PERA increases court clog
Wayne Brough, 24 - policy director for R Street’s Technology and Innovation team. He manages product flow on technology policy issues while also continuing his own research in competition policy and intellectual property. Prior to R Street, Wayne was the president of the Innovation Defense Foundation. Wayne received his PhD in economics from George Mason University, with a focus in industrial organization and public choice. “Congress Wants to Revive Patents but May Strangle Innovation and Damage Health Care Access Instead” R Street Institute (a public policy think tank), 4/3, https://www.rstreet.org/commentary/congress-wants-to-revive-patents-but-may-strangle-innovation-and-damage-health-care-access-instead/ //DH
Patent eligibility, or the fundamental question of what is patentable, is currently under congressional review. Sens. Thom Tillis (R-N.C.) and Chris Coons (D-Del.) have introduced the Patent Eligibility Reform Act (PERA) to reform Section 101 of the U.S. Patent Act, which defines what can be patented. But some of the proposed changes do much more than clarify patent eligibility, aiming instead to reverse a series of Supreme Court decisions issued in response to growing concerns over patent abuse and its chilling effects on innovation. More importantly, while the Supreme Court has consistently held that “laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas” are not patentable, these legislative proposals attempt to upend that position and expand the scope of patent eligibility directly contra to court rulings.
Enhancing Innovation or Creating Monopolies?
In many ways, recently proposed changes would return the patent system to policies of the late 1990s and early 2000s, when the courts were beset with patent litigation originating from excessive claims of patentability. Allowing companies to patent abstract business methods or practices prompted a surge in lawsuits targeting other companies using similar business processes—even obvious or commonsense practices. While broader patent eligibility strengthens the hand of patent owners, the impact on innovation is less clear. Research has found that such overly broad patents generate excessive litigation while creating significant barriers to entry that limit competition. This ultimately sparked the Supreme Court rulings that established new limits on the possibility of patenting abstract concepts or inventions.