Sen. Thillis on behalf of the chair, i will turn to our Witness Panel productions. Our first witness is professor of law at the Antonin Scalia school of law at george mason university. He has published extensively on ip law. Next, mark dean, cofounder of a medical device incubator. Mr. Dean is a coinventor on two hundred 50 issued and pending u. S. Patents. Then we have david jones, executive director of a coalition of innovative hightechnology Companies Like google, intel, microsoft and adobe. Then we will hear from david cap. He is director of the u. S. Patent and trademark office. If you all will stand very briefly so we can swear you in. Do you swear and affirm that the testimony you are about to give will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth . Saint thank you all. You may be seated. Thank you Ranking Member tills and members of the subcommittee. In q4 this opportunity to speak with you today about the pressing need for reform of section 1 and why congress should pass01 the patent eligibility restoration. Patent eligibility doctrine was converted into something never before seen coming turning what the Supreme Court once rightly called a threshold into a new requirement to invalidate patents at rates never before seen in the 234 years since the first patent act of 1790. An empirical study found that Court Decisions applying section 101 jumped 730 . Between 2014 and 2019, mr. Socks found a 1056 increase in the number of ineligible claims and a 914 increase in eligible patents. These numbers are striking. A revolution in u. S. Patent law in ways never seen by inventors or lawyers. These unprecedented high rates of use of section 101 to invalidate patents have created a quagmire for american innovators. This has at best created uncertainty for inventors. At worst, it is predictable but only in the knowledge that innovations will be found ineligible for patent protection, including health care treatments for cancer and diabetes and cuttingedge information. The alice mayo inquiry is regularly applied in most patent lawsuits. Courts are invalidating patents long protected by the system. Judges have concluded that an invention on a manufacturing process for making an automobile axle is ineligible for patent protection but theres more. Even remote controlled Garage Door Openers have been deemed not inventors. I have explained in many cases that is the same analysis were applied to the historical patents confirmed as valid by the u. S. Supreme court, such as the telegraph or the telephone, the conclusion would be that there patents were invalid. This is not hyperbole. The oil drilling task that was invalidated as an abstract idea the patent claim on industrial profits for making rubber that the Supreme Court affirmed as valid in 1981. Courts now say that this industrial process patent is an abstract idea and is excluded from the patent system. When Supreme Court decisions can no longer be relied on as guiding Legal Process legal precedent, this creates uncertainty. This shows innovation and undermines the function of the patent system. The United States has long been a world leader in promoting new innovation with its Gold Standard patent system. When other countries hesitated, the United States forged ahead and secured reliable and effective Property Rights in the growing innovation economy. Today is a special anniversary, the anniversary of steves steve was receiving his patent for the first programmable computer, sold to steve jobs. Under the alice mayor inquiry, that patent would likely be invalidated today, as would many others in the computer and biotech revolutions that created massive Economic Growth and Higher Standards of living. Today, the u. S. Is close to the doors to his patent system for all innovators. The Supreme Court created this problem with the alice mayo inquiry. Quarks courts have been unwilling to fix it. It now falls on congress to reform the patent system. This was an important step in returning the u. S. To its old system. Sen. Tillis mr. Dean . Mr. Dean i am an operating partner at light stone ventures, a firm that invests in biotech and meditech companies. I am also a cofounder of an incubator in silicon valley. I cap started 20 medical Device Companies and hold patents. I would guess that many in this room have benefited of the lifesaving technologies. You will hear me mention patients a lot during this hearing. It feels everything that we do. Our team at the foundry was responsible for breakthroughs that help avoid major surgery. We also introduced a device that allow doctors to treat strokes. This restoration of a fuller lives would not be possible without patents. I know patent law is complex. I bring the perspective of an inventor, entrepreneur, and investor. Wearing those hats, one is forced to make difficult decisions that will consume years of our lives. We evaluate a number of inputs when making these decisions. We need to be reasonably certain that the sands will work. We need a Strong Research leadership team. We need to understand the market and to know that our inventions can be protected by patents. On this last point, i believe the u. S. Is failing many inventors and startups. Consider what we are facing. Nearly all the top patent officials of the u. S. Government and all active judges on the federal circuit confusion regarding patent eligibility. If these experts are confused, imagine the uncertainty that this is creating for the researchers and the investors who support us. This uncertainty is costing us curious, treatments, economic both and potentially lights. An example a number of companies are looking into it i tracking to diagnose autism, traumatic brain interest injury, and depression. I spoke to some colleagues. Just last week, one received a oneonone rejection, claiming that i tracking can be done by the human. I ensure that this is not the case. Imagine you are a cushion staring into the eyes of a veteran potentially suffering from ptsd. You must watch their facial expressions and physiological reactions while watching a triggering video. You must process that information in your brain and issue a diagnosis in realtime. Could anyone in this room do that . I could not. But current passive losses that we could. The system being developed to do what we cannot is unpatenta ble. And nudge and being able to perform these diagnoses imagine being able to perform these diagnoses thousands of miles away. This is the problem we are solving for. We need to consider where the u. S. Can and must lead by personalized medicine, ai assistant therapeutics, ai assistant diagnostics, and other things that will not be addressed if innovations cannot be patented. You cannot invest a decade of your life and a quarter of a billion dollars on an invention you cannot protect. I see pera not only addressing the current problem but unlocking future opportunities. My colleagues and i have made it our lives work to bring inventions into the lives of patients. We fight complex physiology, technological innovations, investment dollars. We fight to satisfy the fda and insurance companies. It seems that with alice mayo, we are also fighting the u. S. Patent system. Our patent system i urge you to pass this so our patent system can support lifechanging breakthroughs. Sen. Tillis mr. Jones . Mr. Jones thank you. I appreciate this opportunity to support pera. My name is david jones, executive and vector investor the rector of the hightech Innovators Alliance for critical technologies. Each member collectively invests more than 100 65 billion in r d each year. They provide 1. 3 million jobs, including some of the top 20 recipients of u. S. Patents. Today i will focus on three points. One, reforms necessary. Two, why we consider pera to be problematic. Number three, what alternative solutions might be considered. Section one 01 reforms are unnecessary because of current law. That is in our view what is taking place and what the evidence suggests. A 2020 study by the u. S. Eligibility rejection rates and the variability are lowered now than before alice. If you are a patent applicant, life got better since alice then before, which i know seems counterintuitive. Similarly, Quality Metrics determinations are compliant 98. 3 . By way of comparison, section 103 has an error rate that is four times higher. The application of 101 is the most accurate of any of the statutory moments. Consistency and predictability, a recent academic study on eligibility decisions for the past decade found that under one of the most wellestablished metrics for measuring the predictability of the law, section 101 proved more protectable than areas of cost law. Turning to my second point, hda is concerned about the same things i touched on. We are worried that pera could make all human activity patent eligible. We are worried about the standards. One of the most important standards is the notion of cannot practically be performed without the use of a manufacture. That sort of practicality test is unlikely to be any more certain than the abstractions that we have now. We could debate that, but that is my opinion. I think it would be problematic. The test is entirely unprecedented. No one at this point knows how it would be applied or has any experience in applying it believes it would lead to predictable outcomes. To extend eligibility to any process. Under pera, the process would normally be considered as a practical matter to require manufacture. It would be eligible. We also worry it could be gained. Ga if you practice claims, you are necessarily using a computer. If notmed. , you are not actually performing the process. I will spare the two examples of football players. I remain committed that they would be patent eligible. The show the limits that this could go to if everything in between we were concerned about. In terms of proposed alternatives, i could imagine two ways forward, one would be a more targeted approach where we look and see where are the will problems and then fill in any of those gaps with sui geeris protections. The u. S. Has done it including for things like semiconductor masks. The other way that i would propose looking at this is adopting a standard that is exclusively tethered to an advance in technology. That is what my members care about, that every patent reflects an advance in technology. It is simple in that respect. Those are the two alternatives that at least i can see. I do not know what my members would say. I could see those being useful going forward. Thanks for the opportunity to testify. I look forward to any questions. Sen. Tillis director . Good afternoon chairman coons , raking member telus, numbers of the seventh telus, Ranking Members of the subcommittee. Im going to go totally off script and just speak a bit about stepping back. First of all, on the question of whether the law is broken and whether it is still broken and whether various courts are doing a better job of interpreting it, you do not have to go back any further than just the last month to find yet another agreed just District Court decision. This is in the bio case. In a situation where the invention is not at all abstract, does not preempt any part of science. It results from many hundreds of billions of dollars of r d. I do not fault the District Court. They are doing the best they can found the invention ineligible under section 101. So what does that mean . I dont know what they will do without appeal, ib they will refer to recent history, but now you got a company that has no access to funding because it has no profit opportunity in the future to continue with bringing the product to market. You got a message thats been sent that says dont invest any in this whole area of rnd to all companies in the field, and you got exactly what we dont want in this country, which is investment in innovation, effort and dollars moving away from important areas of american innovation. So if you want to know whether the system is broken, it clearly is, it clearly still is. The second thing i would mention, having to having listened to all the other witnesses so far is that there is a lot of agreement, a lot of Common Ground among most of the witnesses. Weve got a few witnesses who have a very different point of view, but mr. Chairman and mr. Ranking member, you are aware and your staff is aware that over a period of about five years now, a number of spent an enormous amount of energy working with you and your staff. The detractors have offered absolutely nothing to a step forward. As you mention, senator tillis, it is time for folks who have issues to actually propose something, rather than just denying that there is a huge problem, which there clearly is. So that would be my second point. My third point would be that pera does represent, despite any histrionics, a very practical, sensible approach, yet by definition, as required, includes some words that are words of principal and words that require some court interpretation. But, look, or judges in this country are very competent, they are very studious, they know how to interpret interpret words like practical. They have hundreds of years of experience doing that, and i have absolutely no doubt that they quickly will be able to make the interpretations on top of pera that are needed. One thing i would like to mention before moving on to questions is that any settling of federal circuit appeals or data in Academic Studies that shows that recently the federal circuit is not using the District Courts as much is it once did in this regard, its really just a statement about a couple of things that have nothing to do with whether the current law 101 is really consistent and predictable, or whether it is correct. Two different, very important issues in their own right, but the federal circuit reversal rate has to do with its deference, court deference, and what it has to do with his District Courts that have figured out and District Courts do this, and nothing against District Courts, its the right thing. They figured how to judgment proof or reversal proof their decisions. The federal circuit, which has no basis to reverse and is dealing with complete mess of law does not reverse. So thank you for inviting me to be here and i look forward to the questions. Thank you to all the witnesses on the second panel. At the risk of reopening a now welltraveled ground, if you could just illustrate with an example acclaim currently ineligible that would be eligible under pera, compared to a claim that would be ineligible both under pera and current law. It was argued that football plays and marriage proposals would be ineligible. Of course not. The essence of pera is to provide in this area that an ineligible process, a proposal, for example, does not become eligible because you add, put a ring on someones finger. Of football dancing the end zone does not become eligible because you add the spike of football at the end of it. That is the language that was included in the legislation that very clearly says that acclaim claim does not become eligible unless there is no practical way to perform it without the use of a article of manufacture. In both those cases, there is a practical way to perform the invention, if it were an invention. So i reject the notion that these silly claims would become eligible. I also hope that we can step back a little bit and recognize that its absolutely terrible policy to guide our patent laws, something that is very serious to the health and future of our country, by reducing our discussion too trivial, silly examples. We should solve for the real issues involving our patent laws, which are claims like the ones going to truck axles and biomedical innovations. My first part of the question, an example of a claim currently ineligible that would be eligible under pera. You can go back to some of the easy ones, some of the Supreme Court decisions that lead us to where we are now. So the claim in alice likely would become eligible. It is a claim involving a computer implemented financial machination, i will call it, that has to happen in essentially real time that is highly integrated into a computer that could not practically be performed without a computer. So it depends on the facts, the alice case would likely be eligible. Not necessarily patentable, of course, giving you another example, the bilski Supreme Court decision decided ineligible, likely would still be ineligible. The reason there, in that case, the plaintiff actually stipulated that no computer was required to perform the invention. So they went right down the path of pera and said, look, this claim could be implemented entirely by human beings and therefore ineligible. You testified pera would clarify law by drawing clear lines for what is eligible and not eligible. How would this help the companies in which you invest . When i as an entrepreneur decide what to pursue, we have to weigh out the totality of the risks and the uncertainties. As i mentioned, theres a number of different areas that we have two way that out. When i look back in time prior to these decisions, we kind of knew how to play the game. We kind of understood what was eligible and in then what are other obligations work. With that as an additional area of uncertainty and certain of the most exciting, cutting edge areas of technology we want to go into, we just wont go into them. That will be another uncertainty we can add on top of the clinical and the financial and everything else. We can certainly decide to stay to a more traditional, more mechanically obvious types of solutions and invest our time there. That would open up this area of technology, reduce that particular uncertainty and allow us to move forward. You identified more than 1300 inventions that were found eligible in china but not in the United States. Do you have any sense for how those inventions might fare under pera and what effect that would have on our country and our economy . Thank you for your question and for raising that, which i did not talk about, although i identified it in written testimony. This is based upon a data set that was collected by robert sachsen dave campos, Patent Applications that had been submitted, 17,000 Patent Applications. So they spent a lot of time on this. It identified of those 17,000, 1300 Patent Applications between 2014 and ultimately 2019 that had never faced an initial or final rejection based on 101, and then were abandoned by the patent applicant. This is very significant because what makes those 1300 applicants significant is, you mentioned these patent inventions were issued in china and america. The clear signal is the United States is closing its doors to cutting edge innovation. A lot of these Patent Applications were on Health Care Discoveries and cancer treatments, diagnostic treatments, treatments of diabetes, Breast Cancer treatments and other types of lifesaving inventions. A question to you and mr. Johns. You testified the 2019 revised guidelines brought some stability and uncertainty back to the examination. Obviously that is not statutory. Are there parts of that guidance that would be helpful for us to be adopting here . Pera does adopt some aspects of the very important 20 patent eligibility guidelines that were directed by uspto. Im glad you asked that question because the 2020 study is based on the adoption of the 2019 patent eligibility guidelines, which show you that reform is possible and that reform should happen because it can have a positive effect. One of the important aspects of the patent eligibility guidelines is it requires examiners to distinguish between 101, 102, 10 39 obvious, and 112, disclosure requirements, and it requires them to do them in order and to have an explicit reason if they Say Something is justified that is actually what is occurring and continues to occur in most courts. Mr. Chair, i propose to my wife in the canned good section of a Grocery Store in chattanooga. I would not recommend doing that or patenting it. There is no response to that comment that you just made. But thank you. I want to thank you all, and the first panel, too, for the great hearing. Here in tennessee, we have a lot of those health care patent holders, people who work in autos, some of the echo tech type engines, batteries that we are seeing, also music. When youre talking about Music Production equipment and amplifiers and mics for concerts and road tours, weve got a lot of patent holders. I jokingly but seriously, a part of seriousness to say i cant go to the mailbox without seeing somebody that has some kind of patent that they are working on. But indeed, one of the things i talk about a lot is china. We hear a lot about how china has led with Patent Applications. I think it was in 21 they had 1. 50 9 million Patent Applications. And the other part that we hear about is the ptab system to come at us. And our innovators, and our patent holders, and they are trying to leverage that and then invalidate our patents many times. So mr. Campbells, i want to come to you, and you touched on this a little bit in your opening remarks, but talk for just a moment about how better patent protection will allow us to more effectively compete globally and hold on to those patents, and then the other thing is, when we look at the loss of rnd opportunities that have existed because of this, i think its kind of a 12 punch on a lot of our innovators, and id like for you to bring that into your remarks also. Thank you, senator blackburn, and great question. So starting with competing globally, what pera is about is encouraging innovation and encouraging investment in the u. S. , by way of the u. S. Once again having the strongest, most reliable, most effective patent system, which we no longer have because of the eligibility mess that weve been dealing with. So is it sent pera is essentially about answering your question about enabling innovators in tennessee to be confident that they can put their talents, that is their innovation, and there treasure, that is their economics, to work to, in the u. S. , rather than have to take them to europe or china where the very same innovations that are not now eligible for patenting in the u. S. Are 100 eligible. So coming to the second part of your question, any simple i had to deal with that involved an innovator in tennessee, actually, and this started with a client in senator tilliss state, the great state of carolina, that called us for advice about investing in a company in tennessee, a small, Startup Company that could be that was creating the ability to retrofit automobiles that didnt have selfdriving capabilities with selfdriving capabilities. It sounds amazing, this is lifesaving technology, its exactly the kind of thing we want to develop in the u. S. , highly based on software. When i looked at the patent involved, i had to conclude that were very vulnerable under section 101. In other words, they were likely to be found ineligible. So i advised my client from north carolina, invest in that Tennessee Company if you love their management, their trade secrets, but dont invest on the basis of their patent eligibility. I want to stay with that on software because this affects a lot of the healthcare industry. One thing weve also found out is it has an impact on quantum. In august, i did a quantum roundtable with some of our innovators. And this situation came up, because there seems to be an ambiguity around that. So when we talk about this bill and the impact that could have, and really leading to some specificity, give me just a couple of seconds on that. Quantum computing is obviously a transformational technology. Its all about taking an entirely new way of computing and applying them to the most abstract and difficult of problems, like artificial intelligence, etc. Thats exactly the kind of innovation that paradoxically and so unfortunately gets found ineligible under current law, because it is deemed to be too abstract. But under pera, quantum computing will all be entirely eligible. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Thank you, mr. Chair. I appreciate you convening this important hearing. I have some followup with the witnesses in the first panel of questions, but thank you to the witnesses for the extensive testimony that you have all submitted. The understatement of the day is going to be the suggestion this is a complicated and complex issue. I think it would be helpful to not just for members of the committee, but the public that will be watching from home. I want to ask a couple of questions on particular impact of consumers. You both described very different outcomes for consumers and innovation about pera, should it become law. Mr. Jones, your members are those in hightech, and mr. Dean, you are approaching this from venture capital. So the question is actually for both of you. What do you predict would be the impact of pera on consumers, and can you comment on your areas of senator, thanks for the question. The impact of pera on consumers, one area to pick is in diagnostics and personal medicine. If you look at the future of personalized medicine and diagnostics in general, we know that it is confused under todays guidance. That should be cleared up a lot by pera. But the impact on the consumer, one of my Business Associates had a condition where it couldve been one of five relatively rigorous therapies they wouldve had to go through, and because of some personalized medicine testing, they were able to rightfully decide they didnt have to shotgun and maybe go through four or five of those therapeutic regimens. I know a number of other technologies, a lot of it is biotech engine on mx. Type of testing, but on the medical side we are seeing a lot of that. So this ability to treat better and at lower cost is a real benefit. The comment on the disagreement you have with this is i think we have very different industries, and i think you can legitimately disagree about some impacts between relatively different industries. Frankly, a lot of the arguments dip into areas that im not an expert on. Before i apparently agree with what he said i just like to say, i would love to see him describe how you can run an offensive football play without a football. Im not a football guy, but as i understand it, is not just impractical, its impossible. I actually agree with a lot of what mr. Dean just said. One area that i covered in my testimony four years ago, one area indicates a patent is really, really hard to get, one area negatively r d affecting is in diagnostics. Everywhere else is doing pretty well. I actually agree with what my new friend mark said. I think huge differences within that narrow subject matter you have less than a minute left. Just a quick comment on consumer impact. Consumer impact is very complicated, what but we believe it would drive up costs, you would have higher prices just in general. In your testimony you have categories that your concerns would be ineligible should pera become law. In the interest of the folks watching at home, can you provide a single, concrete, not hypothetical, real example of a patent that would was deemed ineligible that pera would make eligible . I can provide several, but the easiest one to point to is the claim that is reproduced in director campos testimony. We disagree disagree completely on how the bill would be read. Basically the claim as i remember it is more or less using automated electronic messages at different prices, and from the answer, how many people take those offers, i dont see how would be practically possible to send out electronic messages to digital devices without using a machine. I can do that without a machine. I dont know if others can. Director campos might feel differently but that it would still somehow be ineligible under pera, but im confident it would be eligible. Thank you very much. You mentioned i believe in your opening testimony, you are using an example of technology tracking eye movements. I think it had to do with either pts or tbi. I think you would disagree, but can you go back again and talk about why you think that that patent would be found ineligible . Thats a very simple answer, because it just was. Could you go back, i followed it fairly closely. There was a whole area of technology thats coming out on the medical diagnostic side that choosing various types of eye tracking and using other physiologic parameters to do tracking, which could be done directly, locally, on a computer with information there, and these systems require very complex, High Resolution cameras to do this tracking and measuring many other physiologic signals. They are comparing databases, and eyes as i was preparing that thought, its probably an area where we would be seeing trouble, i reached out to a few of my colleagues. The response i got back on thursday last week was, just received a 101 notice that we are following on this tracking system is ineligible. Do you think that is a reasonable outcome, mr. Jones . It doesnt sound reasonable, does it . My question, and we discussed this a little bit before the hearing, i looked at the outside counsel statement that was reproduced in the testimony, and the outside counsel said being ejected is an abstract idea. I would note that pera, one of the exclusions under pera is, could you do it entirely in the human mind . If examiners are reading current law that way pera, exclusively reproduced in pera, it may have exactly the same problem per reproduced in pera. That is subject to misinterpretation. I would argue that it should be eligible, but it is not clear that is the case. My big concern, again, is that the literal language of pera seems to, a, not necessarily help cases i am actually sympathetic to, but b, extend eligibility to things that in my view and many peoples views, just shouldnt be eligible. If you believe that the language is still ambiguous, i think we just get in there and fix it. Just agree theres a fundamental they seem like they should be ruled eligible. You can disagree with the language, we can work on tightening that up. I will tell you that i believe the Carolina Panthers ran several offensive plays in this season without having the ball in their hands, as evidenced by their record. What i worry about, not knowing what innovation we are missing is a lot like trying to figure out or call the roll by having people who are absent raise their hand. I think mr. Deen has been successful, he is probably annoyed with that denial, but he is going to move on and innovate another win and hopefully prevail on that one. The young mr. Deens who are trying to get started, we have barriers to that innovation today, maybe even those who will someday challenge mr. Deen in his space. Do you agree that we are missing an opportunity, and do you have any sense of how profound the barrier because of uncertainty it is to young innovators getting into the space . Senator, that is an excellent question. One of the hallmarks of the u. S. Patent system, is to define patent as Property Rights. We were the first country to thoroughly do this. Once you get a patent and Property Rights and go into the market with the, you can use it for retro capital financing, like early innovators like Charles Goodyear did. It gave birth to the franchise business model. In this respect, reliable and effective patent right serve the same function as reliable and effective Property Rights in all areas of the economy. When you tell people, when you spend time investing in this, whether you are a farmer, industrialist, or inventor, you can take that into the marketplace and commercialize it and get it in the hands of consumers. That goes to the question of how consumers benefit from this. That is what drives successful innovation economies and that has been the entire history of the United States. The Industrial Revolution shifted to the United States because of our patent system. The biopharmaceutical revolution which began in germany shifted to the United States in the 20th century because of our patent system. By the end of the 20 century, we are not finishing other peoples revolution, we are starting them. Even the mobile revolution, where we are carrying supercomputers in our pocket and we share data on. Our smartphones, that is the most patent centric sector of the entire economy and we buy these devices for hundreds of dollars that are literally supercomputers. When you deny these types of protections to innovators and you create uncertainty, what you create is the lack of investment , the lack of willingness to actually go forward and create these new innovations. It goes to an earlier point that was made in the prior panel about how people thought the sky would fall after the alice mayo decisions. The problem here is that a lot of the time horizons on the r d processes are measured in years, if not decades. The average is 1015 years between the initial discovery of a new molecule and the first sale of appeal to a patient. So we are waiting to see in the immediate years after a decision the impacts, but what we will see is in the followon years, the lack of new innovations in medical discoveries and the lack of new high tech innovations. Any final thoughts . Thank you, senator tillis. Coming back to a couple of things briefly, this consumer question, it really boils down to creators of innovation versus consumers of innovation, right . Creators versus recipients or implementers of innovation. If you are thinking of a consumer as a party that is taking innovation from another and implementing it, of course you want prices to be as low as possible. In the shortterm, taking intellectual Property Rights away or diminishing intellectual Property Rights certainly will drive prices down, at the intellectual property in a patent system has never been about what is now, it is about what is next. Its about protecting innovation so that investment will occur for the future and consumers will benefit in the future. Thats where the issue of consumer advantage needs to be put, i think, into a broader perspective. Ultimately, the innovation that is not created because the patent system isnt there to incent or reward it is the innovation you can get access no matter how much you are willing to pay. The last thing i would say is, i really do believe that youve put together an excellent piece of legislation here. Its practical, its balance, he takes into account the legitimate interests of those who are concerned. We are all concerned about not having overbroad patents. Pera takes those into account. If there are remaining points of concern over individual words or disagreements about has some particular play might get analyzed, thats a Perfect Place for those who are concerned to now im a finally, come to the table and make their specific suggestions in order to improve the legislation. Apparently there was actual redline language, i want to put that on the record. Ive been involved with this for the past five years and have suggested all sorts of things that havent been adopted. And thats neither here nor there, but i just wanted to put it out there. We have come forward with language, we have come forward with specific legislative language and weve spent a lot of time on this. So if there is some suggestion that we are not at the table, that we are not providing suggestions, please talk to your staff, because they are probably very sick of hearing my ideas about how to do this. Two last questions, if i might. A lot of witnesses have said the current eligibility law is unworkable. 40 of the 45 witnesses four years ago said it was unworkable, that it was a mess. Not Everyone Needs to act. Are there some stakeholders who benefit from the lack of clarity in the current deal . Certainly some stakeholders would benefit, with Business Models where they dont create innovation, but they were lower on innovation that requires him not to protect longterm r d investment. They get immediate access to inventions that are no longer protected as Property Rights. So there are of course commercial interests, very strong, large commercial interest that actually do benefit from this state of affairs. But the primary drivers of innovation, the drivers of the mobile revolution, 5g and 4g, require patents to license those innovations in the marketplace, just as the invaders did, Thomas Edison and samuel morse and many others in the 19th century. I appreciate the input of everyone who has come to the table and participated and testified. Some stakeholders have said that pera doesnt define key terms substantially and practically and that depending on the meaning it may be unreasonably expanded or contracted. Do you share those concerns . How do you think courts will handle language like practically or substantially . No, i dont have the same concerns. I think this is zach leave the kind of language that judges are extremely well suited to interpret. You dont want the legislation to be so tied down that there is no flexibility for judges to use judgment, and using words like practical and substantial are very much designed to enable judges to build caselaw around the statute over a period of time, as they have in many other places and specifically patent laws. But i have absolutely no doubt that judges looking at pera in its totality will do a great job over a short period in putting the additional nuance to those specific words as needed. Thank you to all of the witnesses on our two panels. My thanks to Ranking Member tillis and his staff for being great partners. I think todays hearing was imported to show both the public and policymakers the Supreme Courts patent eligibility test is currently unworkable and has created uncertainty for innovators. I think it reinforces why the patent eligibility and restoration act is needed to restore clarity, liability and predictability to our u. S. Patent system. Any member of this committee who wants to submit additional questions for the record, for the witnesses, must do so by 5 00 p. M. One week from today on january 30. Thanks to all those who participated. This hearing is adjourned. [captions Copyright National cable satellite corp. 2024] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. Visit ncicap. Org]