1966 Commission on the Patent System

1978 Advisory Committee on Industrial Innovation

1992 Advisory Committee on Patent Law Reform

2003 Federal Trade Commission

Use civil commissioners


Use experts apart from advocates and reconsider jury trials



Establish court of patent appeals



Presume examiner claims rejections are correct


Eliminate best mode; more objective standard of inequitable conduct

Challenge to validity on basis of preponderance of, not clear and convincing, evidence




Tighten standard of willful infringement

Another reason not to consider our report definitive is that technology and the economy change rapidly, and the patent system needs to adapt, albeit more slowly and gradually. As we assert in Chapter 2, the patent system, along with other policy influences on innovation, should be reviewed periodically to see what adjustments are needed. Our report supports Justice Breyer’s belief that this evaluation, although it must rely heavily on the patent bar and other direct stakeholders, should not be confined to them but should include economists, scientists, technologists, and managers making investment decisions. The stakes have grown too high to exclude any relevant expertise.

The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine
500 Fifth St. N.W. | Washington, D.C. 20001

Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Terms of Use and Privacy Statement