I.

Introduction

US Patent Law 1790 A. A patent is a way for government to promote innovation by rewarding an inventor with a monopoly on his or her invention for a limited time (Hollaar, 2002). The First Congress passed the first United States patent law during its second session, and President Washington signed it into law on April 10, 1790. It authorized the granting of a patent for any useful art, manufacture, engine, machine, or device, or any improvement therein not before known or used (Hollaar, 2002). Patents have been very useful for society, providing protection for peoples inventions. The U.S Patent Law supported the First-to-Invent system, in which the first person who had an idea and desired to develop it would have full protection of his invention for at least the following fourteen years. In those fourteen years no one could legally take advantage of the inventors idea. The decision to grant a patent resided with three cabinet members: the Secretary of State (Thomas Jefferson), the Secretary of War (Henry Knox), and the Attorney General (Edmund Randolph), collectively referred to as the Commissioners for the Promotion of the Useful Arts (Hollar, 2002). Therefore anyone who wanted to request a patent for his invention had to present it to the Commissioners and they decided if the invention was worth of approving. B. The U.S. Senate voted on September 8, 2011, to reform U.S. patent laws by approving the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (Barker, M. Paul, Hill, David W., McNeill, Rebecca M., Modi, Naveen, Tridico Ph.D., and Anthony C, 2011). On Friday, September 16, 2011, President Obama signed the Act at a signing ceremony at Thomas Jefferson High School for Science and

Technology in Alexandria, VA. The most notable change in the 2011 reform of the U.S patent law, also known as The Leahy- Smith America Invent Act, is the fact that the new law relies on First-to-File system instead of First-to-Invent system. The Patent Reform allows anyone to request a review of new patents within nine months of their being issued. Therefore, anyone with a potentially successful invention can apply, be taken in consideration and given the opportunity to create more jobs for themselves and the community. The U.S Patent Law of 1790 is the biggest change in more than sixty years of being passed by Congress. As President Obama has said, there are so many new inventors in America and not all of them have the same opportunity of actually being able to present and sell their inventions to the consumers. The bill is meant to ensure that the patent office, now facing a backlog of 1.2 million pending patents, has the money to expedite the application process (Superville, 2011). Large companies, such as Google, Microsoft, and Apple have actually declared that The law makes the US intellectual property system more competitive with those in foreign countries (Lowensohn). On the other hand, small business groups have complained that it will become harder and more expensive for their members to protect their intellectual property rights, hampering businesses that have traditionally been one of the main engines of job growth (Waters 2011). There is the uncertainty if the Patent Reform will be an advantage or disadvantage for small companies.
II. Deficiencies of U.S. Patent Law A. Less provisions and advantages for small businesses and entrepreneurs The tendency to favoring large corporations over small businesses is one of the principal deficiencies of Patent Law. As Deborah Sweeney states, many of the provisions of the new patent law

benefit large corporations at the expense of small businesses and potential entrepreneurs. (Sweeney,

2011) When the Law was created, it was to the benefit of large businesses because they are propensity to fill the applications forms for the patent, since small businesses need more effort in order to be able to fill the applications forms. Also, because small businesses have struggling about paying fees and other requirements that are need it to fulfill the application forms. (Sweeney, 2011) Large businesses also benefit because they can afford the high fees. Deborah Sweeney explains, Large businesses are the entities most capable of quickly filing for patents as compared to small businesses and entrepreneurs are capable of tying up potential patents in prolonged review procedures that can be highly costly to a small business or entrepreneur (Sweeney, 2011). Furthermore, it said that small businesses are disadvantages due to a lack of funds needed in interference proceedings-The act of invention consists of two distinct events;conception and reduction to practice (Silverman, 1991). As Ryan K. Dickey states, This makes sense because small entities do not have the resources to initiate costly interference proceedings small entities are often unable to introduce evidence proving dates of conception and reduction to practice simply because they have not maintained adequate records (Dickey, 2006). A small business involved in interference proceeding would be able to present the evidence they need in order to prove that they are the unique inventor, which is made difficult because some small business may struggle with record keeping in the documentation.

B. The Implementation of the First to invent System According to Alexander Poltorak, The United States patent system is based on a unique Firstto-Invent doctrine, which means that the inventor who first conceived of the invention is considered the first inventor and is entitled to patent protection (Poltorak, 2008). One of the deficiencies that Patent Law had was the First-to-Invent because, at the times, that it was created, the person who

invented the product could be able to fill the application in order to be recognized as the unique inventor of the product. According to Alexander Poltorak, The principal advantage of the US First-toInvent system was that it rewards the first inventor, not the winner of the race to the Patent Office (Poltorak, 2008). One of the best benefits that patent law included was that all the prizes were obtained by the person who first invented the product, merchandise or creation. So, the person who was the first inventor will be the person who would be protected by the patent law, not the person who was trying to acquire the credits of the first inventor. According to Ryan K. Dickey, Naturally, when more than one person claims to be the first inventor, Patent Law must provide a means to determine who was first (Dickey, 2006). The principal inconvenience of the Patent Law occurs when two persons file an application at the same time, to be the first inventor of the same product. It was a long procedure for Patent Law to decipher which person was the true first inventor. According to Ryan K. Dickey, Unfortunately, the process of determining inventorship, known as an interference proceeding, is lengthy. The USPTO itself acknowledges that the average interference process takes up to two years to complete (Dickey, 2006). When this dispute arises the two persons would go through a long process called interference proceeding, one so prolonged that it could last more than two years. In the interference process there are certain factors that the Board, a panel of administrative patent judges takes into account as the reduction to practices, verifying whether or not the inventor really created the product, and if the product invented fulfilled the expectations of the inventor. According to Ryan K. Dickey, Actual reduction to practice occurs: (1) when the inventor actually constructs the invention; or (2) when the inventor is satisfied that the invention will work as conceived. (Dickey, 2006) C. Less Strict Joinder, Consolidation Requirements, and Supplemental Procedure.

According to, Williams Mullen and Robert Van Arman, The new joinder rule should therefore give defendants new pages in their playbook, including a greater chance of sustaining their motions to transfer venue. For instance, in suits with multiple defendants, where the defendants are located throughout the country, it is often difficult to establish that one forum is convenient to all parties (Mullen, Van Arman, 2011). The patent law did not contain strict joinder as the new one. One of the main aspects is that the new reform, gives one lawsuit case per producto r creation, while, in the patent law did not follow much restrictions as today, and allowed the different cases with single defendats. According to Erick Robinson, Another provision that has not had as much press but will have a significant immediate impact on patent litigation regards what is referred to as joinder As recently as a few years ago, all that a patentee had to do to establish proper venue in a patent case and not get the case transferred for lack of convenience of the parties was to assert that infringement occurred in the district (Robinson, 2011). Businesses could have different cases even though was the same creation, but now this new reform is having a certain reaction since businesses would be involved in cases where are referred to the same product. For example, if there is a case on any product in Florida between two parties, and there is another one suing in California, all parties involved will be part of the same case. However, this was not allowed before the new reform implementation, letting others in each state have their own trial. According to Hayat, Kreeger and Walters, The Act creates a new procedure allowing a patent owner to request the USPTO to carry out a supplemental examination of a patent to consider, reconsider or correct information believed to be relevant to the patent (Hayat, Kreeger, Walters,

2011). The patent law did not require this type of examination as the new reform has. The main idea of this new supplemental examination is to believe if the information given can be consider applicable for the patent application, while, the old one did not contain any of this requirements they are very important because is the best way to know if the case is valid. According to Hayat, Kreeger and Walters,

If the new information is deemed to raise a substantial new question of patentability, a re-examination will be ordered (Hayat, Kreeger, Walters, 2011). This new reforms make sure that there is any problem with the lawsuit case, since the old one does not have any supplemental procedure, and for instance, any re-corrections on the patent applications forms.

III.

2011 Patent Reform Act A. More provisions and advantages for small business and entrepreneurs To address the possible disadvantages for smaller businesses in relation to the Patent

System, the 2011 Patent Reform Act will include many provisions that will create advantages for smaller businesses, start ups, and entrepreneurs. (PosivitelyMinessotta, 2011). This new reform will bring more opportunities for smaller businesses. Natlawreview discusses one opportunity that will come from the 2011 Patent Reform Act stirring innovation in particular technology areas. This would help smaller companies because it would ensure that they have a quick, responsive patent assistance that can file patent applications for inventions as soon as possible. (NatLawReview, 2011). Moreover, another advantage for small business is that this new reform would make it more difficult for large patent infringers to test small business patent owners through constant meant to avoid license fees or to persuade against an infringement suit. According to John C. Scheller, who is the leader of the firms Technology Industry Group, the Act would eliminate interference proceedings as the method for determining the right to a patent between competing inventors, a costly proceeding which is almost always won by larger corporations (Scheller, 2011) These costly proceedings are almost always won by larger corporations instead of the smaller corporations, start ups, and entrepreneurs.

Another big opportunity for smaller business, described by John C Scheller, is that 2011 Patent Reform Act will improve patent quality overall for small companies. (Scheller, 2011) This would help because this new act will make it easier for start ups and entrepreneurs to increase capital form investors. Now, investors are going to be more confident that an eventual patent would be less likely to be invalidated. (Scheller, 2011). Another big advantage that small business will have is that this new act will command the PTO (Patent and Trademark Office) to provide a fifty percent reduction in fees, and it will create a new micro-entity designated for truly and independent investors. (Browman, 2011). John C Scheller, in his article United States Patent Reform Act, explains how this new micro-entity class will be rewarded by receiving the seventy five percent reduction in fees which will bring huge benefits and less expenses for the small business, start ups, and entrepreneurs. (Scheller, 2011).

B. There is an implementation of first to file system Section 2 of the Patent Reform Act shifts the US patent system to a first- to- file basis, in contrast to the first- to- invent approach it used previously. Section 2 amends Section 100 of Title 35 of the US Code by inserting the following language: (i)(1) The term `effective filing date' of a claimed invention in a patent or application for patent means (A) if subparagraph (B) does not apply, the actual filing date of the patent or the application for the patent containing a claim to the invention; or (B) the filing date of the earliest application for which the patent or application is entitled, as to such invention, to a right of priority under section 119, 365(a), or 365(b) or to the benefit of an earlier filing date under section 120, 121, or 365(c). (coronadogroup.com)

In the United States, there have been introduced a new system; it is called First- to -File system. (Coronadogroup, 2011). This new system will bring greater harmony among other international systems because it will raise United States investors and manufacturers capability to effectively compete internationally. It is said that the first to file system will eliminate the prejudice that is involved at the time determining the first inventor in the current system. Moreover, this new system will help to reduce the processes of litigation and time delays. (Browman, 2011) The First- to- File system will provide transparency, certainty, and predictability. As the Senator Christopher Coons said, Transition to first to-file is an improvement over the current system because it provides increased predictability, certainty, and transparency . . . (Christopher Coon, 2011) On the other side, many people in business industries think that the 2011 Patent Reform Act will give bigger companies such as Apple, Google, IBM, etc, a competitive advantage over smaller companies, start ups and entrepreneurs because of the Firstto- File system that will be implemented. Bigger companies do have more resources to file patents easily and in quickly manner. (Brown, 2011) One of the most important aspects that this system influences is the expansion of the international market. In the international marketplace, patent harmonization among nations will be simplified. The costs for the small firms and inventors will be much less than it was before. Moreover, small firms and investors will gain patent protection which is an important aspect when competing in an international environment. In addition, in the international markets, opportunities will expand. (coronadogroup.com) On the other hand, under the new system, the process will be reorganized to award the patent to the first person or entity that filed for the patent. The main objective of doing this is to

make the patent process more efficient by restraining all the processes and challenges to an only patent. Therefore, it will allow the patent to come to market more quickly.

C.

Instigates stricter joinder, consolidation requirements, and

supplemental examination procedures The new reform act, Patent Reform Act 2011, has taken up what has been abandoned, litigation. By litigation, people can determine and perceived the value of the patent. A new section has been added to the Patent Reform, it is section 299. It is called "Joinder of Parties."(Friebel, 2011). Multiple accused infringers in one action, and multiple actions consolidated in a trial will no longer be permitted. (Cochran, 2011). New and consolidation requirements need to be full field prior to accused infringers join in one action as defendants or counter claim defendants. According to Hayat, Kreeger, and Walters, the law adds, accused infringers may not be joined in one action as defendants or counterclaim defendants, or have their actions consolidated for trial, based solely on allegations that they each have infringed the patent or patents in suit. (Hayat, Kreeger, Walters, 2011) Moreover, this new act come together a recent movement among federal courts of taking a stricter approach to joinder and consolidation and refusing to relate cases asserting the same patents, or even dismissing for misjoinder (Mofo, 2011). However, if the plaintiff cannot meet the new requirements, the plaintiff will have an individual lawsuit claim of violation of the same patents. Moreover, they will lose economy in the aspect of scale joinder and consolidation currently allow for. This improvement will improve the situation in patent litigation of one plaintiff suing several irrelevant defendants on the same patent, included in one single action. (Friebel, 2011).

There is a new creation of a procedure allowing a patent owner to apply for the USPTO to fulfill a supplemental examination. The USPTO must punctually address it and decide whether the information presented improves any considerable aspect. If a considerable aspect is improved, new question of patentability is raised. (Wexler, Conca, 2011). The USPTO will be able to categorize the patent into reexamination. This examination will help the patent owner to consider, reconsider or correct information that can be considered important. It is a new opportunity to evaluate whether relevant, or not relevant information. (Hayat, Kreeger, Walters, 2011). The main purpose of this supplemental examination is to allow the owner of a patent to improve problems and eliminate the possibility of a wrong conduct defense in a litigation of a patent. (Cojk, 2011). IV. Analysis A. Small Business and Entrepreneurs 1. Was there a change of improvement? Yes, the 2011 Patent Reform Law made many improvements to the U.S Patent Law which was helpful and necessary for all those who aspire to have all the rights of their inventions with more flexibility due to lower filing fees. 2. If so, How? Why? Thanks to the 2011 Patent Law Reform there are more opportunities for small or new businesses. For example, small businesses will have a quicker responsive patent guidance that can file patent applications for inventions as soon as possible and also reduction of the fees is a big improvement for small businesses and entrepreneurs. The new law aims to simplify the

patent registration process, and in turn aid entrepreneurs and encourage innovation ("Are patent reforms," 2011). 3. Effects of change/No change? Yes, there are considerable effects for small businesses, start-ups, and entrepreneurs. One of the positive effects the reform has is that the lower filing fees provide more flexibility for new businesses and entrepreneurs since they are not yet financially strong or stable. In the past seven years, over 3 million patent applications were filed, but only 25 were granted to small entities that despite being the second inventor to file were able to prove they were first to invent (Eva, 2011). 4. Advantages of change: The 2011 Patent Law Reform improved in cases in which small businesses will have a quicker responsive patent guidance to file patent applications for inventions as soon as possible. Therefore it is not necessary to be a large company or part of it in order to have the opportunity to file a patent. Small businesses filing for patents in the past could get blindsided by a lawsuit that alleged someone else was actually the first inventor ("Are patent reforms," 2011). One of the major advantages of the reform is that the PTO (Patent and Trademark Office) will reduce a fifty percent of the fees and create a new micro-entity designated for independent investors.This is very helpful especially for new businesses and entrepreneurs with low budgets. 5. Disadvantages of change:

One of the biggest disadvantages of the changes made to The U.S Patent Law is that if a small business or entrepreneur creates a new innovation and does not have finances or legal help

to file a patent, someone else can easily come along and steal the idea and file a patent. It is very common for big companies to file any invention they consider worthy since they have a larger financial situation than small businesses. Another important disadvantage of the 2011 Patent Reform is that since the system has been changes to Fist-to-File from First-to-Invent the Patent Trade Office will have uncountable number of files waiting to be approved. This increase of file requests will slow down the process take time away from patent cases which may have merit.

6. Recommendation/ proposals: We would recommend taking advantage of opportunities given to small businesses and entrepreneurs since the Patent Reform provides more flexibility for them with lower filing fees. Although we consider the U.S Patent Law was more advantageous for small businesses and entrepreneurs since it provides more recognition to who truly invented the good or service. This is because any larger company can take credit for someone elses invention since larger companies have more financial possibilities of filing the patent request.
B . Notice System 1. Was there a change of improvement? Yes, there was a change of improvement because they implement competence among other countries, not only in the United States. Also, it will provide improvement in predictability, transparency, and certainty. 2. If so, how? Why? They applied the First to File instead of the First to Invent because before people could not have competency between others as now. Also, it helps to some Investors companies to raise their profits since there will be maybe a product similar, but in other country. Besides, it will be more capability from

manufactures that will help them to compete along with other countries.

4. Effects of change/ no change? Some of the important effects is that some companies will raise their profits and income, since there will be more of the same new inventions among other countries. Also, this change will cause that some constructers will show their capability and abilities. 5. Advantages of change One of the best advantages is that the market will increase because will be able to compete with other countries. It will increase the market in the way that there are more opportunities for businesses that can produce the same merchandise. Also, let the market an extraordinary increasing among their products because there are many options for customers, since many companies could have the same product, but with different styles, design, etc. Another advantage is the expansion of the international market. Also, the cost of the small businesses will be less than it was before because this new reform is involving more the small business than the old one. 6. Disadvantages of change A disadvantage is that First-to-File allows others to have someone s innovation in another country; while, First-to-Invent led only the first innovator to be the only one. For example, if a person created a certain product, the person should be attributed of being the creator, while, with this reform others can put into practice the creation of the same product, but implementing innovations. 7. Recommendations/ Proposals We will recommend not continuing with the reform because when a person is clearly the originator of a particular idea, device or any tool, this person will be at risk of losing their rights if they do not file for a patent before a big company steals their concept. We feel like the concept of originality

is lost in this new reform. It is better to continue with the last law because it is recognized more who really invented the device than who actually filed it. Bigger companies will take advantage of smaller companies because bigger companies have more power and resources to file any creation before than a small corporation.

Severer Joinder, consolidation requirements, and new supplemental examination procedure 1. Was there a change of improvement?

Yes, severer joinder, consolidation requirements, and new supplemental examination procedure have suffered a significant amount of change in order to improve each one of them. 2. If so, how? Why?

In severe joinder, it may not longer be allowed for patentees filed a single lawsuit against many different defendants, whose principal connection among them is that they are all accused of infringing the same patent. In the new act, the act makes it clear that those actions are considered improper. For instance, courts will have to consider whether a patent holder can sue in a single case a component manufacturer along with the companies that used the component in their products (Mofo, 2011). In the case of consolidation requirements there was also a change. If these requirements are not reached economy is going to be affected in the scale joinder and consolidation currently allow for. Finally, the new supplemental examination procedure is a new implementation in where the UPSTO consider, reconsider, and change any information that may be considered reliable. For example, a patent owner can use supplemental examination to have the USPTO to consider the previous information provided for the patent and examine it before initiating a patent infringement action.

3.

Effects of change/ no change?

In severe joinder and consolidation requirements, the 2011 Patent Reform Act, fall into places to take a stricter approach to joinder and consolidation and refusing to relate cases asserting the same patents, or even dismissing for misjoinder. In addition, new joinder rule may place new burdens on NPEs seeking to profit from patents (Mofo, 2011). In the new supplemental examination procedure, a patent will not be found unenforceable in the conduct relating to information considered, reconsidered or corrected during a supplemental examination. 4. Advantages of change

In severe joinder and consideration requirements, there would be a better organization when it comes to patents. Moreover, in the supplemental examination procedure aspect, it would be easier during the process that the Director becomes aware that a material fraud on the Office may have been committed in relation with the patent. 5. Disadvantages of change

One of the disadvantages is that the Act does not provide any explicit guidance on this and many other pragmatic considerations that will arise; considering joinder, and consolidation requirements. On the other side, the new supplemental examination procedure, a patentee relies on a pending supplemental examination to defeat any defenses raised in an infringement action (Mofo, 2011) 6. Recommendations/ Proposals

Our recommendation is to implement this new reform because it brings more benefits than disadvantages. Severer Joinder, consolidation requirements, and new supplemental examination procedure provide people many opportunities for instance, the UPSTO to correct any wrongful information about the patent.

Conclusion In conclusion, we consider that the 2011 Patent Reform Act does remedy some of the deficiencies of the US Patent Law. One of the aspects in which we found there is an improvement is in the International Market Expansion. On the other hand, we consider that it is a disadvantage for small businesses, start ups, and entrepreneurs since larger companies have more benefits at the time of requesting a patent file. However, we are in agreement with the 2011 Patent Reform Act which reduces taxation fees as a benefit for small companies, start ups, and entrepreneurs.