Brad Watts
Vice President, Patents and Innovation Policy, Global Innovation Policy Center (GIPC), U.S. Chamber of Commerce
Published
September 13, 2024
Inter-agency coordination can help make government more efficient, except when it creates more unneeded process. Unfortunately, inventors and innovators are being tied up with unnecessary red tape. The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) utilizes various tools to encourage more people and companies to foster innovation. However, under the guise of coordination, activists are pushing proposals for the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to be consulted on patent examinations beyond the simple measures that are already in place. This seemingly good idea will have the opposite effect of promoting health and safety by slowing the patent examination process and lead to fewer technologies, treatments, and cures of the future.
A solution looking for a problem: Current proposals under consideration by Congress for inter-agency coordination between the USPTO and agencies like the FDA claim to address issues that simply don’t exist. As numerous experts, including the USPTO itself, have demonstrated, the calls for enhanced coordination are not premised on independent facts but rather on political hyperbole from anti-patent activists.
The Cost of “Inter-Agency Coordination”: If additional coordination requirements between the USPTO and agencies like the FDA were to be implemented, the impact of such policies is easy to predict fewer patents issued and less innovation. Additional inter-agency coordination efforts beyond what is already occurring run the risk of creating more red tape and bureaucracy for innovators and slowing down the already lengthy patent examination process. Such efforts could also create duplicative documentation requirements and an unnecessary risk of disclosure of confidential information. As a result, the costs for innovative companies will rise, bureaucracy and uncertainty will increase, and future innovations may be slowed.
Leave it to the actual experts: It’s worth noting that other countries have reversed course after contemplating roles for regulatory agencies in the patent application review process. After almost two decades, Brazil ended the participation of ANVISA (the Brazilian FDA) in the examination of patent applications to reduce the excessive patent backlog and eliminate inconsistent interpretations (both associated with ANVISA’s role in the patent examination process). Indeed, the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative described eliminating ANVISA’s role in the patent process as a “positive step.”
The bottom line: USPTO should continue to pursue its goals to improve our patent system through data-driven interventions, like hiring more examiners, enhancing training, and updating technology. But additional, misguided “coordination” efforts that will undermine America’s innovation ecosystem should be abandoned.
About the authors
Brad Watts
Brad Watts is the Vice President for Patents and Innovation Policy at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce's Global Innovation Policy Center (GIPC). He works with U.S. Chamber members to foster a political, legal, and economic environment where innovators and creators can invest in the next big thing for the benefit of Americans and the world.
