there be more value and more fees—and it is a 

great strategy because you pay once and then you pay forever, or 

at least the 23 years while your patents are active, but the ability 

to unlock all of that innovation so that I do not have today 23 patents pending. 

Today, maybe I only have 10 patents pending, which means 

when I go and I talk to 3M or Dow or Samsung or whoever, I am 
59 

saying we have a broader portfolio of patents that are actually 

issued and we can defend them versus pending and waiting. 

So I would encourage this Committee to think about this concept 

of innovation and protecting and accelerating patents beyond just 

the issues of litigation. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Bandes follows:] 
60 
61 
62 
63 

Chairman VITTER. Okay. Thanks to all of you. 

We will now have a round, a five-minute round of questions from 

the members here. I will start and then Senator Cardin, and then 

we will alternate sides using the ‘‘early bird’’ rule. 

Mr. Winwood, you mentioned that universities conduct 15 percent of all R&D and over 50 percent of all basic research in the 

U.S. and spend over $65 billion in research funds, $40 billion is 

from Federal sources, and that results in all sorts of inventions and 

patent applications. 

How does abusive patent litigation affect universities now, number one? 

And, number two, you specifically referenced mandatory joinder 

and presumptive fee-shifting as provisions you would oppose in any 

patent bill. Why don’t you elaborate on that, and why would this 

be bad for universities? 

Mr. WINWOOD. Thank you, Chairman Vitter. 

Yes, how does this affect universities now? I think our primary 

area of interest here is our relationship, our very close relationship, 

with our startups and our small businesses, and the fact that most 

university technology licensing offices run on a very, very narrow 

margin. 

We are determined to help bring our technologies to the private 

sector, who can move it on into the marketplace for the benefit of 

consumers. 

When it comes to taking that extra risk of maybe being exposed 

to some of the abusive litigation, our universities simply do not 

have the depth of pocket to make that happen. 

And so there is a reluctance to engage, presumably, in this pursuit of moving technologies out to the marketplace if we have the 

threat over our head of this kind of abusive litigation, if we are in 

the firing line, if you will, along with our licensees and startup 

companies. 

So, in particular, the fee-shifting and joinder provisions cause us 

great concern. Imagine following the joinder provisions through 

whereby anyone with a financial interest in the outcome of a litigated procedure could be joined. 

So the universities certainly, but as you know, our universities 

share our royalty revenues with our inventors. These may be faculty members. These may be students. They may be post-docs. I 

suspect that there would be a chilling effect on disclosure to my office, and many other offices, if those inventors were aware that 

they might suddenly be joined into a suit with—maybe it is a 

hedge fund at the helm of this thing, as mentioned by Rachel. 

So there is a real chilling effect, I suspect, that is possible on 

participation from our universities and our inventors because we 

just do not have the capacity in this kind of combat. We run on 

very, very narrow margins to keep these things moving into the 

private sector. 

Chairman VITTER. Okay. Thank you. 

And, Mr. Molino, can you give some thoughts about how ongoing 

activity addresses some areas of abuse and if you think it is adequate for those areas or not? 

For instance, there are ongoing judicial conference changes related to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. What is your thought 
64 

about that work and how it will properly address those possible 

areas of abuse or not? 

Mr. MOLINO. So thank you for the question. 

We are very encouraged by the judicial conference’s work. However, we do not think that the judicial conference is going to address the abuses that actually happen in patent cases. 

I think the judicial conference’s work is more based on overall 

litigation. While that will be helpful, there are certain things in 

patent cases that only occur with patent cases, such as a Markman 

decision. 

No other area of law has something called a Markman decision, 

where a court actually issues an order defining what the scope of 

the patent is. Because of that, oftentimes, once you have a 

Markman order, the scope of the case narrows and the cost of discovery narrows. 

We do not believe the judicial conference is going to address that. 

So I think that while the judicial conference is doing a lot of good 

things they certainly are not going to be addressing the specific 

issues to patent law. 

Chairman VITTER. Okay. Thank you. 

And going back to Mr. Winwood, some small inventors have 

raised the issue of a so-called integrity loophole cause by a court 

decision denying judicial relief to patent holders whose patents 

have been subject to fraudulent or sham petitions for reexamination at the Patent and Trademark Office. 

Do you agree that this is a problem? Would you support Congress 

restoring a judicial remedy specifically to that? 

Mr. WINWOOD. Yes, Chairman Vitter. Clearly, there are areas of 

disagreement regarding patent reform, but one area where we believe everyone should agree is that fraud cannot be tolerated, or deliberate abuse of patent reexaminations, or post-grant reviews. 

Applicants are held to a very high standard of honesty in dealing 

with the PTO, or else they risk losing their patent rights. So we 

believe that third-party requesters should be held to a similar 

standard. The patent owner currently has to be truthful, but a 

third-party requester can basically commit fraud with no financial 

penalty due to some recent court decisions. 

So it appears the door is wide open for unscrupulous parties 

around the world to abuse our system, knowing that it will take 

the patent owner years and cost them hundreds of thousands of 

dollars of effort just to defend their patent in the U.S. PTO. 

So this, as indicated by some of my small business colleagues 

here, is time and money that they just do not have and cannot afford to fight such challenges. It can really deny them access to desperately needed venture funding while there is a cloud over the 

patent, as referenced earlier, or delay entry into the marketplace 

for valuable new drugs, medicines, and so on. 

So we think that there should be an opportunity to restore traditional rights of patent owners to sue for damages in these cases 

and that will close this integrity loophole, if we are able to do this, 

and particularly prevent it being used against small companies 

who would seem to be very vulnerable in this regard. And, obviously, many of those small companies are our startups and licensees. 
65 

Chairman VITTER. Right. Okay. Thank you. 

Now, Senator Cardin. 

Senator CARDIN. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Again, I thank all five witnesses for your time here today. It is 

extremely helpful to us. 

Your testimony recalls some of the hearings that I attended 

when I was on the Senate Judiciary Committee, and they were 

long hearings, and it is a technical field. 

But I cannot imagine the fear that a small high-tech firm must 

go through if they receive a letter where they do not know really 

the source of who is behind it, who threatens their existence, challenging their legitimacy to the work that they have done. 

And it is very interesting; there are two sides here, and I am not 

sure why there are two sides to this debate because both sides 

agree that we have got to protect intellectual property and both 

sides believe that fraudulent activity and patent trolling is wrong. 

So I am going to start with the two business owners that are 

here. Could you just highlight what you think the most important 

change could be in our patent laws to protect the work that you 

are doing? 

There are two different companies here. One relies on basically 

one patent to advance a drug. The other is advancing a final product that will contain what you are doing, which will rely upon a 

lot of patents, ultimately. 

What is the one change we could make, or the two changes we 

could make, in the patent laws that would protect your type of 

work, give you better access to capital so that you can get more 

predictable funding, and yet, avoid the problems of fraudulent activity or at least make it less vulnerable? 

Ms. KING. I can begin by answering that I would suggest reforming the current problems that we have under the IPR system. 

And, as I mentioned in my testimony, I think that the fact that 

a hedge fund could come out of nowhere and short a company 

stock, knowing that they are about to file an IPR, which then 

drives the company stock down. I think that is criminal, and I 

think that is an abuse that really needs to be corrected. 

One way to correct that is to address the issue of standing because that is the case where a hedge fund would have no commercial standing to bring that case. 

But the basic problem, I think, with the IPR system as it currently is, is that it currently sets a lower standard than the district 

court current system sets. And so—and we can see that because 

there is so much abuse that has started now, where people try to 

bring these challenges through that system. 

So, in my view, that would be the critical thing that we would 

need to correct. 

Senator CARDIN. Thank you. 

Mr. Bandes. 

Mr. BANDES. So I would say in the—two areas. 

One is, you know, in business there is nothing that will make 

you more nervous, or an investor more nervous, than uncertainty. 

And so having a blind letter that does not really tell you who it 

is and what the actual rights are they are saying you may be infringing on is an impossible battle. 
66 

So there should be full disclosure. If you are going to get contacted and say that there may be a patent issue, they need to be 

forthright in telling you what the issues are so you can address 

them early. 

I would say the second piece is—you know, I read this a little 

bit, and I think it was in one of the acts, and I have read many 

in the past few days—about the concept of loser pays. 

I mean, there really is no risk. You know, if you are a big fund 

and you are going after a small company, you know, part of what 

you are trying to do is just bleed them dry. You know, you do not 

have the resources, and so you can play bully tactics. 

But if there is a chance that if they lose they have to pay up for 

all of the costs involved in that case, then maybe they think a little 

more about it before they just, you know, send a letter and try and 

use bully tactics. 

Senator CARDIN. I think that, Ms. King, your suggestion is one 

that could be addressed rather quickly. 

I think the points that you raise, Mr. Bandes, are more complicated because the judicial system is not always amenable to the 

statutes we pass as to how they enforce. So it is not as easy to deal 

with some of the issues you did. 

Several of you mentioned the patent office itself. How effective is 

the patent office? Do you think they have the resources they need 

in order to expedite this process? 

You mentioned something about hundreds of thousands of backlogs. 

Mr. Schmidt. 

Mr. SCHMIDT. Yeah, 600,000 is the backlog. 

And you should be very thankful for your 2.3 years because most 

of ours are 6 years and over; we have got some that are 8 years 

now, that are pending. So this means things do not get commercialized as timely as they could. It is an extreme problem. So, right now, we have $1.7 billion that has been diverted from 

the patent office that could be paid for, you know, better examiners, more qualified examiners, and more time for an examiner 

versus roughly a week to be able to—or, pardon me, a day to be 

able to look at a patent and examine it and be able to rule on it, 

which means almost everything gets rejected the first time 

through. 

So you submit an application, and if it is not rejected you are 

just shocked. 

So, you know, this is all because of this huge diversion, what I 

call the invention tax on inventors that, you know, Congress and 

the system extracts from us and then uses the money for something else. 

So just letting the patent office keep their own money would be 

a huge benefit to be able to plough back into the system. 

Senator CARDIN. Thank you. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman VITTER. Okay. Next, we have Senator Peters. 

Senator PETERS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you to 

our panelists here today. 

Certainly, a very important topic. There is not anything more important for the productivity of this country than to have innovation 
67 

that is the driver of economic well-being for everybody, middle-class 

families, and everybody in this country, and you are a big part of 

that. 

And I appreciate this discussion because this debate is going to 

be important for us to move that forward. 

I just want to pick up on some of the comments on the patent 

office and the backlog because I think that is very significant. 

Mr. Bandes, I appreciate your comments. This is not about just 

litigation. We also have to make sure we are moving this through 

the process. 

And I am happy, as the Senator from Michigan and Detroit, we 

actually had the first field office of the U.S. Patent Office in Detroit. I want everyone to know that. It was not in Silicon Valley. 

It was not in the Research Triangle of North Carolina. It was in 

Detroit, Michigan, because of the work that we do. 

But it is a significant problem when you have a backlog of 

600,000 cases now, 2.3 years. 

When I was in the House, I actually led a letter to try to deal 

with this tax, which it is; it is an inventor’s tax. 

When we had the sequestration, the sequestration actually funneled money away—these across-the-board cuts that then took the 

seed corn, which is the patents, away from it. 

So I would just like a yes or no from each of the panelists. Do 

we need to have—the Congress has to put in law that we do not 

need additional congressional action. 

This is a user fee. All of these resources need to be applied to 

the patent office. That is probably one of the top priorities as we 

are dealing with this issue. Would all of you agree this would have 

a significant impact on our ability to be a leader in patents? 

We will start with Mr. Winwood, just yes or no or a brief comment. 

Mr. WINWOOD. Yes, I would agree with you it is a big problem. 

Mr. SCHMIDT. Yes, we are supportive of that. 

Ms. KING. Yes, I would agree. 

Mr. BANDES. No question. 

Senator PETERS. I have never found anybody against it. 

[Laughter.] 

So this just approves that. 

So, Congress, we need to act on this, and I think this has got to 

be at the top of our priorities. 

Next, what I want to do is go to the litigation aspect and to Mr. 

Winwood. 

Since the House passed the Innovation Act, the judiciary has 

made some progress towards patent litigation, and I think some of 

you have referred to that, particularly on fee-shifting, where the 

Supreme Court decisions have led to fees being awarded in more 

cases than prior to those decisions. 

However, Judge Gilstrap, who had about 20 percent of all patent 

cases last year filed in front of him, said in a recent Law360 article 

that Highmark and Octane does not really change much. 

He said, ‘‘I really do not see it changing what we would have determined was appropriate for the award of fees even before the 

case came out.’’ 
68 

He also said, ‘‘I do not think it changed the internal dynamics 

of what judges like me or my colleagues would be convinced is exceptional but made it clear we have the option at our disposal.’’ 

So you, Mr. Winwood, have articulated a concern with the proposed fee-shifting position. 

And I am concerned that the decision, the Octane Fitness decision, may not have provided sufficient guidance for some of patent 

litigation. 

So, if you could talk maybe specifically about language in the bill 

that you particularly find problematic, if that is possible. 

And, what if the potential fee-shifting role was not presumptive 

but, rather, we just provided the court with some additional guidance on how to deal with fee-shifting? Is that something you think 

may make some sense? 

Mr. WINWOOD. First of all, thank you for the question. 

Yeah, I am not an attorney. So I am not going to give the specificity that you may be looking for in that particular language. 

But I do believe that we want to make sure that this is a discretionary and appropriate shifting rather than presumptive, which I 

think would really tend to persuade most universities and startup 

companies that they cannot engage in these activities. 

And this is our main fear, that if this is sort of a mandatory aspect of any engagement, then our boards of trustees and supervisors will simply say we do not have that capacity. 

So I think the language, as I understand it, is a little beyond 

what we would be comfortable with in the higher ed associations 

community, and we prefer to defer to what the judges have set out 

as discretionary decisions to levy costs as they see appropriate in 

justified cases. 

Senator PETERS. Well, if the judge, as I mentioned, who I quoted, 

reviews 20 percent of all patent litigation cases, does not believe 

that the Supreme Court has made a substantial change, do you 

agree that there might still be some work that should be done by 

Congress in that area? 

Mr. WINWOOD. It is quite possible that there is work to clarify 

how this should be implemented. 

Senator PETERS. Very good. Thank you. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman VITTER. Okay. Next, we have Senator Shaheen. 

Senator SHAHEEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Thank you all for being here today. 

You know, when we passed the America Invents Act in 2011, one 

of the selling points was that that was supposed to expedite the 

patent process. Have we seen any improvements as the result of 

that legislation in the backlog of patents? 

I am up for anybody who would like to address that. 

Mr. BANDES. The data would say we may be moving in the right 

direction, but it is, you know, a slow-turning barge. I think it is— 

the backlog has been running around the same level, in the 

600,000 range, for the last 3 or 4 years. 

There is a goal, I think by 2019, to go from 2.3 years to 2 years 

or 23 months. 
69 

But I think if you pass an act but do not give the resources to 

deliver on the changes that that act is trying to enable, you are 

tying their hands. 

So, you know, back to the innovation tax that we are talking 

about here, you know, we are all paying fees into it. And, ultimately, why that should not be reinvested in PTO to bring on more 

resources and more examiners does—you are not going to fix it if 

you keep taking the resources away. 

In fact, you should be doing the opposite. You should be trying 

to find ways to put in more resource because you actually see a significant economic return on those investments. 

Senator SHAHEEN. Anyone else want to respond to that? 

I mean, I certainly agree with that and agree with the point that 

Senator Peters was making, that the resources are there; we need 

to use them for innovation and to keep the patent system moving. 

One of the challenges—as someone who is not an attorney, who 

is dealing with a very technical issue, one of the challenges I 

have—coming from a small state where we have a number of large 

businesses, technology businesses represented, but we also have a 

lot of innovation in our small businesses—is balancing what the 

larger firms say they would like to see with respect to patent reform versus what the small businesses say with respect to patent 

reform, and they are not on the same page. 

So I do not know if—and certainly, the university, or main research university, is also not on the same page. 

So I do not know, Mr. Winwood, if you have any—as someone 

who represents an academic perspective, a research perspective, 

who I think may generally be viewed as having less of an ax to 

grind on this issue, if you have a view about how we balance those 

interests. 

Mr. WINWOOD. I think it really is—and thank you for asking me 

that. 

I think it is really important to balance those issues; I think between the divide, whether it is between large companies and small 

companies. It may actually be between different industries as much 

as it is between size of company. 

You have heard a little bit about the length of time it takes to 

get a patent issued. 

Senator SHAHEEN. Right. 

Mr. WINWOOD. And I think while the hundreds of thousands of 

backlog cases is certainly serious, it varies between art groups 

within the office. 

I think, Bob, you recognize that within different groups you 

might wait six or eight years to get a patent issued; others may be 

much faster than that. So there is a massive imbalance. 

And when you then look at—I think Mr. Bandes referenced taking 6 to 12 months to do a proof of concept study. 

Well, I think if Rachel could do a proof of concept study in 6 to 

12 months she would be a very happy person. 

The two sides of the industry coin are very different. So I think 

that is probably one of the areas that really leads to some of these 

perceived frictions. 
70 

What I wrote down earlier in the testimony here was we are in 

raging agreement about almost everything except for how to implement it because I think we all are opposed to patent—— 

Senator SHAHEEN. Sounds like Congress. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. WINWOOD. Yeah. I will let you say that and not me. 

But we are in agreement that abusive behavior is bad. 

And I think whether you are a large or small company, abusive 

behavior is inappropriate, is wrong, and should be stymied and corrected, if necessary by congressional action. 

But do not make that action an impediment to those of us who 

are trying to push our technologies from the very, very fundamental and basic research level out to companies such as the ones 

represented here along the panel with me. 

That is the key thing to do—balance and target. 

Senator SHAHEEN. Yes, I think addressing abuse is the critical 

issue, and I acknowledge the difficulty in balancing these concerns. 

And I think we—you know, we live through this too when we try 

to make our own points. We all need a strong system. 

And I think what happens often—you know, you pass a law, and 

then we see the unintended consequences. So if you could go after 

the abuses, I think we could all benefit. 

And, thank you. 

I am almost out of time, but I just wondered; in 2014, the Patent 

and Trademark Office launched an online tool kit to help consumers and mainstream retailers deal with patent trolls. Is anybody familiar with this effort? 

Have you heard of anybody using it? 

Do you think it would be helpful? No? 

Mr. Molino. 

Mr. MOLINO. So I am aware of it, and I think it is a helpful tool 

because one of the biggest things that patent abusers do is focus 

on those that are not educated about the system and take advantage of that. So any education that we are doing for smaller businesses, retailers that do not usually involve themselves in the patent system I think is a very positive thing. 

Some of our members have used it, our smaller members, but it 

is a positive thing. 

Senator SHAHEEN. Mr. Schmidt. 

Mr. SCHMIDT. Well, one of the things we need to remember is 

this is all about how do you make sure you can try and invalidate 

patents. The entire U.S. PTO system there is to say, you know, we 

want to keep people and defend them from patents that we are 

issuing. 

There is nothing there that says we want strong patents and we 

want to enforce it. There is no balancing. There is no balancing in 

any part of H.R. 9 to be able to say we would like strong patents. 

It is all about how do we take away the rights of patent owners, 

how do we eliminate these, you know, smaller patents. And this is 

just very bad for small inventors. 

The whole thing with the fee-shifting, it is like I do not think 

anybody understands. When a big company says, oh, you have got to pay $5 million to 

that thing, well, you know, let’s take it out of the petty cash thing. 
71 

For me, it is I not only lose my company. They then take my 

house. When they take my house, they take my spouse, and my 

children go with it. I am betting my entire life on a patent. 

And this is just, oh, it is fee-shifting. You should be able to do 

this. 

Well, I am submitting myself to, you know, the problems of the 

court who may go any way. So I cannot enforce my own patent. 

So Congress is telling me, Schmidt, you are too poor to invent. 

Stop inventing. Stop inventing. 

Senator SHAHEEN. But you are speaking to the House bill. You 

are not speaking to the effort to educate. 

Mr. SCHMIDT. Yes, that is absolutely correct. 

And since we have two-thirds of the Coons-Hirono bill, I would 

like to thank you both for your support of that because you obviously have seen the light. Thank you. 

Senator SHAHEEN. Thanks very much. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman VITTER. Great. Next is Senator Hirono. 

Senator HIRONO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this 

hearing. 

And as long as I believe that two out of the five panel people 

have read the STRONG bill, I would like to know whether the 

other panelists have also read the STRONG bill. 

Okay. Good. Then I would like to ask what your view is about 

the STRONG bill because as one of the supporters of the STRONG 

bill we obviously are against patent trolls, but we would like to 

present a balanced approach to how we are going to make those 

changes. 

So I would like to ask each of the witnesses, very briefly, if you 

think that the approach represented by the STRONG bill is a good 

approach. 

Go ahead. We will just start from Mr. Winwood. 

Mr. WINWOOD. Yes. Thank you, Senator. 

Yes, the higher education associations, in general, have written 

and supported very strongly the legislation that was introduced by 

yourself, Senators Coons and Durbin recently. 

We do support this targeted, balanced approach. We think it 

really hits the right way for doing this, to let the FTC take care 

of these issues rather than burden or really mangle the patent system, which we believe is really the great strength of the U.S. economy and innovation system. So we are very supportive of it. 

Mr. SCHMIDT. Again, thank you very much. 

The Small Business Technology Council, the 5,000 firms that 

participate in the SBIR program, we can take your bill just as it 

is. It is much better than any other alternative we have seen in the 

past. 

However, there are some other things that, you know, since we 

are doing legislation, that I would love to see—is the return of the 

one-year grace period. This is a disaster for America’s budding scientists and engineers. 

Out of—a group of 150 patent attorneys were asked, can you explain whether you have a grace period or not? No one would raise 

their hand to be able to respond to that issue. It is so unclear as 

to whether we have a grace period in America. 
72 

And the only person that would dare to answer said, yes, I tell 

all my clients there is no grace period. 

So that is gone in America. 

And I have had 5 different people come up to me that had gone 

to inventors fairs or science fairs dealing with 15- and 17-year-olds, 

and they are telling them: Why are you here? You should not be 

presenting your material. Stop talking about this. 

And so this is squashing innovation. So that is number one. 

Number two, patentable subject matter. Since the Supreme 

Court cannot decide what is patentable subject matter, somebody 

needs to be able to help them. So that is a Section 101, which is— 

the first one with the grace period was 102. This is Section 101. 

The third thing is greater elasticity for punitive behavior. 

So since the Supreme Court cannot tell me whether my patent 

is valid or not, or has trouble with it—obviously, they do at the 

end, but there is great concern—how am I supposed to know as a 

little inventor of whether this is patentable or not? 

And all of a sudden I fall into this trap. I have sued somebody, 

and now I get my patent invalidated. I did it in good faith. I 

thought I was on right standing. And all of a sudden, you know, 

I go through my lose my house, spouse, children routine. And you 

know, that is a problem. 

And so I am looking for a get-out-of-jail card for honest people. 

So that is the third thing. 

And then, finally, there should be a balance between plaintiffs 

and defendants because the whole way these other bills are all 

done it is all on the—you know, it all protects the infringer rather 

than the patent enforcer. And so I am looking for a balance there. 

Thank you. 

But other than that, we can take everything the way it is. 

Senator HIRONO. Mr. Molino, we are running out of time. So if 

we can—— 

Mr. MOLINO. We are unable to support it right now. 

We think that the AIA has just been implemented basically 

about two years ago. We are seeing some issues pop up, but I think 

it is too early to tell if those are going to be systematic problems 

that require Congress to act. 

Senator HIRONO. But aren’t you supporting the Innovation Act? 

Mr. MOLINO. We do support the Innovation Act. 

Senator HIRONO. Which is very broad. It is much broader than 

what we are proposing in the STRONG Act. So I am a little bit 

confused about your position. 

Mr. MOLINO. The Innovation Act addresses abuses that occur in 

the litigation system that have been going on for over a decade, to 

which there has been a ton of study showing that these abuses 

happen. There have been years and years of academic, congressional research on this. 

Whereas, the Innovation Act—and the alleged abuses that are 

beginning to pop up, I think it is a little too early to tell whether 

those are actually going to continue and deserve congressional action. 

Senator HIRONO. I am sorry. Did you say you are not supporting 

the Innovation Act or you are? 

Mr. MOLINO. No. We do support the Innovation Act, yes. 
73 

Senator HIRONO. Okay. I guess there are differences of opinion 

on that. 

Ms. King. 

Ms. KING. Yeah, I respectfully disagree. 

I think that these are not alleged abuses. These are clearly 

abuses. And I think that the way that you have addressed them 

is really right on point. 

Three things: Setting the same standard for what is happening 

in IPRs and what happens in district court, allowing greater flexibility in amending claims, and addressing this issue of standing. I 

think those are three critical issues. 

We have seen the abuses, and I really appreciate what you are 

doing with this bill to address them. 

Senator HIRONO. Mr. Chairman, if I can ask the last panel person to respond briefly. 

Chairman VITTER. Sure. 

Mr. BANDES. Yeah. So, far from an expert, but from what we 

have seen, we are also in favor of the STRONG Act. 

I think having the FTC involved is great, but I would go back 

to a similar theme around the PTO. Make sure you give them 

enough resources because if you give them the enforcement but not 

the capability to actually help with this problem my question would 

be how quickly will they be able to resolve issues. So, if you are 

going to ask them to do it, make sure you give them the resources 

they need to go do it. 

Senator HIRONO. All right. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman VITTER. Great. Thank you. 

Senator Coons is next. 

Senator COONS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And thank you, Senator Hirono, for your great partnership in 

this work, and Ranking Member Cardin. 

I want to say that it is, for me, exciting to hear this being considered in the Small Business Committee as well as on the Judiciary 

Committee on which I serve. 

As someone who was in-house counsel for eight years to a highly 

inventive company that had thousands of engineers but that began 

literally in a basement by a sole inventor, I had the experience and 

the excitement of working with a company that was constantly generating ideas and filing patents and relied on that patent protection to grow from a new small startup to, ultimately, a more sustained and successful company. 

So I am pleased we have had a chance today, Mr. Chairman, to 

hear from this impressive group of witnesses, all of whom have testified to the enormous importance of a strong and predictable patent system, a system of patent rights that is at the basis of our nation’s innovative ecosystem. 

This property right, rooted in our Constitution, is one I think we 

should be very careful about how we revise, or amend, and how we 

change the system of litigation. 

Now there has been a lot of talk—there has been not just talk 

but legislation in the last Congress—about how we need to diminish the rights of patent owners for the benefit of small businesses, 

but today’s hearing has done no less than turn that argument, in 

many ways, on its head. 
74 

And what we have heard today is that strong predictable patent 

rights, the ability of a patent owner to enforce that patent against 

infringement, is central to the ability of small businesses in technology, biomedical, and material sciences to survive by attracting 

and sustaining investment. 

So, to address these abuses, Senator Hirono and I, along with 

Senator Durbin, have introduced the STRONG Patents Act, as has 

been discussed, which streamlines and strengthens pleading, empowers the FTC to go after the real patent trolls, those who really 

have no basis in law or fact for their suits, tackle some of the recent and notable abuses of the post-grant review system at PTO. 

When a hedge fund can erase $100 million or more of investor 

capital simply by filing a PGR, solely for the purpose of shorting 

the stock, I think it is time for us to look seriously at acting. 

And it ends fee diversion to fully fund the Patent and Trademark 

Office and improve patent quality, something I think everyone can 

support. 

So I look forward to listening and working with my colleagues to 

enact meaningful, targeted reforms that respect the diversity of the 

innovative ecosystem. 

And, if I might, Mr. Chair, I would like to submit for the record 

letters that support either explicitly the STRONG Patents Act or 

its approach from the National Venture Capital Association, the 

National Small Business Association, the Biotech Industry Association, the Association of American Universities, the Association of 

Public and Land-Grant Universities, the Medical Device Manufacturers, the Pharmaceutical Research Manufacturers, the Innovation Alliance, and the IEE–USA. 

Chairman VITTER. Without objection, so ordered. 

[The information follows:] 
75 
76 
77 
78 
79 
80 
81 
82 
83 
84 
85 
86 
87 
88 
89 
90 
91 
92 
93 
94 
95 
96 
97 
98 
99 
100 
101 
102 
103 
104 
105 
106 
107 
108 
109 
110 
111 
112 
113 
114 
115 
116 
117 
118 
119 
120 
121 
122 
123 
124 
125 
126 
127 
128 
129 
130 
131 
132 
133 
134 
135 
136 
137 
138 
139 
140 
141 

Senator COONS. Let me, in the time I have left, ask a question 

or two. 

Ms. King, your testimony goes to the heart of my interest and 

concerns about this debate, and I am appreciative of your support 

for the STRONG Patents Act. 

You explained that in raising $64 million just to support your 

R&D pipeline focused on patients with sickle cell anemia, it was 

possible only because of the strength of your patent portfolio. 

And you note every biotech exec has stories to tell about very 

promising compounds that ultimately did not work out and the 

risks taken. 

And your comment: The injection of additional systemic uncertainty by making the enforceability of patents more uncertain negatively affects which new cures and treatments may be available 

a decade from now. 

So let me just summarize that in plain terms. If we make it 

harder for a small company like yours to enforce your patent 

rights, they will suffer from less external investment and narrow 

the scope of diseases we could otherwise hope to cure in the next 

decades. 

Ms. KING. Absolutely. 

Senator COONS. Is that right? 

Ms. KING. Yeah, that is absolutely correct. 

And, as I said at the end of my testimony, we have so much work 

still to do in terms of diseases that need to be treated that we really have to thoughtfully continue to incentivize investment in this 

sector. 

And, the ability to hold and to defend and to really depend upon 

patents is critical to our ability to raise the amounts of money that 

we need to raise over the long periods of time for which we have 

to get the investment. So it is absolutely critical to us. 

Senator COONS. And Mr. Molino just commented that it is too 

early for us to try and address abuses in the Inter Partes Review 

or the post-grant review processes. 

Isn’t that abuse actually directly affecting the ability of companies like yours to attract and sustain investment? 

Ms. KING. Yeah. Well, the example you gave is a biotech company, and the difference we have in biotech versus some other industries is that our products have very few critical patents associated with them. So, unlike a cell phone that may have hundreds 

of patents, you know, we might have a drug that has one or two 

critical patents, and that is why it is so open to the possibility of 

abuse if someone files an IPR against us. So these are extremely 

problematic, currently. 

Senator COONS. Well, my core view is that how you see patents 

and their importance, in some ways, depends on the sector you are 

in, whether you are in software or in bio or pharmaceuticals or materials. 

And we should first do no harm. We should not address—we 

should not adopt a legislative solution that is so over-broad that it 

will kill the ability of a small inventor to defend their patent or 

that will impart other agendas into trying to fix the real patent 

troll issue in a way that defeats the ability of patent owners to exercise their right. 
142 

I see I am out of time. 

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, for bringing this hearing 

forward today. 

Chairman VITTER. Thank you, Senator. 

Senator Cantwell is next. 

Senator CANTWELL. Thank you, Mr. Chair. 

You know, my colleagues comments provoke me to comment on 

the last—the bill that we passed. I think we do need to take inventory of where we are and what it has done to impact small inventors. 

But I think I want to turn—keep going with you, Ms. King, on 

the issue of the uniqueness of the biotech industry and on the patents and how you think this litigation reform proposal will impact 

the industry uniquely. 

And I also see where the House already did like a carve-out on 

some generic drugs and so if you would comment on that as well. 

Ms. KING. As far as the challenges that we face, I mean, because 

our products, as I said, are often covered by just a very few number 

of patents, if any one of those is challenged or invalidated, it has 

a great impact on our ability to raise money and on the value of 

the—— 

Senator CANTWELL. And I think what people do not understand 

is juxtaposed to Mr. Molino’s group, who can build and ship a product, or show you a beta, in 6 months, you sometimes have to work 

for 18 for 20 years before you can even—and you have to get capital during that whole process. 

Ms. KING. Yeah, exactly. And if we are successful at our company, it is going to take us about 15 years and tens of millions of 

dollars to get our first drug on the market. 

And so we have successfully raised a lot of money so far, but we 

are constantly continuing to face that issue. 

And so, if our patents were to be invalidated, that would completely undermine our ability to raise the funds to go through that 

long period of time that is required for our development. 

Senator CANTWELL. Okay. And any comments about what the 

House is looking at—various legislation where they would do carveouts? 

Ms. KING. Actually, I am not familiar with the specific carve-out. 

Senator CANTWELL. Okay. We will get you information on that. 

Mr. Molino, what about the software innovations and recent developments? Do they raise concerns for you? 

Mr. MOLINO. Yes. Thank you very much, Senator. 

The Supreme Court recently ruled on a case involving software 

patentability called Alice v. CLS Bank. One good thing about that 

decision is it reaffirmed the patentability of software, which some 

have questioned. However, the Supreme Court did not provide a 

ton of guidance for lower courts on how they should analyze these 

types of cases. 

So our organization is very active in working with both the PTO 

to ensure that software patents remain available and also through 

our amicus filings in court to try to give lower courts and the PTO 

sufficient guidance on how to analyze these cases. 

Thank you. 
143 

Senator CANTWELL. Well, I think, Mr. Chairman, I am glad you 

are having this hearing and certainly support efforts to make sure 

that small businesses and their innovations are protected. 

So I think looking at what we did—and, again, to my colleague’s 

point, it would have been great if we did major reform and protected the dollars in the patent office, but we did not accomplish 

that, and then moving first to—I am sorry. Moving to the European 

model I also do not believe is helping us. 

But I think let’s see what the patent office is coming up with in 

details, and let’s look at it. 

Thank you. 

Chairman VITTER. Great. Thank you. 

Next is Senator Ernst. 

Senator ERNST. Thank you, Mr. Chair. 

And I appreciate the witnesses’ testimony today. So thank you 

for being here and raising such an important issue on a wide range 

of interests, especially to Iowa, from small businesses and individual inventors to our universities as well. And so we look at larger agricultural and biotech companies. Many of them are interested, very interested, in this topic. 

So I know that Senators Leahy and Lee have been pursuing legislation to prevent misleading demand letters, specifically making 

it an unfair trade practice. 

And do you believe that this should be part of an approach within patent reform? Could any of you answer that, please, and your 

thoughts? 

Mr. SCHMIDT. Well, unfortunately, you missed my comment on 

H.R. 9, which to a large extent is very similar to what Leahy and 

Lee were pushing in the Senate last year. Our concerns are numerous about this. 

First thing, I want to put some historical perspective on this 

whole patent issue because we went through this in the 1990s with 

General Motors, and it is always about large, dominant players 

weakening patents because market-dominant companies do not 

need patents. And all patents do is keep them from keeping their 

market share because it is these new patents that are going to 

come and eat their lunch and eventually put them out of business. 

So it was the AT&Ts of the world that were supporting this previously, and you know, now they are gone. And GM is, you know, 

a new GM. 

And so we are going to see that with these new market-dominant 

companies if we can keep a strong patent system, and so this is 

very important to be able to allow our companies to have creative 

destruction with new patents. 

Senator ERNST. Thank you. 

Any other thoughts from the panel? 

Yes, sir. 

Mr. MOLINO. So, yeah, thank you very much for the question. 

From our members’ perspective, we are in favor of figuring out 

how to end the widespread sending of bad faith demand letters. We 

think it is a real problem. We think it preys on those that are the 

least educated on this with regard to the patent system, and it 

should be stopped. 
144 

At the same time, we also note that a lot of states are implementing their own laws, and for national companies it is very challenging to try to navigate various state laws that can be very specific. 

So, from our perspective, not only do we want to end the widespread sending of bad faith demand letters, but we would like to 

have a national standard for that as well. 

Senator ERNST. Okay. Any other thoughts? 

Yes, sir. 

Mr. WINWOOD. Well, Senator, I would just say that last year Senator Leahy introduced legislation in the last Congress, 1720, which 

we were quite supportive of. It was withdrawn later in the session, 

but that approach was one that was favored pretty well by all of 

the higher education association groups last year. 

Senator ERNST. Very good. Thank you. 

And, following up with that, as we talk about our universities, 

how do we balance the interests of the universities, smaller companies, larger technology and biotech? 

Many patent holders have the legitimate rights and claims that 

need to be available to them, but we also have a litany of frivolous 

law suits, legal tactics that are causing significant challenges to 

small businesses and inventors. So there has to be a balance that 

we can find. 

And, to all of you, if you were a legislator for a day, what would 

be your answer? 

Ms. KING. I want to, first of all, acknowledge the complexity that 

you reference because it is absolutely correct that this is challenging to find a balanced perspective. 

I think that the best thing that we can do now is to go after what 

we know are examples of abuse because a lot of the system actually 

does work pretty well in terms of getting patents. You know, we 

can be proud of what we have been able to accomplish in this country with the system that we have. 

However, I think we can improve it, and I think we can certainly 

address abuses. 

The bill that Senator Coons and others have introduced, I think, 

does that quite well. So I would support that STRONG Act. I think 

that is a great step in the right direction. 

Mr. MOLINO. So we are also very interested in trying to prevent 

abuses—abuses that we know have been going on in the litigation 

system for well over a decade. 

So the things that we would be most interested in are just making sure: 

That when somebody actually files a case they clearly disclose 

why they are filing the case and what their claims are; 

That we do not start really expensive discovery until we figure 

out what the scope of the case is going to be, and a judge issues 

an order in patent cases unlike any other case that actually does 

that, and do not start discovery until then; 

That we do implement a fee-shifting provision that only shifts 

fees if a party brings an objectionably unreasonable claim. 

Again, both sides of the—both defendants and plaintiffs would be 

subject to this standard. 
145 

And I think those are the main issues that we are concerned 

about. 

Senator ERNST. Okay. Well, I—yes, sir, did you have something? 

[Pause.] 

Well, I thank the witnesses very much. 

Thank you, Mr. Chair. 

Chairman VITTER. Great. Thank you. 

And I think Senator Cardin has some final questions or 

thoughts. 

Senator CARDIN. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I, again, want to thank the witnesses not only for their testimony 

but their candid response. 

As I said in the beginning of the hearing, we are very concerned 

to make sure we protect intellectual property. Whether it is a university so that we can get tech transfer to create jobs, whether it 

is a large multinational company that needs to be protected in the 

United States on global competition, we are concerned. 

The focus of this Committee is on small business, and that is 

why I think it was particularly important to hear from a small 

pharmaceutical company and a small high-tech company that is 

dealing with adding to the technology and value of larger products 

as to how the system is working. 

What impressed me is that it seems to me that we can do a better job—and I am glad that Senator Coons is still here—in dealing 

with areas where there should not be much controversy. 

There should not be much controversy in requiring standing for 

someone to challenge. 

There should not be much controversy to go after those who try 

to manipulate the value of stock by what they do in order to make 

a profit on that. We should be able to correct that. 

We should be able to have more transparency in the process, that 

you know who is challenging. 

And, we should be altogether against abusive practices, whether 

it is challenging for the purposes of trying to get a nuisance settlement on your legitimacy to use a patent or to review a patent that 

you currently have. 

I think in those cases we should be able to come together. 

And I thank Senator Coons and Senator Hirono for their leadership, and Senator Durbin. 

I am not endorsing a bill today; do not get me wrong. 

But I do think it is important that we have to take action to deal 

with those types of abuses in a way that we can find common 

agreement among the different stakeholders because there is no 

disagreement that we want to end abusive practices and we want 

to protect legitimate patent rights. So let’s figure out where we can 

make some progress. 

And, lastly, I think there is also agreement that we have to make 

sure the resources are there in the patent office to give timely considerations to all these issues because it does delay the certainty 

that is necessary for Ms. King’s contemporaries and colleagues to 

be able to get the type of financing they need in order to do their 

very, very creative work. 

I applaud the creative people that are here for what you have 

done, and I know that there are people in Maryland and through-
146 

out our country who are going to benefit from your creativity. And 

our economy certain benefits from a strong patent system that protects that type of intellectual property. 

Chairman VITTER. Great. I am going to move to Senator Coons. 

But before I do, I want to just say—briefly, because I am going 

to have to excuse myself and I am going to give the gavel to Senator Cardin if that is all right—thanks to all of our witnesses. You 

are all great witnesses. 

This is actually the first hearing in D.C. of the Senate Committee 

on Small Business and Entrepreneurship this Congress. I think 

this was an extremely appropriate topic because, quite frankly, 

there has been a lot of discussion and some activity elsewhere that 

I do not think appropriately focuses on the role and the interest of 

small business entrepreneurs, including our universities. So I am 

very glad this was a robust discussion and our first hearing. 

And certainly, I am committed to continuing to recognize that 

patents are a fundamental property right that our founders recognized and valued, that is in the Constitution—we need to protect 

that—and that our U.S. patent system has been strong and unique 

in a good way, and we should not rush to match other parts of the 

world necessarily that have very different systems, I think, and are 

not as positive as ours, and that certainly small businesses and 

innovators and entrepreneurs are absolutely at the center of our 

economy and prospects for better economic growth. 

So, thank you. 

With that, Senator Coons. 

Senator COONS. Thank you, Chairman. 

That was a beautiful, thorough, broad summary. I could ask 

other questions, but frankly, I think we should let that be the last 

word. 

Thank you for calling this great hearing. 

Chairman VITTER. You are just concerned about my handing the 

gavel to Senator Cardin, obviously. 

[Laughter.] 

Well, with that, thanks to all of our witnesses, and the hearing 

is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 11:29 a.m., the hearing was adjourned.] 
(147) 

APPENDIX MATERIAL SUBMITTED 
148 
149 
150 
151 
152 
153 
154 
155 
156 
157 
158 
159 
160 
161 
162 
163 
164 
165 

Æ