The Itinerant Patent Attorney

The End of False-Marking Trolls

2011-12-13T10:43:00.000-08:00

The recent passage of the America Invents Act (AIA) has taken the steam out of the recent frenzy of patent false-marking suits by eliminating any risk for leaving expired patent numbers on covered products. (See the text of 35 USC § 292 below). It is still a violation to falsely mark a product as patented, but the high standard for proving intent to deceive the public remains. Furthermore, so-called false-marking trolls cannot take advantage of the statute because only the United States or a party that has suffered "competitive injury" as a result of false marking can bring suit.

One thing that did not change was the significant enforcement advantages for patentees that do mark their products. Only patent owners who mark their products can receive infringement damages for any infringements before the defendant is given specific notice of hte infringement. (See the text of 35 USC § 287(a) below). In addition, marking products can aid in establishing that a defendant's infringement was knowingly done, which may help to prove inducement or willfulness.

Fearing even frivolous false-marking suits, some patentees had elected not to mark products, especially mass produced products, as patented. With the enactment of the AIA, patentees who are not marking their products should reconsider. The benefits of marking would now seem to outweigh the risks.

----------------

35 USC § 292

(a) Whoever, without the consent of the patentee, marks upon, or affixes to, or uses in advertising in connection with anything made, used, offered for sale, or sold by such person within the United States, or imported by the person into the United States, the name or any imitation of the name of the patentee, the patent number, or the words "patent," "patentee," or the like, with the intent of counterfeiting or imitating the mark of the patentee, or of deceiving the public and inducing them to believe that the thing was made, offered for sale, sold, or imported into the United States by or with the consent of the patentee; or Whoever marks upon, or affixes to, or uses in advertising in connection with any unpatented article the word "patent" or any word or number importing the same is patented, for the purpose of deceiving the public; or Whoever marks upon, or affixes to, or uses in advertising in connection with any article the words "patent applied for," "patent pending," or any word importing that an application for patent has been made, when no application for patent has been made, or if made, is not pending, for the purpose of deceiving the public - Shall be fined not more than $500 for every such offense. Only the United States may sue for the penalty authorized by this subsection.

(b) A person who has suffered a competitive injury as a result of a violation of this section may file a civil action in a district court of the United States for recovery of damages adequate to compensate for the injury.

(c) The marking of a product, in a manner described in subsection (a), with matter relating to a patent that covered that product but has expired is not a violation of this section.

-------------------

35 USC § 287(a)

Patentees, and persons making, offering for sale, or selling within the United States any patented article for or under them, or importing any patented article into the United States, may give notice to the public that the same is patented, either by fixing thereon the word “patent” or the abbreviation “pat.”, together with the number of the patent, or when, from the character of the article, this can not be done, by fixing to it, or to the package wherein one or more of them is contained, a label containing a like notice. In the event of failure so to mark, no damages shall be recovered by the patentee in any action for infringement, except on proof that the infringer was notified of the infringement and continued to infringe thereafter, in which event damages may be recovered only for infringement occurring after such notice. Filing of an action for infringement shall constitute such notice.

U.S. District Court Declares False Marking Statute Unconstitutional

2011-03-04T11:24:00.000-08:00

Unique Product Solutions, Ltd. v. Hy-Grade Valve, Inc. (N.D. Ohio Feb. 23, 2011)

U.S. District Court Judge Dan Polster ruled that the qui tam provision of the patent false marking statute (Title 35 U.S.C. § 292) unconstitutional under the Take Care Clause of Article II. The Court concluded, in pertinent part:

Applying the Morrison “sufficient control” analysis to the False Marking statute, it is clear the government lacks sufficient control to enable the President to “take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.” As discussed, supra, unlike the FCA, the False Marking statute lacks any of the statutory controls necessary to pass Article II Take Care Clause muster. The False Marking statute essentially represents a wholesale delegation of criminal law enforcement power to private entities with no control exercised by the Department of Justice. See Pequignot, 608 F.3d at 1363 (False Marking statute is criminal). It is unlike any statute in the Federal Code with which this Court is familiar. Any private entity that believes someone is using an expired or invalid patent can file a criminal lawsuit in the name of the United States, without getting approval from or even notifying the Department of Justice. The case can be litigated without any control or oversight by the Department of Justice. The government has no statutory right to intervene nor does it have a right to limit the participation of the relator. The government does not have the right to stay discovery which may interfere with the government’s criminal or civil investigations. The government may not dismiss the action. Finally, the relator may settle the case and bind the government without any involvement or approval by the Department of Justice.

...

The danger of this uncontrolled privatization of law enforcement is exacerbated by the financial penalties in this statute. The penalty is up to $500 for each article falsely marked. Forest Group, 590 U.S. at 1302-1303. Depending upon the number of items, this could be a staggering amount of money or a trivial amount. The statutory penalty is not calibrated to the size or economic strength of the defendant, the significance of the product, or to the degree of competitive harm the false marking may have had beyond simply the gross number of articles falsely marked. See Id. at 1303 (“[t]he more articles that are falsely marked the greater the chance the competitors will see the falsely marked article and be deterred from competing”). It is therefore essential that the government have control over when such cases are brought, and most importantly, how they are settled. Such decisions should be made by government attorneys who have no financial stake in the outcome of the litigation or settlement, not by private parties motivated solely by the prospect of financial gain.

For the reasons discussed, supra, the qui tam provision of the False Marking Statute, 35 U.S.C. §292(b) is unconstitutional under the Take Care Clause of the United States Constitution, U.S. Const. Art. II, §3.

The Court expressed concern with the reported increase in false marking claims following the decision of the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in The Forest Group, Inc. v. Bon Tool Company, 590 F.3d 1295, 1301-1303 (Fed. Cir. 2009). The District Court in a footnote noted:

The Court notes that while the qui tam provision of the False Marking Statute was enacted in 1952, a recent decision by the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit making qui tam actions more financially lucrative for relators has caused a dramatic increase in the number of actions filed. See Julian B. Slevin Co. v. Bartgis Bros. Co., 142 F.Supp. 688, 690 (D. Md. 1956) (“In 1952 the new patent law was adopted, including the false marking section, 35 U.S.C.A. 292, which now provides ...). Specifically, in Forest Group, Inc. v. Bon Tool Company, 590 F.3d 1295, 1301-1303 (Fed. Cir. 2009), the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit held that violators of the False Marking Statute face a $500 fine for each article improperly marked rather than simply a $500 fine for a decision to improperly mark multiple articles. The Federal Circuit noted that its interpretation of the statute allows for “‘a new cottage industry’ of false marking litigation by plaintiffs who have not suffered any direct harm” but that “[r]ather than discourage such activities, the false marking statute explicitly permits” qui tam actions for this purpose. Id. at 303. As an illustration of the impact of the Forest Group decision, this Court’s search of the Northern District of Ohio docket indicates that Plaintiff alone filed 31 False Marking qui tam actions in 2010.

It is notable that the District Court raised the constitutional question sua sponte during a hearing on limited discovery on the question of personal jurisdiction. The U.S. Department of Justice was invited to intervene in light of the constitutional question, but did not do so.

USPTO Releases More Information on Three-Track Examination Initiative

2011-02-08T09:58:00.000-08:00

The U.S. Patent & Trademark Office released additional details on February 2, 2011, regarding their recently proposed “Three-Track” patent examination initiative. The PTO is seeking public comments for a 30 day period beginning with the proposals forthcoming publication in the Federal Register.

In its original proposal, published in June 2010 (75 Fed. Reg. 31,763), the Patent Office indicated that under the Three-Track proposal an applicant could (1) request expedited examination (Track I); (2) could request a delay of up to 30 months in the examination docketing of a non-continuing application (Track III); or (3) proceed under current practices (Track II). It was announced that different fees would apply to different tracks, but no fee schedule was announced.

In last week’s press release, the Patent Office proposed certain requirements for entry into the expedited examination queue, including: (1) payment of filing, search, and examination fees plus an additional $4,000 fee (no reduced for small entities) to cover the costs to conduct early examination without delaying examination of other applications; (2) limiting claims to four independent claims and 30 total claims (payment of excess claim fees still required); and (3) filing of a complete application (no filing with missing parts) electronically using the PTO Electronic Filing System (EFS-WEB). [Note: If you’re not filing electronically already, you really should. It’s faster, safer, and more reliable than fax or paper filing.] The PTO release stated that, if given statutory authority to provide reduced fees for small entities, the prioritized examination fees would be $4,800 for large entities and $2,400 for small entities.

The notice also states that applications in Track I will be terminated from the prioritized examination system if the applicant files an extension of time (e.g., for filing a response to an Office Action) or files a Request for Continued Examination.

Track II and Track III fees are not discussed in the press release or proposal. Although it is not discussed, fees for Track II would presumably be unchanged. It has been widely speculated that the Fees for Track III would be the same as for Track II, but that the filing fee would be due at the time of filing with the search and examination fees being due when an applicant decides to have the application put in the queue for examination.

Citing broad support for its Three-Track initiative, the PTO appears to be trying to fast-track adoption of the new system. For obvious reasons, current PTO practice does not provide a way for the PTO to prioritize or “triage” patent applications. Although the proposed system will certainly have bumps, it seems like a reasonable way to allow patent applicants to determine which of their applications are high or low priority. Applicants needing prompt examination (e.g., for a popular product already being imitated) can expedite examination and proceed to enforcement. Applicants who are unsure of the value of a patent application (e.g., for a product that is not yet ready for market) can delay the patent process, and associated costs, while continuing towards production and commercialization.

The Patent Office’s formal proposal was published on February 4, 2011. Written comments must be received on or before March 7, 2011. There will not be any public hearings. Comments may be submitted electronically to track_I_comments@uspto.gov or at the Federal eRulemaking Portal Web site (http://www.regulations.gov). Comments may also be addressed to: Mail Stop Comments—Patents, Commissioner for Patents, P.O. Box 1450, Alexandria, VA 22313–1450, marked to the attention of Robert A. Clarke, Deputy Director, Office of Patent Legal Administration, Office of the Associate Commissioner for Patent Examination Policy. The Patent Office stated that electronic submissions via the Internet are preferred.

An Emerging Patent Boom?

2010-05-26T10:47:00.000-07:00

Dennis Crouch's Patently O blog recently reported on the record increases in both the number of patent issuing and increases in the allowance rate (i.e., percentage of concluded applications that were allowed). In fact, the last three weeks have seen the highest number of issued patents in any three-week period in U.S.P.T.O. history. In addition, as reported by PriorSmart, there were more patents issued than applications published–the first time that has happened. That's a good sign for eventual reduction of the patent office's backlog of pending applications.

This is welcome news to most patent applicants and practitioners. As I've previously written, Director Kappos made it a high priority to change a system and culture that equated higher rejection rates with higher quality patent examination. It appears that Director Kappos' reforms are working.

The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel recently reported on how the combination of patent office backlog and high rejection rates costs the U.S. economy at least $6.4 billion a year due to lost investment, economic growth, and potential employment from lack of meaningful protection for new innovations. An increase in patent allowance and issuance could help reduce patent office backlog, increase domestic innovation and investment, and spur economic growth. But if that happens, don't expect the patent system to get much credit from the pundits and politicians.

New Trademark Manual of Examining Procedure

2009-11-03T12:14:00.000-08:00

The U.S. Patent & Trademark Office recently unveiled the sixth edition of the Trademark Manual of Examining Procedure (TMEP). Click this link for a copy of the Sixth Edition of the TMEP. The new edition incorporates new case law through September 1, 2009. Kudos to John L. Welch's TTABlog® for pointing this out.

Examiners' Union Approves Changes to Patent Examination

2009-11-02T08:57:00.000-08:00

One of the first actions taken by USPTO Director David Kappos was to propose reforms to the system used to allocate time for the examination of patents and grade a patent examiner's productivity. The count system probably has a greater impact on how patent examiners do their work than even the patent laws and regulations. In a nutshell, the proposed reforms give more credit for the first action taken on a patent application and give less credit for examining patents after the filing of a request for continued examination. The new system also gives more time for examination, including an emphasis on early communication between examiners and applicants. The Washington Post recently reported that the examiner's union (POPA) recently voted to approve the changes to the count system. This is encouraging progress in breaking with the previous PTO's leadership stance equating higher quality with higher rejection rates and changing the patent office culture from fear of allowing patents to encouraging quick identification and allowance of patentable claims.

Re-importing Copyrighted Goods

2009-10-12T20:48:00.001-07:00

By seeking input from the Solicitor General, the Supreme Court appears to be seriously considering granting review of a case raising the issue of whether the doctrine of copyright exhaustion applies to goods sold overseas by a United States. copyright holder and then imported to and sold in the U.S., Costco Wholesale Corp. v. Omega, S.A. Under the doctrine of first sale or exhaustion, once the copyright holder has sold an authorized copy of the protected work, the purchaser takes the copy free of the copyright holders rights and can transfer it without obligation to or subject to restrictions of the copyright holder. Omega sells its watches for a higher price in the U.S. than it does in other countries. Costco purchased Omega watches overseas and began selling them in its U.S. stores. The issue on appeal is whether the overseas sales exhausted the copyright. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals held that the doctrine did not apply.

In the related field of patent law, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has held that patent rights are only exhausted by a first sale in the U.S. Fuji Photo Film Co. v. ITC, 474 F.3d 1281 (Fed. Cir. 2007). However, the holding in Fuji Photo Film has been called into question by the Supreme Court’s 2008 Quanta opinion. The Supreme Court may well rely on patent cases and link the first sale doctrines of patent and copyright.

Hopefully the Supreme Court will take the case and hold that the first sale doctrine applies. The purpose of copyright law is to protect authors from freeloaders (e.g., unauthorized copying and counterfeits). There is no question that Omega is the source of the watches so they are not fakes, copies, or counterfeits. Therefore, Omega is asserting rights in excess of what the copyright statute recognizes.

USPTO Withdraws Controversial Rules

2009-10-08T17:47:00.000-07:00

The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office has announced that it will withdraw controversial new rules regarding claiming and continuation applications that have been the subject of a court challenge. Two court challenges were brought by independent inventor Dr. Tafas and by pharmaceutical giant GlaxoSmithKline, which were consolidated as Tafas v. Kappos. The case is currently pending appeal before the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.

Director Kappos decision to withdraw the unpopular rules, proposed by his predecessor, will surely be met with approval from the majority of the patent community. The rules were seen by many as overly restrictive of patent applicants' rights and as exceeding the PTO's rule-making authority. The rules were also viewed by many as ultimately contrary to the purposes of the patent system to foster innovation.

A copy of the USPTO press release may be found here.

Federal Circuit Bar Association Model Patent Jury Instructions

2009-10-07T13:56:00.000-07:00

The Federal Circuit Bar Association (“FCBA”) has recently released their latest draft of model patent jury instructions and is asking for comments. Comments may be sent by email to juryinstructions@fedcirbar.org. The FCBA announcement can be found here.

Director Kappos to patent examiners: Higher rejection rates does not equal higher quality

2009-09-14T14:29:00.000-07:00

Professor Dennis Crouch of Patently O has reported that new USPTO Director Kappos sent an email to patent examiners rejecting the past leadership's attitude that higher rejections rates in recent years was a sign of increased patent quality. As discussed in a previous post, the USPTO needs a dramatic change in institutional culture and attitude if it is to restore its damaged relationship with the patent community and meaningfully address problems such as application backlog and declining revenues. The trend for several years has been for rejections to be more arbitrary and subjective, in part due to recent court decisions, but Director Kappos' message may be a sign that improvement is coming. They say "the proof of the pudding is in the eating." In the this case, the proof that the Examiners are listening will be if and when the examiner's corp improves the quality of its examination.

CAFC Reins in TTAB Fraud Decisions

2009-09-01T09:31:00.000-07:00

The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ruled yesterday that fraud on the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (“PTO”) requires proof of actual intent to deceive, which may not be inferred merely because a trademark applicant made a misstatement that it should have known was false. The court held that “a trademark is obtained fraudently under the Lanham Act only if the applicant or registrant knowingly makes a false, material representation with the intent to deceive the PTO.” In re Bose Corp., 2008-1448, slip op. p. 7 (Fed. Cir., Aug. 31, 2009).

The case arose when Bose, the owner of the mark WAVE, filed an opposition to Hexawave’s registration application for HEXAWAVE. Hexawave countered by filing a cancellation of Bose’s mark alleging fraudulent renewal of the mark based on the inclusion of audio tape recorders and players in the described goods even though these products had been discontinued. The Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (“TTAB”), following a number of its recent decisions, found that it was a material misstatement, that Bose should have known it was false, and that Bose’s stated reason for not deleting the products from the description was not reasonable.

The court agreed that the description was a material misstatement, which finding Bose had not contested, but decided that the reasonableness of Bose’s reasoning was irrelevant to the proper analysis. The court focused on the elements of fraud, ruling that the TTAB has mistakenly supplanted the requirements of fraud with a mere negligence standard. The court stated that “Subjective intent, however difficult to prove, is an indispensable element in the analysis.” Id. As in other areas of fraud, intent may be inferred from indirect or circumstantial evidence, but the court placed a significant burden of proof on those alleging fraud requiring clear and convincing evidence.

The ruling should come as a relief to many trademark registrants. The TTAB’s recent decisions on fraud had clearly lowered the threshold of fraud on the PTO to the point that any error in anything filed in connection with a trademark registration had the potential of torpedoing valuable registrations. Restoring the threshold of fraud to its historical levels should remove Damocles’ sword hanging by the thread of a single error over every trademark application or renewal.

New PTO Director Must Change the Agency’s Culture

2009-08-27T14:27:00.000-07:00

David Kappos’ biggest challenge as the new Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office may be to change what has been called a “culture of fear” among patent examiners into a “culture of cooperation” with the patent community.

After consistently rejecting about 35% of patent applications for many years, the patent office is now rejecting nearly 60% of all applications and there is no sign that the increase in rejections is peaking. Exaggerated tales of low patent quality based on anecdotal evidence of a handful of dubious patents eventually led the patent office to penalize examiners for allowing marginal applications. Rather than seeing a problem, Interim Director John Doll repeatedly boasted about the increase in rejections as a sign of improved patent quality.

Now the reduction in allowed applications is having its inevitable impact on patent office operations. More rejected applications has lead to more appeals to the patent office’s Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences merely helping to create a backlog of appeals, with appeals being filed faster than they are being decided, to go along with a backlog of unexamined patent applications. Fewer allowed applications has also lead to fewer new applications, which has yet to make a dent in the application backlog. Most immediately, it has led to reduced revenue to the patent office, primarily in the form of maintenance fees and new application fees, without any offsetting reduction in office costs.

Director Kappos needs to find a way to reform patent office operations so that Examiners can do their jobs properly without fear of reprisal if they make a mistake, as all people eventually will do. This will go a long way toward restoring the patent community’s trust in the patent office. It would also help improve patent quality, patent office revenue, and backlog.

Supreme Court to Review Scope of Patentable Subject Matter

2009-06-02T15:27:00.000-07:00

The U.S. Supreme Court agreed to review the en banc decision of the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in In re Bilski (545 F.3d 943). In that decision, the Federal Circuit rejected its previous “useful, concrete and tangible result” test for patentable subject matter articulated in State Street (149 F.3d 1368). Finding that test inadequate or inappropriate, the court articulated two tests for patentability that are commonly referred to as the “machine-or-transformation” test. Under the new test, a claimed process is patentable if “(1) it is tied to a particular machine or apparatus, or (2) it transforms a particular article into a different state or thing.”

The Bilski decision has called into question process claims in many types of patents including business methods, software, and medical diagnostics. For example, most software patents claim methods of performing some task and a general purpose computer (e.g., a personal computer) is probably not a particular machine. If so, many software patents that are patentable (under current law) when embodied in a physical form, such as a computer or storage disc, may be invalid.

In the patent at issue, Bilski claimed a method of hedging risks in commodities trading. Claim 1 reads:

A method for managing the consumption risk costs of a commodity sold by a commodity provider at a fixed price comprising the steps of:

(a) initiating a series of transactions between said commodity provider and consumers of said commodity wherein said consumers purchase said commodity at a fixed rate based upon historical averages, said fixed rate corresponding to a risk position of said consumer;

(b) identifying market participants for said commodity having a counter-risk position to said consumers; and

(c) initiating a series of transactions between said commodity provider and said market participants at a second fixed rate such that said series of market participant transactions balances the risk position of said series of consumer transactions

The steps of the claimed method involve the manipulation and use of information, but do not transform a physical object (transformation of information or data is not transformation of a particular article). Finding that the claims did not address patentable subject matter under the machine-or-transformation test, the court rejected all of the claims in the patent application.

Bilski petitioned the Supreme Court to review the Federal Circuit’s decision raising the following two questions:

Whether the Federal Circuit erred by holding that a “process” must be tied to a particular machine or apparatus, or transform a particular article into a different state or thing (“machine-or-transformation” test), to be eligible for patenting under 35 U.S.C. § 101, despite this Court’s precedent declining to limit the broad statutory grant of patent eligibility for “any” new and useful process beyond excluding patents for “laws of nature, physical phenomena, and abstract ideas.”

Whether the Federal Circuit’s “machine-or-transformation” test for patent eligibility, which effectively forecloses meaningful patent protection to many business methods, contradicts the clear Congressional intent that patents protect “method[s] of doing or conducting business.” 35 U.S.C. § 273.

The Supreme Court has now agreed to review the decision. Damocles’ sword has been hanging over software patents for some time, and it may fall with the Court’s ruling.

In recent years the Supreme Court has taken an increased interest in patent law granting review in about one case a year. The Court has also displayed little esteem for the Federal Circuit’s patent jurisprudence (the Supreme Court has generally rejected hard, fast rules favored by the Federal Circuit for more flexible, imprecise rules that are harder to apply). In fact, in the last five patent cases it reviewed, the Federal Circuit has garnered a total of two votes to affirm compared to 43 votes to reverse–a remarkably low number of favorable votes. Thus, if history is any indication, another reversal would seem imminent. However, the Supreme Court’s decisions have also exposed a belief in the members of the Court that too many patents are being issued. Therefore, it would appear that Bilski will find it difficult to get many votes for a broad test of patentability that would include his claims. Given those trends, what is the likely outcome? I expect that Bilski wins the battle (the Supreme Court rejects the Federal Circuit’s narrow test of patentability for a looser, broader test), but loses the war (Bilksi’s patent still doesn’t pass whatever test the Supreme Court imposes).

In the past, the Court has generally construed section 101 of the Patent Act (defining patentable subject matter) very broadly, but the current Court (even with an impending retirement) has been more skeptical of the patent system. The high Court’s recent trend towards hostility to patents and low regard for patent quality does not bode well for the holders of software patents. Furthermore, the last time that the Supreme Court took a case on the scope of patentable subject matter was 1981–long before the digital revolution and the emergence of the internet. Therefore, the Court’s prior decisions may not be very helpful to the Court, or court observers. While it is far from clear what the end result will be, it is clear that the stakes are high for both owners of method patents and for those facing accusations of infringing those patents.

Heritage Foundation on Patent Reform

2009-02-13T12:00:00.001-08:00

The Heritage Foundation, a leader is conservative thought, recently issued an open policy-memo to President Obama on patent reform (link below). The recurring theme of the memo is that patent reform should serve to reinforce patent rights and certainty in the strength of patent rights in general rather than weaken the entire system to address a few narrow, limited problems. Heritage proposes that all proposed reforms should be measured by “whether they are likely to increase or decrease investments in industries that rely on patent protections to foster innovation.”

The memo takes a particularly strong stand against sweeping “reform” measures designed to stop the much ballyhooed problem of “patent trolls” or non-practicing entities. Despite the cacophony of complaints from serial patent infringers (can I call them “patent pirates”), Heritage argues that reform measures that dilute or weaken the legitimate rights of all patent holders because of the relatively rare abuses of a small minority.

Heritage also argues against reform measures that make it easier for an issued patent to be subsequently invalidated by a court or the patent office. Such measures encourage infringers to ignore patent rights or to litigate rather than settle patent infringement suits. Expansion of the “inequitable conduct” doctrine (or fraud on the patent office), which is sometimes used to invalidate patents for minor errors or omissions in the application process, is rejected because of its adverse effect on the patent system.

In this practitioner’s opinion, Heritage’s proposals are excellent. It downplays the exaggerated “problem” of trolls and rampant issuance of bad patents (there are bad patents issuing, but not as many as the serial infringers would have the public believe) while supporting measures designed to improve patent quality. A strong patent system is essential for technological advancement and the domestic development of new technologies is essential for our continued economic growth.

http://www.heritage.org/Research/LegalIssues/upload/ObamaMemo_22.pdf