PTO Asks Whether Legislative Action for Experimental Use Exception Is Warranted | McDermott Will & Emery
The US Patent & Trademark Office (PTO) issued a request for comments concerning the public’s views on the common law experimental use exception and whether Congress should enact a statutory experimental use exception. 89 Fed. Reg. 53963 (June 28, 2024).
The experimental use defense for alleged patent infringement has been part of US jurisprudence for more than 200 years. The current state of experimental use exception jurisprudence in the United States is set forth in Madey v. Duke University, 307 F.3d 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2002). In that case, the Federal Circuit proffered a “very narrow and strictly limited experimental use defense” prohibiting an alleged infringer from invoking such a defense for “use that is in any way commercial in nature” or “any conduct that is in keeping with the alleged infringer’s legitimate business, regardless of commercial implications.”
The Madey decision has been met with a mix of opinions, some arguing that the Federal Circuit’s construction encourages innovation and others arguing that it impedes innovation. Limited exemptions have been carved out in the US. For example, 35 U.S.C. § 271(e)(1) established a safe harbor (the Bolar exemption) allowing for the experimental use of a patented invention by parties to collect regulatory approval data for medical devices or drugs. The Plant Variety Protection Act also provides for exemptions allowing the use of protected plant varieties for research and breeding of new varieties.
While many European and Asian nations have statutory experimental use exceptions in place, legislative efforts for codifying a statutory experimental use exception in the US have thus far failed. With the intent to promote fair competition and innovation, the PTO seeks to revisit this issue by collecting the public’s views on the impact of the experimental use exception in all technology areas. Of particular interest, the PTO seeks comments on one or more topics, including:
- How current US experimental use exception jurisprudence impacts investment and/or research and development in any field of technology.
- Whether certain technologies are negatively affected by the current experimental use exception jurisprudence.
- The impact that a statutory experimental use exception would have on the innovation and commercialization of new technologies with respect to research and development, ability to obtain funding, investment strategy, licensing of patents and patent applications, product development, sales (including downstream and upstream sales), competition, and patent enforcement and litigation.
- The impact of current experimental use exception jurisprudence on decisions made with respect to filing, purchasing, licensing, selling or maintaining patent applications and patents in the US.
- Reasons for adopting a statutory experimental use exception or maintaining the status quo.
- How a statutory experimental use exception should be defined to ensure that patent rights are preserved.
- Recommendations for enhancing and facilitating experimental research on patent inventions in the US.
When responding to the questions, commenters are further asked to identify whether they represent, for example:
- An inventor, patent owner or investor.
- A licensee or user of patented technology.
- An entity representing inventors or patent owners (g., law firms).
- A recipient of demand letters concerning alleged patent infringement or accused infringers in a patent lawsuit.
- An entity representing accused infringers.
- A government agency or official.
- An academic or research institution.
- An intellectual property organization or association.
- A nonprofit organization or advocacy group.
For further details, see the PTO’s request here.
Written comments must be received on or before September 26, 2024, through the Federal eRulemaking Portal.
[View source.]
