I recently had an opportunity to speak with Sherry Knowles (pictured left) on the record. Most in the patent community are familiar with Knowles as the former Senior Vice-President of GlaxoSmithKline who took on the United States Patent and Trademark Office during the claims and continuations fight back in 2007 and 2008.
In 2008, Managing IP magazine named Knowles one of the top 10 most influential people in Intellectual Property, and in 2010, the New Jersey Intellectual Property Lawyers Association awarded her the Jefferson Medal for exceptional contribution to Intellectual Property. In November 2011, Intellectual Asset Management magazine listed Knowles among the top 50 individuals, companies and institutions that shaped the IP marketplace over the preceding eight years.
Knowles left GSK several years ago and is now the head of her own strategic patent consulting firm. I caught up with her for a telephone interview on November 20, 2014. What appears below are several of the highlights of our conversation.
During part 1 of our interview, we discussed European Patent Reform, the potential perils and pitfalls, as well as the fact that Europe is likely a far more favorable jurisdiction today for patent owners than the U.S. Knowles explained:
KNOWLES: If a company identifies a weak patent now, it might file an inter partes review or post grant review at the U.S. Patent Office. Ten years ago, I don’t think any of us would have imagined that the best jurisdiction in the world to invalidate a patent would be the United States.
Knowles explained in part 2 of our interview that in BMS v. Teva, the Federal Circuit “has dramatically changed the law on obviousness.” This caused me to unload on the Federal Circuit, calling the decision ridiculous and idiotic, saying: “There’s nothing that any of those Judges can point to in U.S. law to support that [decision].” It wasn’t fair to expect Knowles to comment on what turned out to be a rant, so I simply asked her, in light of this and other recent decisions, what she was telling her clients. She explained:
KNOWLES: We are seeing a strong anti-innovation sentiment in the U.S. not just on the issue of obviousness but also on patent eligibility. We’re seeing a rewriting of patent law through judicial decisions which have draconian effect on the industry that judges have not given full consideration of the larger impact of. And I might go even further to say that judges are not sufficiently trained or authorized to overhaul the patent system through the judiciary. The judiciary is taking over the job of Congress. I think that’s what we are seeing.
Also during part 2 of our conversation, we talked about the unfortunate reality that, with the U.S. no longer being a favorable jurisdiction for patent owners, that almost certainly means that at least some companies will look to relocate to more friendly jurisdictions. Our exchange went as follows:
QUINN: We are flushing our future away and I don’t understand it…. innovators have to have patent rights…. We know what is going to happen. Innovators need strong patent rights. The U.S. is increasingly not interested in giving strong patent rights and is increasingly taking patents away so these companies are not going to stay in the U.S.
KNOWLES: This should be a concern to all of us. We need to devote substantial time to speak and write on U.S. and international policy issues, to make some noise, so to speak, because it is critically important to our future. I think we should also keep in mind the effect of what we’re doing on developing countries, which are currently struggling to determine what kind of IP framework they should implement in their countries. Many have historically looked to the United States framework because we have been successful as the world’s leading innovator and because the world has benefited from many inventions created in the United States. Therefore, if you want your country to be as successful in the area of innovation as the United States, you need to adopt the kind of laws that we have here. Well, can we really advocate for that now?
Tags: interview, interviews, patent, patents, Sherry Knowles
You share in the PLI Practice Center community, so we just ask that you keep things civil. Leave out the personal attacks. Do not use profanity, ethnic or racial slurs, or take shots at anyone's sexual orientation or religion. If you can't be nice, we reserve the right to remove your material and ban users who violate our Terms of Service.