The most expert group of inventors says sui generis solves better than PERA – <also proves politics net benefit>
McDermott 24 [Eileen, Editor-in-Chief of IPWatchdog.com, Witnesses Clash Over Potential Pros and Cons of PERA in Senate IP Subcommittee Hearing, https://ipwatchdog.com/2024/01/23/witnesses-clash-potential-pros-cons-pera-senate-ip-subcommittee-hearing/id=172334/#, ALB]
During the second panel, three of the witnesses—Professor Adam Mossoff of the Antonin Scalia Law School, George Mason University; Mark Deem of Lightstone Ventures; and former USPTO Director David Kappos—urged the Subcommittee to pass PERA swiftly, while David Jones of the High-Tech Inventors Alliance (HTIA) said there are too many concerns with the language and too many questions around whether legislative changes are necessary to warrant passage.
Jones cited statistics that he claims show Section 101 law is more predictable than other areas of patent law based on USPTO and court decisions, and said that HTIA is concerned PERA would make almost any human activity patent eligible. He suggested a more targeted approach that would involve identifying particular problem areas and creating sui generis protection or adopting a standard that’s “explicitly tethered to an advance in technology.”