By Donald Zuhn --
H.R. 1249 Floor Debate to Take Place Later This Week?
In today's IPO Daily News, the Intellectual Property Owners Association (IPO) reported that floor debate of the House version of the "America Invents Act" (H.R. 1249) is now scheduled to take place "on Wednesday or later in the week." The House Rules Committee, which was scheduled to meet last week to discuss the parameters for floor debate of the bill, has announced that it will meet tomorrow at 5:00 pm to determine how the floor debate will proceed. The delay was due to a disagreement between some House members over the USPTO funding provisions of H.R. 1249. This disagreement appears to have been resolved late last week (see "Is the End of Fee Diversion Dead in the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act?").
Midwest Representatives Write in Support of H.R. 1249
Last week, Representatives Joe Donnelly (D-IN) (at right) and Dan Boren (D-OK) (below) distributed a letter in which they urge their colleagues in the House to support passage of H.R. 1249. The pair note that "[f]or decades, America's economic prowess has been secured through a reliable and efficient patent system," but argue that "[i]ncreasingly, . . . existing patent laws have not [been] able to keep up with the pace of 21st Century technological developments or our foreign competitors."
Citing the USPTO's 700,000 application backlog, the letter explains that the Office "lack[s] the resources and funding to process patent applications in a timely and efficient manner," and declares that after six years of effort, Congress has finally reached a "bipartisan agreement on a patent reform bill that updates our patent laws in a balanced and fair manner and gives the USPTO the tools and funding it needs to support all inventors." The letter also characterizes the U.S. "first to invent" patent system as being "cumbersome and inefficient, making it more difficult for innovators to gain patents while at the same time providing little benefit to those challenging a patent." According to the pair, the backlog and first to invent system "hinder[] our ability to remain competitive with the rest of the world and create jobs here at home."
Innovation Alliance Vigorously Opposes H.R. 1249 in View of Altered USPTO Funding Provisions
Today, the Innovation Alliance released a short statement in which the group (which represents innovators, patent owners, and stakeholders from a diverse range of industries) noted that it was "greatly disappointed by reports that some in the House of Representatives have chosen to remove language from Section 22 that would have permanently ended fee diversion." According to the group, the new language in the bill "amounts to a promise to end fee diversion in the future, a promise that has repeatedly been broken in the past." The Innovation Alliance added that it was "very concerned that USPTO will continue to earn significantly more fees than the funds it is allocated, and Congress will continue to impose the tax on innovation that fee diversion represents." As a result, the group said it "ha[d] no choice but to vigorously oppose the America Invents Act," and it promised to "work with our allies both on and off the Hill to ensure that any patent bill that becomes law ends fee diversion permanently."
ABA Urges Chairman Smith to Reject Changes to USPTO Funding Provisions
In a letter sent to House Judiciary Chairman Lamar Smith (R-TX) today, the American Bar Association (ABA) stated that the group "considers the funding mechanism provided by section 22 with its revolving fund to be an indispensible component of any patent reform measure, one that is essential for the Office to conduct effective and efficient financial planning and business operations." With respect to the compromise worked out between proponents of H.R. 1249 and the House Appropriations Committee, the ABA declared that "the language proposed to replace section 22 would destroy this essential component of H.R. 1249." The ABA urged Chairman Smith "to reject this proposed substitute for section 22," and recommended that "these differences be resolved through the regular order, under the process for amendment that the Rules Committee has announced," which the ABA argued was "the appropriate and fair way to resolve these differences.'
NAR Predicates Support for H.R. 1249 on Retention of USPTO Funding Provisions
In a letter distributed to House members today, the National Association of REALTORS (NAR) noted that while it supported H.R. 1249, this support was "predicated upon the retention of important anti-fee diversion provisions contained in section 22 of the bill." The industry group, which represents a variety of real estate industry professionals, "believes it is critically important that the U.S. Patent Trademark Office have access to all user fees paid to the agency by patent and trademark applicants." Without the funding provisions of section 22, the NAR expects that "delays in processing patent applications will continue to undermine American innovation and stymie the nation’s economy."
NAR? If it was up to NAR, patent lawyers would get 6 percent of the royalties for any patent issued.
Posted by: Sherman Akt | June 21, 2011 at 12:10 PM