It has much larger impacts on small innovators
Courtenay C. Brinckerhoff, 24 – registered patent attorney and have been representing chemical, biotech, and pharmaceutical clients before the USPTO for over 30 years. Answers To Questions For The Record from Senator Tillis, before the U.S. Senate Committee on the Judiciary Subcommittee on Intellectual Property, “The Patent Eligibility Restoration Act”, 1/23, www.judiciary.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/2024-01-23_-_qfr_responses_-_brinckerhoff.pdf //DH
3. In your experience, does the state of Section 101 have a greater impact on smaller or larger companies and why?
In my experience, sole inventors and smaller companies are more impacted by the uncertainty, for several reasons. First, innovators may not realize the current state of the law, and may invest in their technologies before learning the technology cannot be patented. Many of the lines drawn are counter-intuitive, and do not make sense to scientists or engineers. Additionally, sole inventors and smaller companies do not have the resources to spread the risks or hedge their bets, and do not have the infrastructure or market position to commercialize their technologies without patent protection. While larger companies may be able to bring (non-pharmaceutical) products to market without a patent, smaller companies need patents to attract investors or for acquisition deals. Without patents, the technology may be shelved and companies shut down. Additionally, the expanding applications of the “judicial exceptions” can particularly impact sole inventors and small business, who may invest everything in technology protected by a patent, only to have it unexpectedly wiped out as a judicial exception.