That's a hallmark of the U.S. patent system. But it could change, along with other elements of the system, under legislation being pushed by Rep. Chris Cannon and Sen. Orrin Hatch, both Utah Republicans.

Cannon says reform is needed to counter the antics of "trolls" - people who search for ideas not yet patented and then steal the innovation before the inventor can lay claim to it. A key provision of the legislation would award a patent to first one to file for it - not necessarily the first one to come up with the idea or to invent a product. The proposed changes, in a House bill co-sponsored by Cannon, also tweak the law in other areas, such as "harmonizing" U.S. law with that of other countries and attempting to curb expensive lawsuits over infringement.

Critics say the legislation has "special interest" written all over it; that it's a brazen bid to help large companies like Microsoft trounce small inventors.

Lawmakers have "only listened to one side," says Ron Riley, president of the Professional Inventors Alliance and inventor of the electrified monorail control system. "They've excluded universities and individual inventors."

The critics, mainly some small companies or individual inventors, say that the so-called reforms would only make it easier for large corporations to hijack an idea from individual, small-time innovators.

They point to a provision of the bill that creates a window of time in which an already issued patent could be challenged without going to court. The move, critics say, would allow large corporations to file hordes of patent applications and, when challenged, defend their actions without spending a lot of money on legal fees. It also could hurt inventors scrambling to attract investors.

While patents may not be on the forefront of American's minds, the proposed reform affects every consumer; the cost of patent litigation could drive up the cost of your cell phone or your iPod or your heart surgery.

The House legislation is currently awaiting a vote in a Judiciary subcommittee and could become one of the larger issues on the Hill this fall. Hatch says he may carry a Senate version of the patent reform bill in order to avert a future catastrophe.

"The patent system has some serious problems that need to be fixed before they become crises," Hatch said. "But any reform - and especially something as complex as patents - is going to take time, and we need to make sure to examine all sides before crafting any legislation."

As chairman of a Judiciary Committee panel on intellectual property, Hatch has held one hearing on the patent issue but there has been no bill introduced in the Senate so far.

Business Software Alliance, a consortium of companies, including Microsoft, Apple, IBM and Intel, took out a half-page advertisement this week in Utah's major daily papers thanking Hatch for his work on patent reform.

The group lauded Hatch for his leadership in "advancing American competitiveness in software and computer technology" and urged Congress to act to reduce "harmful" litigation and provide "American workers the confidence to continue innovating."

Cannon suggests that critics of the reforms have "motivations that are not straightforward" and may, in fact, be trolls.

Under the new legislation, Cannon says, "People who legitimately come up with ideas will have a much better and robust market and they can get paid better than they were before."

The U.S. patent system is almost as old as the country, but the laws have changed relatively little since the first patent for making pot ash was issued. The 1980 Bayh-Dole patent and trademark act, one of the last reforms of the law, allowed universities, nonprofits and small businesses to keep some rights for inventions they developed.

Universities, which devote large resources to research and innovation, have expressed concern about the proposed reforms to the system, fearing they could hamper a school's ability to claim an invention.

University of Utah officials weren't ready to comment on the legislation and Brigham Young University says it's is too preliminary to comment on, although officials there are keeping track of the issue.

Carl Gulbrandsen, managing director of the Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation, says the bill now before the House includes something "for everyone to dislike."

"If you read this bill carefully, and even the substitute bill, there's really nothing in there about improving the quality of patents," says Gulbrandsen. "We're hoping there'll be a much more thoughtful discussion about this."

After all, individual inventors are the ones who brought America the airplane, the light bulb, the telephone.

"One of the things that has helped innovation in this country is the patent system," says Gulbrandsen. "I don't think we want to undercut anything that would make us less innovative."

tburr@sltrib.com

Provisions of the patent reform under legislation in the U.S. House

First to file: The first-to-file provision would change current law to say that the first person to file an application in the patent office for an invention would get the patent. Currently, the first person to prove he or she came up with the invention gets the patent. The provision would pit better-funded corporate interests against those with tiny bank accounts.

Post-grant review: Allows a time period for someone to oppose a patent issued for an invention through administrative means instead of a lawsuit.

Publication: Would extend the requirement for publication of a patent application 18 months after it was filed. Critics say this is akin to a journalist having to give away a scoop before it's published, though the vast majority of applications must already be published if seeking protection outside U.S. borders.

Litigation reform: Clarifies what damages an inventor could get through a lawsuit over patent infringement. Supporters say too many inventors are being rewarded in lawsuits for the profits of an entire device, not just the portion that a single patent would reap.

Injunctions: One of the most controversial aspects of the House bill, this would make it more difficult to halt production of an invention when there is a question about patent use.