Policy Impact Analysis - 117/S/4734

Bill Overview

Title: Patent Eligibility Restoration Act of 2022

Description: This bill amends the law relating to patent subject matter eligibility to establish that only specified subject matter (e.g., a natural process wholly independent of human activity) are ineligible for patenting. (Currently, subject matter eligibility is determined by examining whether the claimed invention is directed to certain ineligible categories, and if so, whether there is an inventive concept.)

Sponsors: Sen. Tillis, Thomas [R-NC]

Target Audience

Population: Researchers, Inventors, and Individuals in R&D-intensive industries

Estimated Size: 12000000

Reasoning

Simulated Interviews

Biotech Researcher (California, USA)

Age: 45 | Gender: male

Wellbeing Before Policy: 7

Duration of Impact: 10.0 years

Commonness: 8/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • I think this change could open doors for more innovation in biotech industries like ours.
  • Making natural processes patent-ineligible might increase competition but also collaboration in the field.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 8 7
Year 2 8 7
Year 3 8 7
Year 5 9 7
Year 10 9 7
Year 20 8 7

Patent Lawyer (Massachusetts, USA)

Age: 37 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 6

Duration of Impact: 5.0 years

Commonness: 5/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • Some clients may lose current patent protections, adding complexity to my job.
  • We may face an uptick in litigation and reshuffling of patent strategies.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 6 6
Year 2 7 6
Year 3 7 6
Year 5 7 6
Year 10 6 6
Year 20 5 5

Tech Startup Founder (Texas, USA)

Age: 29 | Gender: male

Wellbeing Before Policy: 8

Duration of Impact: 10.0 years

Commonness: 4/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • This gives us the chance to innovate without stepping on existing patents that protect natural processes.
  • We'll need to focus more on the uniqueness of human-made processes.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 8 8
Year 2 9 8
Year 3 9 8
Year 5 9 8
Year 10 9 8
Year 20 8 8

University Researcher (North Carolina, USA)

Age: 55 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 7

Duration of Impact: 2.0 years

Commonness: 7/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • I'm not sure this change affects me unless it impacts our funding avenues.
  • There might be fewer restrictions on publishing our work.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 7 7
Year 2 7 7
Year 3 7 7
Year 5 7 7
Year 10 6 6
Year 20 6 6

Corporate R&D Manager (Illinois, USA)

Age: 42 | Gender: male

Wellbeing Before Policy: 5

Duration of Impact: 7.0 years

Commonness: 6/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • This policy means we may need to rethink our R&D strategies.
  • I worry about losing competitive edges in certain patents.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 5 5
Year 2 6 5
Year 3 6 5
Year 5 7 5
Year 10 7 5
Year 20 6 5

Independent Inventor (Washington, USA)

Age: 30 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 7

Duration of Impact: 5.0 years

Commonness: 4/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • This could mean greater freedom to develop and market my inventions without fear of infringing on natural process patents.
  • More competition might be a double-edged sword, though.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 8 7
Year 2 8 7
Year 3 8 7
Year 5 8 7
Year 10 7 7
Year 20 7 6

Innovation Policy Expert (New York, USA)

Age: 48 | Gender: other

Wellbeing Before Policy: 6

Duration of Impact: 10.0 years

Commonness: 3/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • This is a move towards modernizing patent eligibility but may face backlash from big patent-heavy industries.
  • It's an exciting change for people pushing the boundaries in their fields.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 7 6
Year 2 7 6
Year 3 8 6
Year 5 8 6
Year 10 9 6
Year 20 8 5

Retired Engineer (Florida, USA)

Age: 62 | Gender: male

Wellbeing Before Policy: 6

Duration of Impact: 3.0 years

Commonness: 5/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • I'm somewhat concerned that this could devalue the patents I hold.
  • It could, however, spur a wave of new innovations which are always welcomed.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 6 6
Year 2 6 6
Year 3 6 6
Year 5 5 6
Year 10 5 5
Year 20 5 5

International IP Consultant (Virginia, USA)

Age: 39 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 7

Duration of Impact: 2.0 years

Commonness: 3/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • Many of my clients will need to adapt their strategies if they rely on processes deemed unpatentable.
  • This doesn't directly change my wellbeing much, but will make my work more dynamic.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 7 7
Year 2 7 7
Year 3 7 7
Year 5 7 7
Year 10 6 6
Year 20 6 6

Software Developer (Colorado, USA)

Age: 27 | Gender: male

Wellbeing Before Policy: 7

Duration of Impact: 7.0 years

Commonness: 7/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • Software patents can be tricky, and if natural processes are out, this might simplify some of our operations.
  • I feel good about potential easing of patent restrictions on some software aspects.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 7 7
Year 2 7 7
Year 3 8 7
Year 5 8 7
Year 10 8 7
Year 20 7 6

Cost Estimates

Year 1: $50000000 (Low: $30000000, High: $70000000)

Year 2: $35000000 (Low: $20000000, High: $50000000)

Year 3: $30000000 (Low: $15000000, High: $45000000)

Year 5: $25000000 (Low: $10000000, High: $40000000)

Year 10: $20000000 (Low: $5000000, High: $35000000)

Year 100: $5000000 (Low: $1000000, High: $10000000)

Key Considerations