The U.S. is one of the few, if not the only country, I believe, of the top patent issuers of Japan and the European Patent Office. The U.S. is the only one that uses first-to-invent. Why do you think that is? Do you think there is a specific reason why the U.S. is still using first-to-invent?
ORSINI: You know what, I will be honest, I don’t know the exact reasons kind of off the cuff but if I had to guess I think if you trace it back to the language in the constitution that provided the protection for the right of inventors to their inventions you can trace the need to be first-to-invent. You want to reward the inventor and that’s what the founders had wanted to have happen and I don’t know that other, European Union or Japan, I don’t know if that they had that sort of basic concept that there should be a reward to the inventors so much as the first-to-file.

MALANDRO: I look at it from sort of a philosophical standpoint here. If I am a scientist and inventor on a particular technology and because I am just not informed of how to move forward on a particular patent and may know nothing about it, then why should someone who files for something, if I’ve know about it for years before, philosophically why should they be entitled to it just because they went through procedurals steps before I did?

ORSINI: And I think from what Marc’s saying, that’s one of the reason we would have stayed first-to-invent because in some ways it’s favored independent inventors and small entities. It didn’t put them at as much of a disadvantage compared to larger corporations or universities who were very well versed in the patenting system.

Evidence continues to indicate we are moving from an individual and business perspective to a global environment, global competition, sourcing of manufacturing. Do you see the U.S. continuing to lead– and I think the statistics bear this — filing more patents than any other of the major offices in the world. Do you see that continuing in as globalization continues to grow around us, number one, and two is, do you then think that the strengthening of the ability to secure and protect your patent needs to be strengthened, and needs to continue to be strong because we are now, more than ever, the idea country behind so many new things?

It’s very well to have strong patents; however, if other countries in the world aren’t respecting those patent rights then I think you’re going to see the value of those not be as strong as they could.

MALANDRO: Absolutely, I think that we’ll continue to maintain a leadership position in this. I think one of the reasons is because the federal government, taxpayers, think that innovation and an innovation-based economy are important. I can tell you from the side of the Pittsburgh perspective that what you had here at one time was a manufacturing economy is more and more changing to a technology based economy and most technology based businesses are founded in some sort of intellectual property protection. So I think you’ll see the U.S. continuing in this innovation and I think you’ll see that as well because of the people we educate. We educate people from all over the world, some of whom stay, some of whom leave but they’re all contributing to this body of knowledge that exists here in the U.S. that, and I’m fairly confident, will keep us in leadership position. Part of the issue is in a global economy, number one the expense associated with protecting things around the world but also the respect of other emerging countries around the world for intellectual property rights. It’s very well to have issued patents. It’s very well to have strong patents; however, if other countries in the world aren’t respecting those patent rights then I think you’re going to see the value of those not be as strong as they could. So emerging nations such as China, I think they’re really thinking about how they can take seriously respect for other intellectual property rights because as generators of intellectual property themselves they’re going to want people to respect their idea. And so when you don’t participate in the innovation, when you don’t have a lot of patents, when you don’t have a lot of idea and technology based industries exploiting other peoples IP illegally isn’t an issue. However, when you now are participating in this global economy, when you’re participating in innovation you have a vested interest to say, “Yeah, yeah, I’m going to respect your patent because I need you to respect mine.” And that’s what the value of our business is based upon and that’s what the value of our technology based economy is based on. So I think the more people who participate, that their weigh-in is actually a good thing because they’ll be participating and wanting to play in the same roles because the valuation is no longer nation specific, the valuation is now at the higher level.

And our U.S. patent system is known to be the, at this point, the strongest and the most respected in the world. Do you agree with that?
MALANDRO: Yes, I would say so but I would say that from what Chiara was saying too it’s the most predictable. I think in the U.S. you have a clear path from point A to point B. I think these legislation, if they got through, are trying to hopefully streamline that but also breaking value, some of the value that exists in other parts of the world and in patent law that exists in other parts of the world. So I don’t think that the U.S. is in a vacuum and arbitrarily do things without looking at what the impact is in other parts of the world. So some harmonization of patent law I think is important.

Chiara?
ORSINI: You know what I would agree with what Marc said and just emphasized that although the U.S. is currently the leader and probably has the strongest patent law system, I think that that edge is going to diminish as you go forward. I think you’re going to see other countries further develop their system. I think you’re going to see applicants in other countries filing more and more applications and then there is going to be more of a group of leaders who are working together to ensure that everyone’s patents are afforded the appropriate protection and given the due amount of strength across different countries.

Okay. I thank you very much for your time and input.
MALANDRO: Thank you very much, John.

Comment from Dean Oestreich

Dean Oestreich is chairman of Pioneer Hi-Bred and vice president of DuPont
… these proposed changes would diminish the innovation that lies at the very heart of agriculture production. Food production is a science as old as mankind, but the science is advancing rapidly. Because of dramatic advances in technology, American farmers have been able to bring crops to the global marketplace that once would have been decimated by pests or adverse weather conditions. Through technology, grain production, has increased sharply in recent decades.

Innovation and invention take time and resources. To bring a seed variety from the lab to the farm typically takes an organization like Pioneer nearly a decade and millions of dollars in research and development. The current patent system helps make that kind of commitment worthwhile because once an inventor is granted a patent, he or she has the security of knowing it cannot be frivolously overturned or ignored.

The proposed legislation would establish a new administrative procedure that significantly lowers the standard for challenging the patent, and allows a challenge for an indefinite period.

Improvements to the patent system are needed and we are wiling to work with lawmakers to ensure our nation’s patent system is improved not undermined.

Oestreich, Dean. “Nurture agriculture success: Protect patent rights.” Des Moines Register 28 Mar. 2008

Comment from Uma Chowdhry

Dr. Uma Chowdhry is senior vice president and chief science and technology officer for Dupont.

Dupont has been awarded more than 34, 000 U.S. patents. This reflects an enormous R&D investment—one that that the U.S. patent system has helped to protect. The current patent system makes that kind of commitment worthwhile. The proposed legislation would favor patent infringers over the very inventors who invest in creating new technologies. We believe the proposed changes would only encourage patent infringement and harm U.S. innovations.

Chowdhry, Uma. “Patent Rights Favor Job Creation.” Wilmington News Journal, 22 Mar. 2008