Patent Reform Efforts Target "False Marking" Lawsuits and Tax Inventions
H.R. 243 ("Patent Lawsuit Reform Act of 2011") 
Representative Robert Latta (R-OH) (right) introduced the Patent Lawsuit Reform Act of 2011 in the House of Representatives on January 7, 2011. The bill was referred to the House Judiciary Committee, Subcommittee on Intellectual Property, Competition and the Internet, on February 7, 2011.
Latta's measure is apparently aimed at curtailing the increase in the number of "false marking" lawsuits, which saw a sharp uptick in 2010. False marking is governed by 35 U.S.C. 292, which states that "Whoever marks upon, or affixes to, or uses in advertising in connection with any unpatented article the word "patent" or any word or number importing the same is patented, for the purpose of deceiving the public; or Whoever marks upon, or affixes to, or uses in advertising in connection with any article the words "patent applied for," "patent pending," or any word importing that an application for patent has been made, when no application for patent has been made, or if made, is not pending, for the purpose of deceiving the public - Shall be fined not more than $500 for every such offense."
Latta's bill would make the $500 fine apply to all of a defendant's falsely marked articles, rather than each article as a separate offense. His bill would change the language of 292 to state "(b) A person who has suffered a competitive injury as a result of a violation of this section [35 USC 292] may bring a civil action in the appropriate district court of the United States against the person violating this section for recovery of not more than $500 in damages to compensate for the injury."
S.139 ("Equal Access to Tax Planning Act")
Senator Max Baucus (D-MT) (right) introduced S.139, the Equal Access to Tax Planning Act of 2011, on January 25, 2011. The bill was referred to the Senate Judiciary Committee the same day. The text of the bill is apparently directed at preventing the patenting of any methods for reducing, avoiding, or deferring tax liabilities:
"In General- For purposes of evaluating an invention under section 102 or 103 of title 35, United States Code, any strategy for reducing, avoiding, or deferring tax liability, whether known or unknown at the time of the invention or application for patent, shall be deemed insufficient to differentiate a claimed invention from the prior art."
UPDATE: S.23 ("Patent Reform Act of 2011")
The Senate's version of Patent Reform, S.23, was reported out of the Judiciary Committee with a few amendments, on February 3, 2011, and placed on the full Senate Legislative Calendar the same day. The date the bill will be debated by the entire Senate has apparently not been determined.
[1](2).gif){kind=small}
