Prior User Rights Study Report to Congress - America Invents Act

eflects different dimensions of populations, trade, and domestic economies. This sample set from theEuropean Union includes: Denmark, France, Germany, and the United Kingdom.Eight of twenty-nine public comments contained a discussion of particular experiences with prioruser right regimes in foreign jurisdictions. Four of the eight were from entities based in other countries,including two from Australia, 37 one from New Zealand, 38 and one from Germany. 39 Additionally, onecomment was from an international organization of patent practitioners. 40 Each of these submissionsexpressed the belief that prior user rights are important to achieving an equitable balance of interests,particularly from the perspective of a first-to-file system, though the degree of actual experience detailedin these submissions in terms of asserting or objecting to prior user rights varied substantially. Two of thecomments, for instance, noted that those entities and/or their members had very little or no practicalexperience. 41 The other three comments, however, indicated that although there may be little litigation onprior user rights in certain jurisdictions, clients are counseled with some regularity on their applicability inparticular situations. 42The remaining three of the eight comments were submitted by U.S.-based entities—two bycompanies representing different technology sectors 43 and the other from an organization representing a37 See generally Comments from Telstra Corp., to USPTO, Prior User Rights (Nov. 8, 2011) [hereinafter“Comments of Telstra Corp.”], http://www.uspto.gov/aia_implementation/pur-2011nov08-telstra_corp.pdf; andComments from David Tadgell, Convenor for the International Patents Committee, Institute of Patent and TradeMark Attorneys, to the USPTO, Comments on the Study of Prior User Rights (Nov. 10, 2011) [hereinafter“Comments of Inst. of Patent and Trade Mark Attorneys of Australia”], http://www.uspto.gov/aia_implementation/pur-2011nov10-ipta.pdf.38 See generally Comments from Tim Jackson, President, New Zealand Inst. of Patent Attys., Inc., to David Kapposet al., Undersecretary Dept. of Comm. for Intell’l Prop., and Director of the USPTO (Nov. 9, 2011) [hereinafter“Comments of New Zealand Inst. of Patent Attys., Inc.”], http://www.uspto.gov/aia_implementation/pur-2011nov09-nzipa_inc.pdf.39 Comments from Stephan Freischam, European Patent Attorney, Patentanwaelte Freischem, to Elizabeth Shaw, IPResearch Specialist Supervisor, USPTO, Office of Policy and External Affairs, Prior User Rights (Nov. 8, 2011)[hereinafter “Comments of Freischem”], http://www.uspto.gov/aia_implementation/pur-2011-stephan_freischem.pdf.40 Comments from the International Federation of Intell. Prop. Attorneys, to the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office(Nov. 16, 2011) [hereinafter “Comments from FICPI”], http://www.uspto.gov/aia_implementation/pur-2011nov16-ficpi.pdf.41 Comments of Telstra Corp., supra note 37, at 1, and Comments of New Zealand Inst. of Patent Attys., Inc., supranote 38, at 1.42 Comments of Inst. of Patent and Trade Mark Attorneys of Australia, supra note 37, at 2; Comments of Freischem,supra note 39, at 2; and Comments of FICPI, supra note 40, at 2.43 Comments from Jason Albert, Associate General Counsel for Intell. Prop. Policy & Strategy, Microsoft Corp., toUSPTO, Comments of Microsoft Corp. (Nov. 8, 2011) [hereinafter “Comments of Microsoft Corp.”],http://www.uspto.gov/aia_implementation/pur-2011nov08-microsoft_corporation.pdf; and Comments from LeahTaylor, Vice-President for Intell’l Prop., Hospira Inc., to Elizabeth Shaw, IP Research Specialist Supervisor,USPTO, Office of Policy and External Affairs, Prior User Rights (Nov. 8, 2011) [hereinafter “Comments ofHospira, Inc.”], http://www.uspto.gov/aia_implementation/pur-2011nov08-hospira_inc.pdf (“a global specialtypharmaceutical and medication delivery company”).11