By
Donald Zuhn —
Last
Thursday, Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-VT) informed
those watching the Committee's Executive Business Meeting that the Committee
had reached a "tentative agreement in principle" regarding patent
reform legislation (see "Chairman
Leahy Announces "Tentative Agreement in Principle" on Patent Reform
Bill"). Chairman Leahy noted that the Committee
would release details regarding the bill "in the coming days" and after
consultation with House legislators.
He also mentioned that he had been meeting with members of the House
majority and minority leadership to discuss the Senate bill in an effort to
prevent the legislation from becoming a "partisan issue."
On
Friday, House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers, Jr. (D-MI), Committee
Ranking Minority Member Lamar Smith (R-TX), and Representative (and House Judiciary Committee
member) Howard Berman (D-CA) responded to Chairman Leahy's announcement by
issuing a short statement
of their own. The statements
reads:
We appreciate the Senate's most recent
efforts to craft its compromise on patent reform legislation, but those efforts
have thus far proceeded without adequate input from House members. Now that we know the substance of the
Senate's draft compromise, House members are in the process of reviewing the
proposal in order to arrive at a bill a majority of both chambers can
support. We look forward to
negotiations with the Senate in the hope of achieving such a bill.
Interestingly,
the statement was released on the Republicans' separate House Committee on the
Judiciary website,
despite being issued by two Democrats and one Republican. Also of interest is Rep. Berman's
decision to sign onto the statement, particularly in view of the fact that he
sponsored H.R. 1908,
the patent reform bill passed by the House in September 2007 (Chairman Conyers
and Rep. Smith were two of the bill's 23 co-sponsors). H.R. 1908 contained a number of
controversial provisions, including a damages provision that would have limited
available damages (where actual damages are not established) to a reasonable
royalty depending on the "economic value properly attributable to the
patent's specific contribution over the prior art," a provision that would
have authorized the USPTO to require information from applicants including
search reports and other information relating to patentability searches; and a
provision that would have given the USPTO substantive rulemaking authority (see 'Patent "Reform' Bill Passes
House of Representatives").
In
view of the response from Chairman Conyers, Rep. Smith, and Rep. Berman, it may take more than the few days Chairman Leahy believed he would need to secure the support of
House leadership for his new patent reform bill.

Leave a reply to 6 Cancel reply