Madstad Engineering, Inc. v. U.S. Patent & Trademark Office, 8:12-cv-01589 (M.D. Fla. 2013)
In 2012, Madstad filed a declaratory judgment action against the USPTO and requesting that the court find various aspects of the America Invents Act to be unconstitutional. Madstad's basic argument is that when the U.S. Constitution speaks of exclusive rights for "inventors" it should be interpreted to mean "first and true inventor." Under this analysis, the AIA fails because it purposefully rewards the first-to-file a patent application rather than the first-to-invent. The complaint argues:
Madstad has also requested a preliminary injunction blocking implementation of the first-to-file provisions of the Act.
A second 'inventor' is an oxymoron; that person merely rediscovers that which was already discovered by the first inventor. Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, and John Marshall all shared this understanding. . . . Congress is not authorized to award patents to the winners of races to file to the PTO. . . . Under the AIA, there is no effective statutory requirement that the applicant be an 'inventor' for a patent to be valid.
As we approach the March 16, 2013 implementation date, we can look for the plaintiffs to push the court again for a decision on its motion for preliminary injunction or perhaps a temporary restraining order (TRO) that would block implementation. Madstad is represented by Jonathan Massey.