Low quality patent risk is low – patent remedies, fee shifting, and obviousness requirements blunt the impact
Manny Schecter, 2019 - chief patent counsel for IBM. Senate Judiciary Subcommittee Hearing State of Patent Eligibility in America, 6/11, Proquest Congressional, accessed via University of Michigan //DH
F. Patent Quality is Best Addressed by Improvements to the Disclosure Requirements
Some have supported the current judicially imposed limits on patent eligibility as a remedy for concerns they have about attempts to enforce poor quality patents. We understand and share those concerns. The risk from poor quality patents has been greatly reduced by judicial decisions on obviousness, patent remedies, and fee shifting. Even more helpful have been the USPTO post-issuance validity review processes provided for in the America Invents Act, which IBM strongly supported.
Sections 102, 103 and 112 can be used to weed out attempts to patent inventions that are too broad. The broader the claim is to an invention, the more likely that claim will not be new or will be obvious. The scope of the prior art is wide, and modern information technology has made it easier and cheaper to find identical or close prior art. The obviousness requirement is robust, particularly with the availability of the pre-issuance and post-issuance procedures of the America Invents Act. And the section 112 requirements are a significant tool for limiting overbreadth. The draft bill text further addresses poor quality patents through improvements to section 112.