	Introduction

Legislative interest in the patent system was evidenced by the introduction of reform legislation in earlier sessions of Congress. In the 111 th Congress, bills would have amended existing patent law in numerous respects, including changes to the right of a patent owner to obtain compensatory damages, the standard for judicial award of enhanced damages for willful infringement, the ability of patent owners to select the court in which they will bring suit, and the willingness of courts to accept appeals of orders interpreting a patent. Discussion of these issues may potentially continue in the 112 th Congress. Although the patent system has been the subject of congressional scrutiny over the past few years, the courts have also been active in making changes to important patent law principles. Many changes introduced by the judiciary have concerned topics that are also the subject of congressional consideration. For example, the Supreme Court issued an important decision concerning injunctive relief in eBay Inc. v. MercExchange , L.L.C. Second, some observers believe that several of these opinions have addressed the very concerns that had motivated legislative reform proposals, thereby obviating or reducing the need for congressional action. None of this legislation has yet been enacted. Among them are the availability of injunctions in patent cases, selection of the appropriate venue for trying a patent case, the assessment of damages against adjudicated infringers, the standards governing determinations of willful infringement, extraterritorial patent enforcement, and the availability of patents for tax planning methods. However, in its 2007 decision in In re Seagate Technology , the Federal Circuit made significant changes to the law of willful infringement itself. In 2007, the Supreme Court issued its opinion in Microsoft Corp. v. AT&T Corp. Most notable is the 2010 decision of the U.S. Supreme Court in Bilski v. Kappos .
Legislative interest in the patent system has been evidenced by the introduction of reform legislation in the 111th and predecessor Congresses. These bills would have amended existing patent law in numerous respects. Although none of these bills were enacted, discussion of patent reform may continue in the 112th Congress.
Although the patent system has been the subject of congressional interest over the past few years, the courts have also been active in making changes to important patent law principles. Many changes introduced by the judiciary have concerned topics that are also the subject of congressional consideration. In particular:
The Supreme Court issued an important decision in 2007 concerning the availability of injunctive relief against adjudicated patent infringers in eBay v. MercExchange.
In 2008, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ("Federal Circuit") reached its ruling in In re TS Tech concerning the standards for deciding which venue is appropriate for conducting a patent trial.
In 2009, the Federal Circuit handed down its opinion in Lucent Technologies. v. Gateway with respect to the assessment of damages in patent infringement cases.
The Federal Circuit issued a decision in 2007 concerning the availability of enhanced damages for willful patent infringers in In re Seagate Technology.
The 2007 Supreme Court opinion in Microsoft v. AT&T addressed the scope of extraterritorial protection afforded to U.S. patents.
The 2010 Supreme Court opinion in Bilski v. Kappos concerned the issue of patentable subject matter.
Some observers believe that several of these opinions have addressed the very concerns that had motivated legislative reform proposals, thereby obviating or reducing the need for congressional action. However, other commentators believe that these decisions have not fully addressed perceived problems with principles of patent law.