000206	06efficiency_wmp_a_16.wma
000000	MICHAEL GORMAN:  Additionally aside from changes to the pre-grant review, I understand that the Innovation Alliance does not want post-grant review.
000012	But given the emphasis on allocation of resources and efficiency, might it not be more efficient to have a post-grant review?
000020	Or how would you respond to that argument?
000021	DEREK MINIHANE:  I think it's important to understand, and any patent lawyers out there would,
000028	that we already have a form of post-grant review through the ex parte and inter partes re-exam.
000035	And adding a new system on top of that in the form of essentially a mini litigation which allows discovery, depositions
000044	and other sorts of procedures is going to, one, create a third post system that allows attacking patents.
000052	Two, it's going to be very expensive especially for companies with smaller amounts of resources such as my own.
000059	And that it will also require a lot more PTO resources.
000107	And there is no present funding for those resources.
000110	So if you create a system within the Patent Office in order to deal with mini litigations, that is going to then take some of probably the best examiners that
000120	are out there right now and move them over to dealing with the post-grant review and therefore negatively affect the pre-grant review
000126	which is where the real focus we think should be.
000130	MICHAEL GORMAN:  Okay.
000131	TARANEH MAGHAME:  I'd also like to basically mention that we really have not heard much from the proponents of post-grant review
000141	as to why the current review process that Derek mentioned is not working.
000147	There may be ways where we can improve those processes.
000151	But those have not been part of the discussion so far.
000155	The discussion has centered around basically almost replacing those processes with the post-grant review process,
000204	the first and second window specifically, that's been mentioned in the legislation.
000210	So our proposal is, let's take a look at what exists right now, figure out if there are problems with it and try to fix those.
000216	One of the issues that is raised sometimes with respect to the use of, for example, inter-partes re-exam, is that it is not used very often.
000225	But what people need to recognize is that its a new process that was actually implemented just several years ago, 
000233	applies to a very limited universe of patents currently	because it didn't apply to patents or applications that were filed prior to its initiation, 
000244	and if you look at the statistics actually the use of inter-partes re-exam increased by 120% year over year last year.
000252	So it is being used more often, and we really need to focus on if there is issues with it, how do we fix that rather than implementing a whole new system that is going to tax the resources of the patent office.
000306	And also we need to keep in mind that foreign patent offices see the US patent system as the best in the world, and they have tried to emulate our patent system and in fact certain offices have backed away from post-grant review type processes.
000327	For example, in Japan and Korea, they have found that that has not been as effective as you would think it would be
000335	so I think we need to take some lessons from that.
000337	MICHAEL GORMAN:	 So I know you touched on the inter-partes re-exam and I know that ther has been a lot said that it's not being used that much because of the estoppel effects from that, but you think that it is more just that it is a new enough process and it's a limited number of patents and that's the main reason why it hasn't been, I guess, as accepted, or why people are pointing to that as not being good enough, and that's why we need to change to a second window type...
000403	TARANEH MAGHAME: I think you make a good point, I think that part of the reason it isn't used as much is because it doesn't apply to as many of the patents, but yes it is said that the estoppel effect is something that prevents people from using it.
000416	But that goes back to one of the issues that the Innovation Alliance is trying to bring to the forefront
000422	that there is a need for an estoppel effect, and whatever process and whatever process we have.
000429	Because we cannot have companies such as mine, or even smaller companies such as Derek's defending against the same arguments and against the same parties over and over again because we just don't have the resources to do so.
000442	So if a large company, or even a small company, it's not a big or small issue, but if a company decides to challenge a patent, it should have that one shot.
000453	It should not be able to come back over and over again and deplete the resources of the owner of that patent