5 ways Trump can protect inventors’ hard work

President-elect Donald Trump has begun to detail the policy agenda for his administration in the first 100 days and beyond. One area of central importance to driving economic growth and job creation in the United States — the protection and enforcement of intellectual property (IP) rights — has not yet been addressed, but fits well within the ambit of the new administration’s plans.

{mosads}As the president-elect, his emerging administration and the Congress look beyond the first 100 days, they have a pivotal opportunity to ensure that our nation’s intellectual property laws and practices, and particularly our patent law, reflect a strong commitment to sustaining America’s technology leadership across all sectors of our economy.

An innovation-driving, job-creating, growth-stimulating IP agenda should include steps to:

• Enforce laws against infringement. Protecting intellectual property keeps Americans safe. It guards against harmful counterfeit products that can endanger health or compromise our weapons systems and military personnel.

Since China and other foreign states are often the worst violators of IP rights, Congress and the new president should act swiftly to enforce intellectual property laws against all infringers, foreign and domestic alike.

• End fee diversion. Over the past four years, more than $400 million in patent and trademark application fees paid to the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) have been diverted to support unrelated government programs.

Ending diversion and allowing the USPTO to retain all the fees it collects would help ensure the quality of issued patents, improve operational efficiencies and reduce the time it takes to issue patents. Getting patents processed more quickly for America’s inventors would spur investment, economic growth and the ability of businesses to create new jobs.

• Address patent subject matter eligibility. Our patent system must reward innovators across all sectors to ensure that investment is not driven outside the U.S.

Recent Supreme Court decisions regarding diagnostic methods, personalized medicine and software business methods should be narrowly interpreted and applied correctly. The USPTO should ensure that its own best practices and procedures support broad patent subject matter eligibility.

• Improve post-grant processes. The USPTO should assess rules surrounding review proceedings to ensure fairness to applicants and petitioners.

The current post-grant processes should be improved to reflect the balance intended by the 2011 America Invents Act in areas including the ability of patentees to amend claims, the presumption of validity, standards of claim interpretation and deterring abuses of post-grant processes.

• Assess patent reform. Finally, the new administration and Congress should keep a close eye on the need for patent litigation reform, especially in the area of “patent shopping,” the practice of filing infringement lawsuits in courts that are friendly to patent holders.

Other proposals designed to address discrepancies in patent litigation should be evaluated to determine the extent to which the courts are tackling abuses and guiding improvements. Any legislative action should be narrowly focused and crafted to preserve the ability of legitimate plaintiffs to assert their patent rights.

The Constitution grants Congress the power — and responsibility — to protect the intellectual property of “Authors and Inventors.” Safeguarding inventors’ hard work encourages innovation and investment in technology and art, which in turn promotes American prosperity.

By fostering a healthy and fair IP system in the U.S., President Trump, his administration and the 115th Congress have an opportunity to strengthen America’s role as a leader and model of innovation for the rest of the world.

Robert L. Stoll is a partner and co-chair of the intellectual property group at Drinker Biddle & Reath and a former commissioner for patents at the United States Patent and Trademark Office. The views expressed are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of other members of the firm or its clients.

The views expressed by contributors are their own and not the views of The Hill.