WEBVTT 00:00:00.000 --> 00:00:09.430 We now recognize the gentleman from Kentucky, Mr. Massie, for 5 minutes. Well, the last member of the administration that I was very nice to 00:00:09.440 --> 00:00:19.430 was Kristi Noem, and she was uh removed 48 hours later, but at that risk, uh I want to thank you for the great job that you're doing. 00:00:19.440 --> 00:00:29.350 Uh I'd like your analogy of intellectual property to currency, but um let's don't compare the Central Bank to the Patent Office because some 00:00:29.360 --> 00:00:39.150 of the founders all of the founders were unanimous in in understanding that the patent and copyrights were the foundation that would allow our country to grow, 00:00:39.160 --> 00:00:49.030 and I appreciate you doing that, but the It is an appropriate analogy because of intellectual property to currency because we've had a crisis in our 00:00:49.040 --> 00:00:58.870 currency [clears throat] for the last decade, I believe, of intellectual property. If your currency is called into doubt, if the Federal Reserve notes in your wallet, when you 00:00:58.880 --> 00:01:07.310 present them, even though they were issued by the government, if they're called into question when you try to use that currency, you have a problem. And 00:01:07.320 --> 00:01:16.470 that's the way it's been with patents. The you know, the PTAB ostensibly was created to make it easier to adjudicate 00:01:16.480 --> 00:01:27.470 validity on the back end of a patent issuance um and enforcement. The problem is it's created too much uncertainty, and I very 00:01:27.480 --> 00:01:37.870 much appreciate the steady hand that you've put on the tiller. I would uh um I would disagree with my um Democrat 00:01:37.880 --> 00:01:46.150 colleague who said that policy shouldn't change when administrations change. I would argue that elections should matter. Laws should not change. The 00:01:46.160 --> 00:01:56.350 patents that have issued should not change. They should still be valid, but um we need somebody in charge. We need somebody to exercise common sense in the 00:01:56.360 --> 00:02:05.790 application of the laws that we have passed, and it seems to me that you're doing a very good job of that, and um could you tell us about the rule that 00:02:05.800 --> 00:02:18.870 you're proposing um and the actions that you've taken in terms of exercising discretion on um the IPRs. 00:02:18.880 --> 00:02:29.430 Thank you, Congressman. I'm happy to speak to the uh notice of a proposed rule making we have um put forward. Uh basically, it's intended to 00:02:29.440 --> 00:02:38.030 uh restore fairness and balance to the uh IPR process. There have been instances where there have been as many 00:02:38.040 --> 00:02:47.590 as seven uh serial filings, and it's intended to be able to have the matter adjudicated uh 00:02:47.600 --> 00:02:56.310 once and for all early, um and it's been termed uh I will say as one and done, um but I think that's a misnomer. 00:02:56.320 --> 00:03:05.270 There's liberal joinder provisions that are carried through into the rule. And so, I would say it's uh one join and done. And the facility is provided for 00:03:05.280 --> 00:03:13.910 if there's a petition filed um uh after there's been an adjudication uh that excuse me, petitions filed, people 00:03:13.920 --> 00:03:23.710 can join. Uh the answer isn't serial filings. We think the answer should be gang tackling. At the time uh when it can be had the preference would be to 00:03:23.720 --> 00:03:33.790 have a PGR-like process where things are laid open. That's not always possible uh as has been discussed, things sneak through, but there should be a point in 00:03:33.800 --> 00:03:43.710 time where there's quiet title, there's finality, um and uh people can have that chance and and do it together, uh but 00:03:43.720 --> 00:03:52.350 it's got to be adjudicated once and for all. I agree, but I think you once you have the imprimatur of the government and you've survived a a challenge, um 00:03:52.360 --> 00:04:02.230 that's important because what I've noticed the last 10 years, a lot of people are shying away from companies that would have been based on intellectual property. I've heard people 00:04:02.240 --> 00:04:10.550 inventors say, "I'm not even going to file the patent. I'm just going to try to rely on trade secrets." That That creates a world of haves and have-nots 00:04:10.560 --> 00:04:18.990 when when everybody can just keep all of their stuff secret, and that's incentivized because of a patent system that's not working. And uh you know, the 00:04:19.000 --> 00:04:29.150 PTAB, I do think it was probably at least from the people who voted on it originally intended to expedite this adjudication, but it's 00:04:29.160 --> 00:04:37.550 created uncertainty that has hurt our country, hurt our inventors, and um I'm glad to see that you're exercising some 00:04:37.560 --> 00:04:46.510 common sense in the application of it. Any law can be weaponized, and we saw that the PTAB law has been weaponized, and I appreciate you taking it back and 00:04:46.520 --> 00:04:55.510 using it for common sense. That um I'm going to give you my last 15 seconds. Thank you very much, sir. And also, to 00:04:55.520 --> 00:05:03.710 be reminded, there uh IPRs are but one avenue. There's always uh re-examination, there's uh post-grant reviews, and there's district court. 00:05:03.720 --> 00:05:13.070 What we had found was particularly with respect to IPRs that it was intended to be as an alternative to litigation, yet 80% of the filers already had a district 00:05:13.080 --> 00:05:22.310 court action with uh with also instituting an IPR. I think Yeah, and thank you for taking out much of the redundancy that existed 00:05:22.320 --> 00:05:30.590 because it doesn't get cheaper when people keep getting subjected to continuous IPRs or they survived the IPR and then go to court. 00:05:30.600 --> 00:05:34.520 I'll yield to Mr. Issa. >> Thank you.