Source: https://www.ipo.org/index.php/advocacy/ipo-board-resolutions/
Timestamp: 2018-10-16 19:10:04
Document Index: 741604816

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 1400', '§ 271', '§ 262', '§ 271', '§ 42', '§ 42', '§ 1782', '§ 101', '§ 101', '§ 120', '§ 119', '§ 282', '§ 101', '§ 285', '§ 1400', '§ 1391', '§ 1391', '§2320', '§2320', '§ 1338', '§ 2320', '§ 1117', '§1338', '§ 135']

IPO Board Resolutions - Intellectual Property Owners Association
Below is a history of resolutions passed by the IPO Board of Directors.
Adopted 23 September 2018
[Venue in Hatch-Waxman and BPCIA Patent Infringement Suits] — RESOLVED, that IPO supports an exemption to the patent venue statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1400(b), specific to patent cases brought pursuant to the Drug Price Competition and Patent Term Restoration Act (“Hatch-Waxman Act”) or the Biologics Price Competition and
Innovation Act (“BPCIA”) as follows.
First, any civil action for patent infringement pursuant to 35 U.S.C. §§ 271(e)(2)(A)(for generic
drugs) or 271(e)(2)(C) (for biological drugs), or 42 U.S.C. §§ 262(l)(6)(A) or (B), (l)(8)(B), or
(l)(9) (provisions of the BPCIA), may be brought in any judicial district in which the defendant
is subject to the court’s personal jurisdiction with respect to such action.
Second, any declaratory judgment action for patent non-infringement or invalidity pursuant to
35 U.S.C. § 271(e)(5) (for generic drugs) may be brought in any judicial district in which the
defendant is subject to the court’s personal jurisdiction with respect to such action.
Adopted 5 June 2018
[Nominative Fair Use] — RESOLVED, that IPO supports the consistent recognition of the nominative fair use defense throughout trademark law, including that the defendant bears the burden of persuasion for invocation of the defense.
RESOLVED FURTHER, that IPO supports that any determination of nominative fair use consider the following factors: (1) whether the use that plaintiff’s mark is necessary to describe the plaintiff’s product or service and the defendant’s product or service; (2) whether the defendant has used only so much of the plaintiff’s mark as is necessary; and (3) whether the defendant did anything (be it act or omission) that would, in conjunction with its use of the plaintiff’s mark, suggest sponsorship or endorsement by the plaintiff.
[Addressing the Trade in Counterfeit Goods when Brand Restriction Are Enacted] — RESOLVED, that IPO supports that, in order to protect consumers from counterfeit products, when brand restrictions are enacted, such laws should (1) allow for sufficient brand display and differentiation, and (2) be supported by laws and other administrative measures aimed at curbing the trade in counterfeit and non-compliant smuggled products, including measures such as: establishing stronger anti-counterfeiting laws and fines, establishing a track and trace system, ensuring that customs and other enforcement agencies receive adequate education and funding to investigate and prosecute illicit conduct, and educating the public on the dangers of counterfeit products.
[PTAB Rule to Require Conference Prior to Oral Hearing] — RESOLVED, that IPO supports the USPTO establishing a rule for post grant proceedings requiring the PTAB to hold a conference prior to the oral hearing to narrow the issues to be presented at the oral hearing, and to decide outstanding motions to strike, motions to exclude evidence, and whether proposed demonstratives may be used at the oral hearing, unless the interest of justice require that any such issue be argued at the oral hearing.
Adopted 7 March 2018
[Rule-making on PTAB Motions to Amend] — RESOLVED, that IPO supports amending 37 C.F.R. § 42.121 to provide a briefing schedule as follows: Patent Owner motion establishing burden of production (15 pages); Petitioner opening brief on unpatentability of proposed substitute claims (25 pages); Patent Owner response brief in support of patentability (25 pages); Petitioner Reply (15 pages).
[Rule-making on Establishing Legal Standard for Denying PTAB Follow-on Petitions] — RESOLVED, that IPO supports USPTO rule-making to establish the standards for denying institution of follow-on petitioners based on and to supersede the precedential PTAB opinion, Gen. Plastic Indus. Co. v. Canon Kabushiki Kaisha, IPR2016-01357, Paper No. 19 (PTAB, Sept. 6, 2017).
[Rule-making on Establishing Legal Standard for Additional Discovery at PTAB] —RESOLVED, that IPO supports USPTO rule-making to establish the legal standard for determining whether additional discovery is in the interests of justice pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.51(b)(2) based on and to supersede the precedential PTAB decision, Garmin Int’l, Inc. v. Cuozzo Speed Tech. LLC, IPR2012-00001, Paper 26 (PTAB, Mar. 5, 2013).
[Reciprocity for Foreign Discovery in U.S. Courts] — RESOLVED, that IPO supports amending 28 U.S.C. § 1782 to require (1) that information produced pursuant to the statute be subject to adequate protections for confidential information, including trade secrets, in the foreign proceedings, (2) that the information is discoverable or admissible in the foreign proceeding, and (3) that prior to the application having been made the applicant could have been subject to an equivalent order for production under the rules of this jurisdiction or the foreign jurisdiction.
Adopted 24 January 2018
[Amending 35 U.S.C. § 101] — RESOLVED, that IPO supports amending the legislative proposal adopted on 29 January 2017 on patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101 to read as follows:
(a) ELIGIBLE SUBJECT MATTER
Whoever invents or discovers, and claims as an invention, any useful process, machine, manufacture, composition of matter, or any useful improvement thereof, shall be entitled to a patent therefor, subject only to the conditions and requirements set forth in this title.
(b) SOLE EXCEPTIONS TO SUBJECT MATTER ELIGIBILITY A claimed invention is ineligible under subsection (a) if and only if the claimed invention as a whole (i) exists in nature independently of and prior to any human activity or (ii) is performed solely in the human mind.
(c) SOLE ELIGIBILITY STANDARD The eligibility of a claimed invention under subsections (a) and (b) shall be determined without regard to:
(i) the requirements or conditions of sections 102, 103, and 112 of this title;
(ii) the manner in which the claimed invention was made or discovered; or
(iii) whether the claimed invention includes an inventive concept.
Adopted 17 September 2017
[Technical Corrections Regarding Assignee Filers] — RESOLVED, that IPO supports amending 35 U.S.C. §§ 120 and 119(e)(1) to clarify that all applications filed on or after September 16, 2012, may claim priority to a parent application that names a common inventor.
RESOLVED, that IPO supports amending 35 U.S.C. § 119(a) to clarify that assignee-filed applications may claim priority to a foreign parent application that discloses the same invention, irrespective of who filed the foreign parent application.
[Abolishing Canada’s Promise Doctrine] — RESOLVED, that IPO supports the complete and immediate implementation of the Supreme Court of Canada’s decision in AstraZeneca Canada, Inc. v. Apotex, Inc., including abolition of Canada’s promise doctrine, to restore greater certainty and predictability with respect to patentability requirements for Canadian patent applications.
Adopted 24 April 2017
[Codifying Laches Defense in Patent Litigation] — RESOLVED, that IPO supports a legislative amendment of 35 U.S.C. § 282 to add the following two sections in place of current subsection (b)(4):
(4) Equitable defenses, such as laches and estoppel, to all forms of relief notwithstanding any other provision of this title.
(5) Any other fact or act made a defense by this title.
Adopted 29 January 2017
[Patent Eligible Subject Matter] — RESOLVED, that IPO supports legislation to amend 35 U.S.C. § 101 as follows:
[Standard for Awarding Attorney Fees in Patent Suits] — RESOLVED, IPO withdraws its prior resolutions concerning legislative amendment of the standard for awarding attorney’s fees under 35 U.S.C. § 285.
[Limiting Excessive Section 8 Damages Awards in Proceedings Under Canadian Patented Medicines Regulations] — RESOLVED, that IPO supports that any section 8 damages awarded pursuant to a proceeding under the Canadian Patented Medicines (Notice of Compliance) Regulations (“PMNOC Proceeding”) must be based on damages proven to have actually been suffered by each generic claimant, and that a patentee’s total liability for all generic claimants’ lost profits under section 8 for a given product may not exceed the profits collectively lost on account of PMNOC Proceedings. As such, the unit sales upon which the PMNOC lost profits calculations are based may not collectively exceed 100% of the incremental units of generic product that the generic claimants would have sold had the patentee not brought the PMNOC Proceedings.
[Amending Rule 4 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure] — RESOLVED, that the Intellectual Property Owners Association supports, in principle, that Rule 4 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure be amended to allow for service of process by e-mail, without a court order, in cases involving commercial activity conducted using a domain name that is registered to a fictitious party.
Adopted June 7, 2016
[Copyright Office Modernization] — RESOLVED, that Congress should ensure that the Copyright Office has the staffing, budget, information technology, flexibility, and autonomy it needs to meet the current and future demands of copyright owners and the public. This should be accomplished by, at the very least, passing legislation to require that the Register of the Office is a presidential nominee and that the Copyright Office is autonomous from the Library of Congress, including having its own budget and information technology systems separate from the Library of Congress.
[Domain Name Provisions of TPP] — RESOLVED, that the Intellectual Property Owners Association supports, in principle, that were the current version of the Trans Pacific Partnership trade agreement to be implemented, it should not be interpreted to require the United States to impose a new country code domain name dispute resolution policy to replace the usDRP
Adopted March 16, 2016
[Amending the Lanham Act Remedies Sections] —RESOLVED, that IPO supports, in principle, legislation to amend the Lanham Act to provide that, when a claimant seeks injunctive relief, a rebuttable presumption of irreparable harm shall apply where there has been a finding of a likelihood of confusion or likelihood of dilution, or, in the case of a motion for a preliminary injunction, a finding of probable success on the merits of a likelihood of confusion or likelihood of dilution claim.
Adopted January 27, 2016
[Modernization of the U.S. Patent Examination System] — RESOLVED, IPO supports that the PTO:
Replace the present final office action policy and attendant after final practice with a policy that every amendment is entered as a matter of right with applicants paying an RCE fee with every third response and that each response is taken up for action by the examiner within the same timeframe.
Adopted December 8, 2015
[Supporting Legislation on Foreign Filing Licenses in Design Patents] — RESOLVED, that IPO supports, in principle, legislation to allow applicants to file applications for design protection (e.g., design patents, industrial design registrations) in a country outside of the United States without first obtaining a foreign filing license from the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office.
Adopted September 27, 2015
[Supporting Legislation to Establish a Federal Civil Cause of Action for Trade Secret Misappropriation] — RESOLVED, that IPO supports the enactment of legislation, such as the Defend Trade Secrets Act of 2015, to establish a federal civil cause of action for trade secret misappropriation to protect trade secrets from domestic and foreign theft, including an ex parte seizure provision, while providing adequate safeguards against improper use of such ex parte seizure provision.
[Venue in Patent Suits] — RESOLVED, that IPO confirms its support for legislation to limit venue in patent suits in order to curb forum shopping by patent owners and, specifically, IPO supports an amendment to 28 U.S.C. § 1400(b) to limit venue to a judicial district as follows:
(A) In a patent infringement action brought by a patent owner against an accused infringing defendant, venue should be limited to a judicial district:
where technological activities relating to the invention that led to the application for the patent(s)-in-suit – such as inventing, substantial research and development, or manufacturing – have taken place;
where a plaintiff or a subsidiary has a regular place of business, not operated primarily for the purpose of creating venue, that is engaged in substantial: (a) management of research and development or manufacturing activities for a product or process related to the patent or patents in dispute; (b) research and development of a product or process related to the patent(s) in dispute; or (c) manufacturing activities of a product or process related to the patent(s) in dispute;
where the defendant has agreed or consented to be sued in the instant action; or
where, for foreign defendants that do not meet any of the above, venue would be proper according to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(c)(3).
(B) In a declaratory judgment action brought against a patent owner, venue should be determined according to 28 U.S.C. § 1391.
(C) In considering a motion to transfer venue involving a retailer that sells consumer products alleged to infringe the patent(s)-in-suit, the location of such retail sales should be afforded no weight in deciding the transfer motion if they occur in all of the judicial districts under consideration.
[Stays of Discovery in Patent Suits Prior to Resolution of Preliminary Motions] — RESOLVED, that IPO supports, in principle, legislation staying discovery during the pendency of motions to transfer under 1404(a) of title 28 in accordance with the following language:
In an action for patent infringement under section 271 or an action for a declaratory judgment that a patent is invalid or not infringed, if a defendant moves to transfer the action under 1404(a) of title 28 on or before the date by which the defendant must, under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12, answer or otherwise respond to the complaint, then as between the plaintiff and the part(ies) filing the motion to transfer:
(A) Until resolution of the transfer motion, absent an agreement from the parties otherwise:
(i) no substantive motion may be decided except (a) motions for injunctive relief, and (b) case-dispositive motions; and
(ii) discovery must be stayed, except such discovery that the court in its discretion determines necessary to decide the transfer motion or motions for injunctive relief.
(B) EXCHANGE OF CONTENTIONS – Nothing in this section shall prohibit a court from ordering, or local rules from requiring, the exchange of contentions regarding infringement, non-infringement, invalidity, or other issues, by interrogatories or other written initial disclosures, at an appropriate time determined by the court.
Adopted June 9, 2015
[Opposing Use of Post-Grant Proceedings to Manipulate the Market] — RESOLVED, that IPO believes it is an abuse to file AIA petitions for post grant proceedings by persons who have a significant bet against, or short, of the shares of the patent owners owning the patents challenged in the petitions; now, therefore, IPO urges the United States Patent and Trademark Office to use its discretion to deny petitions filed by such persons.
[Supporting Amendment of 18 U.S.C. §2320] — RESOLVED, that IPO supports amending 18 U.S.C. §2320 to expressly include in the definition of a counterfeit mark instances where false goods are used in genuine packaging, product identifiers have been remarked and materially altered on either goods or packaging, or where goods have been materially altered, even if the trademark was initially affixed by the brand owner.
Adopted March 11, 2015
[Supporting Customer Stay Legislation] — RESOLVED, that IPO supports, in principle, legislation to stay a patent case against a customer of a product while a case on the same patent proceeds against the manufacturer of that product on issues common to the customer, provided that:
1. The statutory stay requires consent of both the manufacturer and customer.
2. The statutory stay must be sought early in the case.
3. The statutory stay requires the customer to be bound by the resolution of issues in common with the manufacturer (with limited exceptions when justice so requires).
4. The statutory stay is based on readily discernible criteria.
5. The statutory stay is limited to retailers, end users or other customers accused of infringement for selling, using or incorporating for sale a product or process, supplied by the manufacturer, that they have not materially modified.
6. The statutory stay does not preclude a patent owner from seeking damages or other relief directly from the customer, once the stay is lifted, if such relief would have been available if the case were not stayed.
7. The statutory stay does not preclude a court from exercising its discretion to decide whether and to what extent a stay is warranted beyond what is provided in the statutory stay.
[Pleading Standard for Patent Infringement] — RESOLVED, IPO supports patent pleading requirements consistent with the legal standards for other federal pleadings as provided under the Twombly and Iqbal decisions and their progeny, and
RESOLVED, IPO supports efforts of district courts and the Judicial Conference to provide clarity for patent pleading requirements by including at least the following: (1) an identification of at least one claim that is infringed, (2) a statement explaining such infringement, and (3) a statement addressing indirect infringement, if alleged.
[Rules of Civil Procedure in Patent Cases] — RESOLVED, IPO supports amendments to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure adopted by the Judicial Conference that go into effect on December 1, 2015.
Adopted January 25, 2015
[Identification of Interested Parties in Litigation] — RESOLVED, IPO does not support modification of initial disclosure rules to require disclosure of licensees, or those with financial or control interests in asserted patents or patent owners, beyond disclosures necessary to establish litigation standing and real parties in interest. Such non-ownership disclosures are better handled in discovery under appropriate protective orders and in accordance with Rule 26 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Patent ownership and real party in interest disclosures are already required by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure such as Rules 7.1(a)(1), 17 and 26(a).
Adopted December 9, 2014
[Transition of Internet Assigned Numbers Authority Functions] – RESOLVED, that IPO does not support the transfer of the IANA functions contracts unless (a) a new, multi-stakeholder system can meet high standards of security, freedom and openness; (b) there is assurance that no government or coalition will be empowered to undermine these standards; and (c) any proposed transfer plan is publicized well in advance of a proposed transition date, with full opportunity for stakeholders to meaningfully evaluate and comment on the viability of the plan.
[Supporting Procedural Harmonization Proposals] – RESOLVED, that IPO confirms its support in principle for the IP5 Patent Harmonization Experts Panel to take up three procedural harmonization proposals as described in the document titled “Industry IP5 Consensus Proposals to the IP5 Patent Harmonization Experts Panel” dated October 10, 2014, which are:
Citation of Prior Art, and
Adopted September 7, 2014
[Supporting Legislation to Address Online Trademark Counterfeiting] — RESOLVED, that IPO supports in principle legislation to address online trademark counterfeiting that enables brand owners to file suit not only against domestic websites selling or offering for sale or distributing counterfeit products, but also as to Foreign Counterfeiting Websites, in order to obtain a court order that would require (a) that financial service providers cease processing payment transaction to the defendant(s) and the Foreign Counterfeiting Website, at least in the United States, (b) that internet advertising service providers cease providing such services to the defendants and the Foreign Counterfeiting Website, at least in the United States, and (c) any other injunctive relief the Court may determine as appropriate. Additionally, the Legislation should:
Adopted June 20, 2014
[Opposing Patent Demand Letter Legislation at the State Level] — RESOLVED, that IPO opposes patent demand letter legislation at the state level because, among other things, it creates non-uniform requirements for demand letters among various jurisdictions and increases compliance costs for legitimate businesses.
FURTHER RESOLVED, IPO specifically opposes state legislation that creates a private right of action against patent holders based on insufficient information in a patent demand letter communication.
FURTHER RESOLVED, IPO specifically opposes state legislation that requires mandatory disclosures in patent demand letters as such could interfere with legitimate and long-established practices in business-to-business communications.
[Supporting Legislation to Establish a Federal Civil Cause of Action for Trade Secret Misappropriation] — RESOLVED, that IPO supports in principle the Defend Trade Secrets Act of 2014 and legislation to establish a federal civil cause of action for trade secret misappropriation to protect trade secrets from domestic and foreign theft provided the Act is amended to provide adequate safeguards to protect seized property.
Adopted March 26, 2014
[Supporting Amending Bankruptcy Code to Add Trademarks to Definition of Intellectual Property] — RESOLVED, that IPO supports in concept the inclusion of trademarks, service marks and trade names in the definition of intellectual property in the Bankruptcy Code, in circumstances where the trustee, debtor or acceptable designee agrees to assume the contractual obligation to monitor and control the quality of the licensed product or service.
[Supporting Legislation Regulating Bad Faith Demand Letters] — RESOLVED, that IPO supports legislation that would make the high volume sending of bad faith demand letters, to end users who are not resellers, a deceptive act or practice within the meaning of section 5(a)(1) of the Federal Trade Commission Act, provided that such legislation is carefully tailored to differentiate between abusive activity and legitimate, lawful activity. Any legislation should include a clear identification of objective acts or practices that would deceive recipients, such as false statements of patent ownership or the right to enforce or license patents.
FURTHER RESOLVED, IPO opposes legislation that would require overly burdensome and detailed disclosures in bad faith demand letters, for example of information that could trigger declaratory judgment jurisdiction or the disclosure of confidential information, which could have the unintended result of increasing patent infringement litigation.
FURTHER RESOLVED, IPO believes that federal legislation regulating bad faith demand letters should preempt state legislation.
[Supporting Improving Patent System Transparency through Titleholder Identification] — RESOLVED, that IPO supports improving public notice of patent ownership to require patent applicants to provide “titleholder” information to the USPTO only upon the initial filing and allowance of a non-provisional application.
FURTHER RESOLVED, IPO does not support constructive abandonment of a patent application for failure to comply with disclosure requirements.
FURTHER RESOLVED, IPO does not support additional rules requiring disclosure to the USPTO of enforcement entities, ultimate parent entities, or hidden beneficial owners.
[Supporting Clarification of Federal Court Jurisdiction] — RESOLVED, that IPO supports amending 28 U.S.C. § 1338 to provide exclusive federal court jurisdiction over legal malpractice and other cases which necessarily raise an actually disputed and substantial issue of patent law.
Adopted January 26, 2014
[Opposing the Use of Different Claim Construction Rules for Covered Business Method Review] — RESOLVED, that IPO opposes treating claim construction in Covered Business Method Review proceedings differently from claim construction in Post-Grant and Inter Partes Review proceedings.
[Supporting Codification of Double-Patent Doctrine for First-Inventor-to-File Patents] — RESOLVED, that IPO supports in principle codification of the Double-Patenting Doctrine for First-Inventor- to-File patents, such that an original inventor’s patent claims are not invalidated by that inventor’s later filed improvement patent claims.
Adopted December 6, 2011
[Combating Military Counterfeits] — RESOLVED, that IPO supports the passage of S. 1228, the “Combating Military Counterfeits Act of 2011,” insofar as it amends 18 U.S.C. § 2320 to introduce increased penalties for trafficking in counterfeit products falsely represented as meeting military requirements or being military grade or intended for military applications.
Adopted September 11, 2011
[Recognizing the Value of IPO’s Diverse Membership] — The IPO Board recognizes, values, and seeks to engage the participation, thought leadership, and collaboration of our non-Board members. Therefore, we recognize the importance of addressing the interests and needs of the broad range of IPO members. This includes:
Creating professional, networking, and business development opportunities,
Providing continuing legal education opportunities,
Guiding the Standing IP Committees via regular and timely feedback,
Publicizing committee activities,
Seeking input of non-Board members on IPO positions to be advocated to Congress, the USPTO, and the courts,
Communicating with members about Board initiatives, and
Updating members on developments in IP law via the IPO Daily News™.
[Amending the Criminal Penalty Provision for Criminal Infringement of a Copyright] — RESOLVED, that IPO supports, in principle, S.978, “A Bill To Amend The Criminal Penalty Provision For Criminal Infringement Of A Copyright, And For Other Purposes.”
Adopted June 24, 2011
[Protect IP Act] — RESOLVED, That IPO supports, in principle, S. 968, the Protect IP Act of 2011.
[Protecting Trade Secrets Under The TPP] — RESOLVED, That IPO supports improving protection for trade secret rights under the Trans-Pacific Partnership Trade Agreement (TPP), whereby:
The TPP requires that all parties fully implement their obligations under the WTO TRIPS Agreement, including TRIPS Article 39, which contains obligations for all current participants in the TPP negotiations in respect of minimum protections for trade secrets and other undisclosed information;
The TPP should require that all TPP parties make available adequate and effective remedies (such as injunctions and criminal penalties) to stop misappropriation of trade secrets; and
The TPP should prohibit parties from imposing compulsory licenses of trade secrets.
Adopted March 22, 2011
[Opposing Legislation on Tax Strategy Patents] — RESOLVED, That IPO opposes Sec. 14, “Tax Strategies Deemed Within the Prior Art,” of S. 23, the “America Invents Act.”
[Favoring Omission of Damages Provisions from Patent Reform] — RESOLVED, IPO recommends that any patent reform legislation enacted in the 112th Congress (2011-2012) not include provisions on patent damages, considering the Federal Circuit’s recent opinions clarifying the rules for determining reasonable royalty damages and the likelihood that the courts will continue to refine patent damages law.
[Favoring Omission of Transfer of Venue Provisions from Patent Reform] — RESOLVED, IPO recommends that any patent reform legislation enacted in the 112th Congress (2011-2012) not include provisions on transfer of venue in civil actions for patent infringement, considering the Federal Circuit’s recent actions directing the transfer of civil actions to districts clearly more convenient for the parties and the likelihood that the courts will continue to refine the law.
[Favoring Omission of Willful Infringement Provisions from Patent Reform] — RESOLVED, IPO recommends that any patent reform legislation enacted in the 112th Congress (2011-2012) not include provisions on willful infringement.
[Micro Entity Patent Fees] — RESOLVED, IPO recommends that Congress should determine the cost to other patent applicants and owners, and the effect on the agency, for each type of micro entity applicant and owner, before deciding whether to enact legislation providing for a 75 percent fee discount for micro entity patent applicants and owners as proposed in Sections 9 and 12 of S. 23, passed by the Senate on March 8, 2011.
[Supporting a 15% Surcharge on Patent User Fees] — RESOLVED, IPO supports a surcharge of 15 percent on USPTO patent user fees for FY 2011 and FY 2012 to support operations, hire additional examiners, and address the quality of issued patents and application pendency, provided that fees collected by the USPTO are not diverted.
[Opposing Proposed Fast-Track Ex Parte Reexamination Voucher Program for “Humanitarian Technologies”] –RESOLVED, That IPO confirms its opposition to the United States Patent & Trademark Office’s proposed fast-track ex parte reexamination voucher program for “humanitarian technologies” as described in 75 Fed. Reg. 57261. IPO encourages the USPTO to focus on its core commitment to a patent system in which individual patent applications rise or fall on their own merits without regard to field of technology or political concerns. Although IPO supports the USPTO’s efforts to remain engaged in international policy issues, these efforts should focus on advocacy for efficient patent systems worldwide.
[Detained Suspect Counterfeit Semiconductors] — RESOLVED, IPO supports revocation of the Directive of April 2000 as needed to permit CBP Agents to provide rights holders unredacted samples or photographs of suspect counterfeit goods so as to allow the rights holder/manufacturer to assist CBP in identifying and preventing the importation of counterfeit goods, as contemplated in the Tariff Act of 1930, the Lanham Act, the North American Free Trade Agreement, and GATT Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property, and CFR 133.25.
[Uniform Application of the Inevitable Disclosure Doctrine] — RESOLVED, IPO supports, in principle, uniformity in the doctrine of inevitable disclosure such that injunctive relief is available to an employer who owns a trade secret, which relief is sufficient to protect against the inevitable disclosure of the trade secret by an employee and the resulting loss of commercial advantage.
[Supporting Prompt Senate Action to Fill Federal Circuit Vacancies] — RESOLVED, IPO urges the United States Senate to promptly consider nominees for the two current vacancies on the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Without endorsing any specific nominee, IPO supports prompt consideration of all nominees for the Federal Circuit.
Adopted December 8, 2009
[15% Surcharge on Patent User Fees] — RESOLVED, IPO supports a limited, up to 12-month, surcharge of up to 15 percent on USPTO patent user fees to support operations, hire additional examiners and address the quality of issued patents and application pendency, provided that fees collected by the USPTO are not diverted to unrelated government functions.
[Amending Section 337] — RESOLVED, IPO supports, in principle, amending 19 U.S.C. 1337 (“Section 337”) to grant authority to the U.S. International Trade Commission to issue Limited Exclusion Orders against downstream products of non-parties in Section 337 investigations, thereby rendering moot that aspect of the decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in Kyocera Wireless Corporation v. International Trade Commission, 545 F.3d 1340 (2008); andFURTHER RESOLVED, in addition to proving such relief is warranted, any implementing legislation or rules must require parties seeking such downstream relief to provide prompt and timely specific notice to affected manufacturers and importers of such downstream products.
[U.S. Membership in Hague Agreement] — RESOLVED, IPO supports, in principle, legislation to implement changes to the U.S. design patent system in order to enable U.S. membership in the 1999 Geneva Act of the Hague Agreement Concerning the International Registration of Industrial Designs.
[Compulsory Licensing and Climate Change] — RESOLVED, IPO supports, in principle, laws that protect and enforce intellectual property rights to encourage development and accelerate deployment of technologies that address climate change, and opposes weakening of these rights in climate change negotiations, such as through compulsory licensing.
[Compulsory Licensing] — RESOLVED, IPO strongly opposes compulsory licensing of intellectual property rights.
Adopted September 13, 2009
[Reverse Payments] — RESOLVED, IPO opposes, in principle, legislation that would limit a court’s consideration of all the facts relating to the effect on competition of a settlement of Hatch-Waxman patent litigation in which an ANDA filer receives anything of value and agrees not to research, develop, manufacture, market or sell, for any period of time, the ANDA product that is the subject of the patent infringement claim, as IPO believes that existing antitrust case law is sufficient to protect competition against the improper expansion of a patentee’s lawful right to exclude as a result of the settlement.
[IP Attachés] — RESOLVED, IPO Supports, in principle, advancing the interests of U.S. intellectual property rights holders by expanding the number of intellectual property attachés serving in U.S. embassies and other diplomatic missions, by:
(a) Assigning additional intellectual property attachés (e.g., 10) in the various diplomatic offices of the United States at the discretion of the President;
(b) Prioritizing the placement of these additional attachés, in posts where the position best advances the protection in foreign countries of intellectual property rights of the United States persons;
(c) Providing that the intellectual property attachés should possess experience in intellectual property matters and are provided with appropriate training to fully carry out their responsibilities;
(d) Appropriating the necessary funding for these positions; and
(e) Coordinating the activities of the intellectual property attachés with (i) the United States Intellectual Property Enforcement Coordinator appointed under section 301 of the Prioritizing Resources and Organization for Intellectual Property Act of 2008 (15 USC 8111) and (ii) the Undersecretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO).
[Enhancements to Special 301] — RESOLVED, IPO supports, in principle, improving the protection of intellectual property of U.S. persons in foreign countries through amending Section 182 of the Trade Act of 1974 by:
(a) providing that the United States Trade Representative (USTR) will develop an intellectual property Action Plan for each country that has remained on the “Priority Watch List” for at least 2 years in order to address the failure to provide adequate and effective intellectual property protection for U.S. interests;
(b) authorizing adequate appropriation of funds to USTR to assist countries in implementing the Action Plan;
(c) granting the President discretion to take certain actions consistent with the international obligations of the United States upon failure of a country to comply with the terms of the Action Plan within a reasonable period of time; and
(d) requiring USTR to report annually on actions taken in this regard.
Adopted July 27, 2009
[IPO’s Position on Supreme Court’s Consideration of the Bilski Case] — RESOLVED, the draft brief to be filed in Bilski v. Doll before the Supreme Court should be amended in the following ways:
Begin from the discussion and ground the overall thrust of the brief within the fundamental analysis from Supreme Court precedent that Section 101 broadly encompasses all new and useful processes, limited by three primary exceptions: abstract ideas, laws of nature and natural phenomena. Then discuss that the Federal Circuit’s machine or transformation test is one way of determining whether a claimed process-related invention is an abstract idea or a specific useful application of that idea; it is a clue, but it is not the only clue to patent eligibility.
[IPO Support for Senate Action on S. 515] — RESOLVED, IPO supports the U.S. Senate bringing S.515 to a vote as soon as an opportunity presents itself.
[False marking in Patent Cases] — RESOLVED, IPO, in principle, supports legislation to repeal the qui tam cause of action of Section 292(b) of the patent statute for false marking of products.
[Creation of a Design Patent Registry] — RESOLVED, IPO supports providing statutory and regulatory authority to U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to extend full border enforcement protection to design patents by creating a registry similar to what currently exists for goods protected by trademarks or copyrights.
[Patent Defense in Proposed Drug Reimportation Legislation] — RESOLVED, IPO opposes, in principle, legislation that does not respect the essentially territorial nature of patent rights by providing that it shall not be an act of infringement in the United States to use, offer to sell, or sell within the United States, or import into the United States any patented invention based on first sale abroad of the patented invention by or under authority of the owner or licensee of an applicable U.S. patent or corresponding foreign patent.
Adopted March 17, 2009
[Reforming Standards for Proving Willfulness in Patent Infringement Cases] — RESOLVED, that IPO, considering that the Federal Circuit’s decision in In re Seagate Technology addressed many of the problems with willful infringement, recommends that any patent reform legislation enacted in the 111th Congress (2009-10) not include provisions on willful infringement.
[Opposition to Raising USPTO User Fees in FY2009] — RESOLVED, that IPO supports adequate funding for the U.S. Patent & Trademark Office, but, because of the severe economic recession in the United States, opposes, in principle, any increase during at least fiscal year 2009 in the statutory patent fees charged by the Office except for an annual adjustment to raise fees commensurate with increases in the Consumer Price Index as authorized under existing law.
Adopted December 3, 2008
[Principles for ACTA Negotiators] — RESOLVED, IPO urges U.S. negotiators to consider the following principles as provisions of the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) are discussed:
(a) Seek provisions that are consistent with IP provisions in existing U.S. Free Trade agreements and U.S. Law;
(b) Require parties to address the pervasive use of the Internet to facilitate dissemination and marketing of pirated works and counterfeit goods;
(c) Eliminate burdensome evidentiary requirements such as monetary or quantitative thresholds for administrative and criminal liability that may frustrate enforcement efforts; and
(d) Focus the agreement on trademark counterfeiting and copyright piracy offenses and advocate against addressing patents within ACTA’s legal framework, particularly any provisions on criminal liability and enforcement.
Adopted September 21, 2008
[Legislation addressing Biosimilars] — RESOLVED, IPO supports, in principle, legislation that would allow approval of a biological product as biosimilar to a reference biological product which:
ensures patient safety by granting the FDA authority to approve biosimilars using a scientifically-based, case-by-case approach;
promotes continued innovation by providing at least 14 years of data exclusivity for an innovator’s biological product with additional periods of exclusivity available for new indications and/or for approval for use in the pediatric population; and
encourages efficient clarification of intellectual property issues by allowing confidential access to information reasonably relating to the infringement of any patents, including manufacturing and product information, and mechanisms for enforcing the confidential access requirement.
[Orphan Works Legislation] — RESOLVED, IPO, in principle, supports S. 2913, “The Orphan Works Act of 2008,” and urges the following changes to this legislation, or legislation relating to the same subject matter, before passage:
Require that a determination of “reasonable compensation” take into account standard fees charged in the industry for similar works;
Remove provision on injunctive relief;
Remove provision on derivative works;
Provide a shorter timeframe (4 years instead of 6) for the Register of Copyrights to develop a report to Congress on the effect of the legislation; and
Require a reasonably diligent search before allowing another provision in the copyright act to override this legislation by allowing a statutory license.
[Commitments Articulated by and Made to Standards Organizations] — RESOLVED, that IPO policy is to support, in principle, that a Standards Setting Organization (SDO)’s patent policies and patent holder commitments should clearly state whether or not those commitments are (i) irrevocable, and (ii) binding on successors and assigns; and further, that IPO believes that patent owners and their assigns should comply with their commitments made to a SDO.
[Principles to Guide Local Patent Rules] — RESOLVED, IPO supports, in principle, adoption of Local Patent Rules and inclusion of provisions therein fostering the following practices:
Early identification and mutual mandatory disclosure of essential infringement and validity related discovery and consideration of staying of non-essential discovery until after a Markman decision is issued in a case;
Early disclosure and appropriate staging of detailed infringement and invalidity contentions;
Early supplementation of detailed infringement and invalidity contentions supported by identification of specific evidence produced in the early mandatory disclosures;
Scheduling the Markman hearing early in the case but after detailed contentions have been exchanged;
Identification of claim limitations most important to outcome of the case; and
Consideration of dispositive motions as early as appropriate to narrow issues or resolve cases without non-essential discovery.
Adopted June 20, 2008
[Judge’s Discretion in Issuing Protective Orders] — RESOLVED, IPO opposes S.2449, which would limit a judge’s discretion in issuing protective orders restricting the disclosure of information obtained through discovery, approving a settlement agreement, or restricting access to court records in a civil case.
[Counterfeiting Legislation: IP Enforcement Legislation Generally] — RESOLVED, that IPO supports, in principle, legislation that would (i) strengthen civil and criminal remedies and enforcement procedures for copyright piracy and trademark counterfeiting; (ii) enhance interagency coordination of intellectual property policy and enforcement through the creation of a permanent office within the Executive Office, with adequate funding, authority and accountability; and (iii) increase intellectual property enforcement resources within the various Federal agencies charged with combating counterfeiting and piracy offenses.
[Counterfeiting Legislation: Civil and Criminal Intellectual Property Laws] — RESOLVED, that IPO supports provisions of H.R. 4279 that would strengthen civil and criminal intellectual property laws by:
• Enhancing civil remedies for copyright infringement and trademark counterfeiting;
• Strengthening prohibitions and remedies against exports of infringing copyrighted works and goods bearing infringing trademarks;
• Harmonizing and strengthening forfeiture procedures for copyright and trademark counterfeiting offenses under title 18 of the United States Code; and
• Increasing criminal remedies for counterfeiting offenses where the offender knowingly or recklessly causes or attempts to cause serious bodily injury or death;
Provided, however, that IPO recommends further study of the need for, and impact of, provisions that would change the way statutory damages are calculated when copyrighted compilations are infringed.
[Counterfeiting Legislation: Interagency Coordination of IP Enforcement and Policy] — RESOLVED, that IPO supports, in principle, provisions of H.R. 4279 that would establish a permanent IP enforcement office and representative within the Executive Office; provided, however, that IPO recommends further study and clarification of the duties and powers of the proposed IP enforcement representative vis-à-vis those of existing senior Administration officials with significant responsibility for intellectual property enforcement and policy.
[Counterfeiting Legislation: Increased IP Enforcement Resources and Coordination] — RESOLVED, that IPO supports, in principle, provisions of H.R. 4279 that would increase resources, coordination and transparency with respect to anti-counterfeiting and anti-piracy enforcement efforts; provided, however, that IPO recommends further study of the need for, and impact of, provisions that would create a new intellectual property enforcement division within the Department of Justice.
[Attorney’s Fees in Trademark Cases] — RESOLVED, that IPO supports, in principle, the amendment of 15 U.S.C. § 1117 to confirm that a prevailing plaintiff electing an award of statutory damages in lieu of actual damages and profits does not waive its entitlement to attorneys’ fees as a result of that election.
[Deposits of Biologic Material as part of a Patent Application] — RESOLVED, that IPO opposes changing the timing requirements placed on patent applicants for deposits of biological material associated with a particular application and the removal of restrictions on access to such deposits as proposed in 73 Fed. Reg. 9254 (Feb. 20, 2008).
Adopted January 30, 2008
[Exemptions for Replacement Automobile Parts] — RESOLVED, IPO opposes, in principle, legislation which would provide exemptions to U.S. intellectual property law to remove from infringement liability certain products or designs and believes the law should aim to treat all intellectual property rights similarly. In particular, IPO opposes legislation that would exempt replacement automobile parts from infringing U.S. design patents.
[Access to Confidential Information in Sec. 337 Actions at the ITC] — RESOLVED, IPO supports, in principle, procedures in Section 337 litigation to increase appropriate access of in-house counsel, licensed in the U.S., to confidential information produced in Section 337 investigations.
[Appointment of Sec. 337 Judges at the ITC] — RESOLVED, IPO supports the work of the ITC to resolve IP disputes and believes in the importance of effective and qualified Section 337 judges. However, absent further study showing otherwise, IPO believes that currently available methods may and should be used to appoint such judges in accordance with the Administrative Procedure Act, and IPO thus opposes Section 601 of S. 1919.
Adopted September 9, 2007
[Venue] – RESOLVED, That IPO confirms its support for legislation to limit venue in patent suits in order to curb forum shopping by patent owners and declaratory judgment plaintiffs and, specifically, IPO supports an amendment to section 1400(b) of title 28, United States Code, to limit venue to a judicial district:
where the defendant has its principal place of business or is incorporated;
where the defendant has committed acts of infringement and has a regular and established physical facility;
where activities relating to the invention — such as inventing, substantial research and development, or manufacturing – have taken place;
where a plaintiff or a subsidiary has a place of business that is engaged in substantial: (a) management of research and development or manufacturing activities, related to the patent or patents in dispute; (b) research and development; or (c) manufacturing activities; or
for foreign defendants that do not meet any of the above, according to section 1391(d) of this title.
[Inequitable Conduct] — RESOLVED, That IPO does not support the Applicant Quality Submission Requirement or the Inequitable Conduct provisions of S.1145 and H.R.1908. Further, IPO believes the standards for establishing the defense of inequitable conduct should be raised, not lowered or remain the same, in order to improve patent quality and the interaction between examiners and applicants. The addition of a submission requirement would only heighten the need for such reform. Further, IPO believes that an Applicant Quality Submission requirement is not necessary or good policy, and reiterates that ALL applicants must be equally subject to the substantive PTO rules.
[First-Inventor-to-File] — RESOLVED, That IPO supports in principle prompt adoption of the first-inventor-to-file provisions of S. 1145 and H.R. 1908, and opposes making adoption of first-inventor-to-file contingent upon a finding that other countries have adopted a grace period. [Staff Note: At time of adoption H.R. 1908 contained such an contingency]
[Prior User Rights] — RESOLVED, That IPO confirms its support for enhancement of prior user rights to all fields of technology, including the substantial preparation requirement and removing the 1-year reduction to practice requirement, and, in addition, supports making the defense available not only to the person who performed or caused the performance of the acts necessary to establish the defense, but also to any other entity that controls, is controlled by, or is under the common control of such person.
[Patent Marking Statute] — RESOLVED, That IPO opposes amending the patent marking statute to limit the period for which damages can be obtained without notice of infringement, as called for in Section 4(c) of S.1145.
[Micro-Entities] — RESOLVED, IPO does not support exempting certain applicants from substantive or procedural requirements of patent law. IPO believes that ALL applicants must be held to the same substantive and procedural standards.
[Patenting Tax Strategies] — – RESOLVED, that IPO opposes any change to 35 U.S.C. 101 or limiting remedies that would expressly provide different treatment to tax strategies or methods as unpatentable subject matter, particularly as currently worded in H.R. 1908, or other bills, since it is unnecessary given current legal theories of the validity of such patents.
[Standards Development Organizations] – RESOLVED, that IPO encourages standards organizations to consider the following principles when setting policies that may affect intellectual property rights related to a particular technology:
Clear and Open: Recognizing that standards may include patented technology, SDOs should have written patent policies that are clearly stated and available to all;
No-one-size-fits-all: Recognizing that no single patent policy is appropriate for every SDO, each SDO should have the flexibility to adopt a balanced, clear, and available patent policy that meets the needs of the SDO and its members; and
Balanced: Recognizing the importance of patent policies in standards setting, SDOs patent policies should appropriately balance the interests of all stakeholders, including patent holders and implementers of the standards.
Adopted June 12, 2007
[Patent Venue] — RESOLVED, IPO supports, in principle, legislation that would a) limit venue for civil actions for patent infringement to curb forum shopping by patent owners and b) make a corresponding change to limit venue for declaratory judgment actions relating to patents.
[Random Assignment for Patent Cases] — RESOLVED, IPO supports, in principle, a random assignment system that would ensure that cases relating to patent matters would be equally assigned to judges throughout a judicial district regardless of the division in that district within which a case was filed, unless that district should participate in a pilot program that dictates otherwise.
[Increased Funding for the ITC] — RESOLVED, IPO endorses, in principle, the ITC’s request for increased funding for fiscal year 2008 in order to address the substantial rise in the ITC’s caseload of Section 337 investigations by ensuring that the ITC has the necessary resources to hire the judges, specialized attorneys, and staff needed to protect owners of U.S. intellectual property rights from infringing imports.
[Genomic Research and Accessibility Act] — RESOLVED, IPO opposes the proposed legislation, H.R. 977.
[Inequitable Conduct Reform] – RESOLVED, IPO supports, in principle, legislation as recommended by the National Academies of Sciences to modify or remove the subjective elements of patent litigation in order to increase predictability of patent dispute resolution, and specifically, IPO supports legislation to (1) limit or eliminate the unenforceability defense based upon inequitable conduct in patent litigation, (2) eliminate the requirement to disclose the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out the invention, and (3) allow enhanced patent infringement damages to be awarded for “willful” infringement only in limited circumstances, such as those set forth in IPO’s Amicus Brief filed in In Re Seagate Technology LLC.
[Codification of the law of Apportionment of Damages: Specific Features] – RESOLVED, IPO supports amending section 284 of title 35, United States Code by adding the following text after the first paragraph:
“Where an infringer shows that an apportionment of economic value is necessary to assure that damages based upon a reasonable royalty do not exceed the economic value properly attributable to the use made of the invention, such apportionment shall exclude from the reasonable royalty calculation the economic value shown by the infringer to be attributable to the infringer’s incorporation into the infringing product or process of features or improvements, whether or not themselves patented, that contribute economic value to the infringing product or process separately from the economic value properly attributable to the use made of the invention.Where the claimant shows that the use made of the invention is the basis for market demand for an infringing product or process, the royalty may be based upon the entire market value of the products or processes provided to satisfy that demand.The court shall identify all factors relevant to the determination of a reasonable royalty under this section and the court or the jury, as the case may be, shall consider such factors in making the determination.”
[Federal Judiciary Pay] – RESOLVED, IPO supports, in principle, legislation to increase the salaries of the federal judiciary to restore those salaries to a level commensurate with historical norms and thereby preserve the independence of the federal judiciary.
[IPO Name Change] – RESOLVED, The following amendment to the Articles of Incorporation of Intellectual Property Owners, Inc. shall be submitted for a vote at the IPO Annual Meeting:
“The name of the Corporation is hereby changed to Intellectual Property Owners Association.”
Adopted Jan. 31, 2007
[Codification of the law of Apportionment of Damages: General] – RESOLVED, IPO believes that existing case law on damages in calculating a reasonable royalty is appropriate, and thus, IPO supports, in principle, amending 35 USC 284 to codify the existing law on damages for calculating a reasonable royalty. Further, IPO does not support the language contained in S.3818 [109th Congress] related to the amendment to Section 284 of Title 35, U.S. Code on damages.
Passed January 28, 2003
[Jurisdiction over IP Counterclaims] – RESOLVED, that IPO will advocate a legislative change to 28 U.S.C. §1338(a) to provide original jurisdiction in federal district courts over all claims for relief under the patent laws, whether by claim or counterclaim.
Passed April 7, 2003
(Below resolutions approved in principle by IPO Board of Directors in email vote completed March 26, 2003; Final edited versions approved at the April 7, Board meeting)
[Effective Date Of Fee Legislation] – RESOLVED, IPO urges that legislation to increase patent and trademark fees for the purpose of implementing the revised “21st Century Strategic Plan” not take effect before
[Sunsetting of Increased Fees] – RESOLVED, IPO urges that any legislation to increase patent and trademark fees for the purpose of implementing the revised “21st Century Strategic Plan” provide that on October 1, 2006 fees will revert to a level that will make total fee collections equal to the amount, adjusted for inflation, that would have been collected without the legislation, unless the legislation is extended by act of Congress based on the success of the strategic plan.
[Administration Opposition to Diversion of Fees] – RESOLVED, that IPO urges the Administration to issue a policy statement disapproving of diversion of patent and trademark fees from the USPTO to unrelated government programs.
[Search Fee Fixed by Congress] – RESOLVED, that IPO supports legislation establishing a fee for searching patent applications only if the amount of the fee is fixed by Congress in the legislation.
[Support for Fee Bill to Raise Amount Equal to FY04 Appropriations] – RESOLVED, that IPO supports (1) an FY04 USPTO appropriation of up to $1.5 billion determined by Congress to be needed for implementation of the revised “21stCentury Strategic Plan” and (2) legislation to increase patent and trademark fees to raise the projected amount collected by the USPTO for FY04 to the amount of such appropriation.
[Publication of Search Report At Same Time as 18-Month Publication of Patent Application] –RESOLVED, that IPO supports legislation allowing the USPTO the option of obtaining patent application search reports before examination begins, provided, for applications filed after a transition period following enactment, the legislation (1) requires making the search report available to the applicant in advance of the expiration of the period in which to request examination and (2) requires the USPTO to publish (i) the application, (ii) the search report, and (iii) the fact that examination has been requested, no later than18 months after the effective filing date.
[Support for Revised Strategic Plan Subject to Testing] – RESOLVED, that IPO supports the USPTO’s 21st Century Strategic Plan as revised February 3, 2003, subject to the reporting of satisfactory results from timely and comprehensive testing and evaluation of new patent searching and examining procedures to determine their cost effectiveness and effect on patent quality, after an opportunity for the public to comment, and, where appropriate, prompt and successful completion of pilot projects before office-wide introduction of new procedures.
Passed June 4, 2003
[Affirmative Requirements For Enhanced Damages; Mere Knowledge of A Patent Insufficient] – RESOLVED, that Intellectual Property Owners Association supports in principle the amendment of Title 35 of the United States Code to ensure that enhanced patent infringement damages may not be awarded:
based merely upon the knowledge of a patent or its contents by the defendant prior to suit, nor
for any infringement occurring prior to the defendant’s receipt of written notice from the plaintiff of a charge of infringement, which must identify the specific patent, claims and allegedly infringing products or process at issue and be sufficient to give the defendant an objectively reasonable apprehension of suit on such patent, unless:
the infringer intentionally copied the patented subject matter with knowledge that it is patented; or
the patent was asserted against the infringer in a previous U.S. judicial proceeding, and the present infringement is not more than colorably different than the conduct asserted to be infringing in the previous proceeding.
[Effect of Opinion of Counsel on Willfulness Determination] — RESOLVED, that Intellectual Property Owners Association supports in principle the amendment of Title 35 of the United States Code to ensure that:
a finding of willful infringement shall not be based solely upon the absence of an opinion of counsel, and
the absence of an opinion of counsel shall not create a negative inference that the infringement was willful.
[USPTO PROPOSAL FOR POST-GRANT OPPOSITION] – RESOLVED, that the Intellectual Property Owners Association favors, in principle, that the patent laws should be amended to establish proceedings in which patentability of issued claims can be reviewed by Administrative Patent Judges of the Board of Appeals and Interferences of the United States Patent and Trademark Office.
PROVIDED that the proceedings are implemented with sufficient mechanisms in place to achieve the public’s interest in readily available, reasonably prompt and cost effective procedure for a determination of the patentability of one or more patent claims, without creating an undue burden on patentees to defend their patents against frivolous assertions and with adequate procedures designated to protect a patentee from harassment.
[USPTO Proposal for Expanded Reexamination] – RESOLVED, that the Intellectual Property Owners Association favors, in principle, that in the event that a post-grant opposition proceeding is not established in the near future that will allow for review of the patentability of issued patent claims, the patent laws should be amended to expand the existing reexamination proceedings of the United States Patent and Trademark Office.
Passed September 14, 2003
[No Expansion of Declaratory Judgment] – RESOLVED, that IPO does not favor the expansion of declaratory judgment to allow a party that does not have a reasonable apprehension of being sued under a patent to nonetheless institute suit seeking a declaration that that patent is invalid, unenforceable and/or not infringed.
[Repeal of 35 U.S.C. § 135(b)(2)] – RESOLVED, that IPO favors, in principle, that the patent laws should be amended to eliminate the provisions of 35 U.S.C. 135(b)(2), which creates a bar to a determination of priority of invention in those instances in which a claim to the same invention is not presented in an application for patent within one year of the publication date of claims to the same invention, either in a publication of a U.S. patent application or in a WIPO publication of an International application.
[Clarifying the Law of Double Patenting] – RESOLVED, that IPO favors in principle limiting the law of obviousness-type double patenting so that it will apply only if and when, respecting two claims in two patents, all of the following three conditions apply:
(a) neither patent qualifies under sections 102 and 103(c) as prior art with respect to the claim in the other patent;
(b) the two patents have different expiration dates, or are not commonly owned; and
(c) the claim having the later priority date, or either of two claims having the same priority date, is an obvious variation of the other claim.