By Kevin E. Noonan —

As we reported on Monday, a draft of the Senate Judiciary Committee’s report on the Patent Reform Act of 2007 (S. 1145) has begun to circulate on the internet.  The 106-page draft report
contains sections on the background and purpose of the bill, the
legislative history of the bill, a section-by-section summary of the
bill, a placeholder for a cost estimate, a regulatory impact
evaluation, and a list of the changes to Titles 15, 28, and 35 that
would result if the Senate bill were passed into law.  The circulation
of the draft report suggests that Senator Patrick Leahy,
Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, intends to keep his
mid-December patent reform bill pledge to seek "favorable Senate action
as early as the floor schedule permits" (see "Patent Reform Discussed on Senate Floor").  In view of the length of the draft report, Patent Docs will be
providing a discussion of selected sections of the bill over the next
few days.  Today, we address section 2 of the bill.

These amendments are intended to convert the U.S. patent system from granting patents to the first inventor to invent, to a first inventor to file system.  The amendments would replace all of the substantial portions of 35 U.S.C. § 102 (subsections (a) through (g)) with the following:

§ 102. Conditions for patentability; novelty

(a) NOVELTY; PRIOR ART.–A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained if–

(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public–

(A) more than 1 year before the effective filing date of the claimed invention; or
(B) 1 year or less before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, other than through disclosures made by the inventor or a joint inventor or by others who obtained the subject matter disclosed directly or indirectly from the inventor or joint inventor; or

(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.

(b) EXCEPTIONS.–

(1) PRIOR INVENTOR DISCLOSURE EXCEPTION.–Subject matter that would otherwise qualify as prior art based upon a disclosure under subparagraph (B) of subsection (a)(1) shall not be prior art to a claimed invention under that subparagraph if the subject matter had, before such disclosure, been publicly disclosed by the inventor or a joint inventor or others who obtained the subject matter disclosed directly or indirectly from the inventor or joint inventor.
(2) DERIVATION, PRIOR DISCLOSURE, AND COMMON ASSIGNMENT EXCEPTIONS.–Subject matter that would otherwise qualify as prior art only under subsection (a)(2), after taking into account the exception under paragraph (1), shall not be prior art to a claimed invention if–

(A) the subject matter was obtained directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor;
(B) the subject matter had been publicly disclosed by the inventor or a joint inventor or others who obtained the subject matter disclosed, directly or indirectly, from the inventor or a joint inventor before the effective filing date of the application or patent set forth under subsection (a)(2); or
(C) the subject matter and the claimed invention, nor later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention, were owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person.

(3) JOINT RESEARCH AGREEMENT EXCEPTION.–

(A) IN GENERAL.–Subject matter and a claimed invention shall be deemed to have been owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person in applying the provisions of paragraph (2) if–

(i) the claimed invention was made by or on behalf of parties to a joint research agreement that was in effect on or before the effective filing date of the claimed invention;
(ii) the claimed invention was made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of the joint research agreement; and
(iii) the application for patent for the claimed invention discloses or is amended to disclose the names of the parties to the joint research agreement.

(B) For purposes of subparagraph (A), the term "joint research agreement" means a written contract, grant, or cooperative agreement entered into by 2 or more persons or entities for the performance of experimental, developmental, or research work in the field of the claimed invention.

(4) PATENTS AND PUBLISHED APPLICATIONS EFFECTIVELY FILED.–A patent or application for patent is effectively filed under subsection (a)(2) with respect to any subject matter described in the patent or application–

(A) as of the filing date of the patent or the application for patent; or
(B) if the patent or application for patent is entitled to claim a right of priority under section 119, 365(a), or 365(b) or to claim the benefit of an earlier filing date under section 120, 121, or 365(c), based upon 1 or more prior filed applications for patent, as of the filing date of the earliest such application describes the subject matter.

In addition, Section 103 was significantly amended:

§ 103. Conditions for patentability; nonobvious subject matter

A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained though the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.

In explaining the need for the provisions of section 2, the Senate draft report first notes that "[e]very industrialized nation other than the United States uses a patent priority system commonly referred to as ‘first-to-file.’"  The draft report offers the following reasons for the amendments, including:

There is a difference in the relevant dates for determining priority.  In a first-to-file system, the earlier filing date prevails.  This is "an objective date, simple to determine" (e.g., it is listed on the face of the patent).  In contrast, in a "first-to-invent" system, the date of invention is "uncertain," requires corroboration, and disputes involve a "lengthy, complex and costly administrative proceeding (called an ‘interference proceeding’) [that] must be conducted to determine who actually invented first."  Although admitting that interferences are needed only in the "rare" instance where two different inventors claim the same invention, the draft report catalogs a litany of negative attributes of interference proceedings:  they can take "years to complete;" "cost hundreds of thousands of dollars;" and "require extensive discovery."  The draft report also asserts that the fear of being involved in an interference requires companies to "maintain extensive recording and document retention systems in case they are later required to prove the very day they invented the claimed invention discovery."

There is a difference in whether a reference is considered prior art.  In a first-to-file system, the prior art "includes all art that exists prior to the filing date," having the benefit (according to the draft report) of being an objective date.  In a first-to-invent system, on the other had, an applicant has the ability to "swear behind" a reference, to show that she actually invented prior to the publication date of the reference — an earlier, "amorphous" date.

The U.S. system gives an inventor a "grace period" of one year for the inventor’s own public disclosure.  With certain exceptions, most countries impose an "absolute novelty" condition on patentability, where even the inventor’s own public disclosure can defeat patentability.  The draft report notes that in absolute novelty countries, inventors need to keep their inventions secret until filing, and acknowledges that this is a sacrifice of one of the benefits of the patent system — early, public disclosure of inventions.  In addition to this public interest aspect of retaining a grace period, the draft report states that university representatives and small inventors testified that the grace period was an important feature of the present system and should not be abandoned.

The draft report summarizes the advantages of changing to a first-to-file system as "simplicity, efficiency and predictability . . . [a] first-to-file system avoids costly interference proceedings, provides better notice to the public, simplifies the prior art scheme that may preclude a patent from issuing, and provides more certainty to the patent system" as well as encouraging "prompt" application filing.  The draft report uses as additional justification that "[n]umerous organizations, institutions, and companies have advocated the U.S. adopt a first to file system similar to those used in the rest of the world," including the National Academy of Sciences (although the nature of that organization’s expertise in patent law is unmentioned).  Curiously, the draft report also notes that when the patent system was first adopted (whether this refers to the 18th Century or the 1952 Patent Act is unclear), filing in foreign countries was atypical, whereas now companies and even sole inventors file internationally.  This fact is intended to support the additional "disadvantage" of the current system, which U.S. applicants must comply with the two different sets of requirements "caused" by the U.S. first-to-invent system.  For all these reasons, the draft report says that a change is "long overdue."

The discussion of the changes is straightforward, highlighting the intention to adopt the first-to-file system while retaining the U.S. one-year grace period (i.e., not adopting the absolute novelty standard).  This is purported to be a marriage of the "best aspects" of the two systems.  This change is accompanied by the creation of a "derivation" proceeding, to resolve instances where the first applicant to file derived the invention from an applicant with a later filing date.

Certain aspects of the proposed system, however, may have escaped the drafters’ notice.  For example, the one-year grace period under the new statute is not the same as the current one-year grace period.  All that is protected under this system is the applicant’s own disclosure, not relevant third-party disclosures.  The grace period thus grants substantially less protection to the "true" inventor, and raises the possibility that patentability may be negatived by a disclosure (for example, in a scientific journal article) that may defeat patentability but does not satisfy the statutory disclosure requirements of 35 U.S.C. § 112.  Since the proposed derivation proceeding is intended only to resolve disputes between competing applicants, such third-party disclosure, even if derived from the applicant, will prevent the applicant from obtaining patent protection.  While this is bad for individual applicants, it is worse for the rest of us, since it will retard or even prevent the very benefit — disclosure of inventions — that the change is intended to promote.  Indeed, the provision would encourage prior disclosure by an applicant to trigger the grace period.

In addition, the very same record keeping needed for interference practice will be needed for the derivation proceeding, thus blunting if not ablating any economic benefits from this aspect of the change.  And as the draft report acknowledges, interferences are rare — there have been about 106,000 interferences in contrast with more than 7,000,000 patents (about 1.5%), and the overwhelming majority are resolved without spending "hundreds of thousands" of dollars (and where those dollars are spent, it is almost a certainty that the patents are worth it and the issues are close).

The certainty benefits with regard to prior art also appear to be overstated, since the default date for applying prior art is the application filing date (or earliest claimed priority date).  The burden is on an applicant who challenges a reference’s status as prior art, involving no burden on anyone (and certainly not the public) other than the applicant to establish the inventive right.  The change also removes the geographic boundaries in the current law, so that U.S. applicants are deprived of the protections of stringent U.S. discovery requirements and will be left to the vagaries of letter rogatory and the auspices of the Hague convention to defeat invalidity challenges by infringers.

And while going out of its way to create an exemption for inventions produced under the CREATE Act, the change eliminated 35 U.S.C. § 103(b), a provision that while infrequently used was available for biotechnology patent applicants to avoid inequitable application of the other provisions of the statute (see "Like a Penny Saved for a Rainy Day (Albeit, Unintentionally): The Renewed Relevance of 35 U.S.C. § 103(b)").  This change is not explained; the draft report merely states that the section "is no longer necessary."  Some will beg to differ.

The Senate bill, which Senator Leahy (at left) has said he intends to bring to the Senate floor for a vote as early as next week, differs substantively from the House version of the bill (HR 1908; see "Patent ‘Reform’ Bill Passes House of Representatives").  Most significantly, the House bill forestalls implementation of the changes to §§ 102 and 103 until the President certifies to Congress that major patent offices (Japan and Europe) have implemented a reciprocal grace period in their law.  This difference is important because these countries have given no indication that they intend to make such a change.  The requirement appears, however, to be an equitable quid pro quo for such a fundamental change to U.S. patent law, and raises the legitimate question of why the U.S. should bear all the burdens of worldwide patent harmonization.  Why indeed.

For additional information on the draft report, please see:

• "Assignee Filings, Mandatory Publication, and Third Party Submissions," Sections 3 and 7, January 16, 2008
• "Late Patent Filings," Section 13 January 15, 2008
• "Draft Report on Senate Patent Reform Bill Circulated," Sections 9 and 15, January 14, 2008

For additional information regarding this topic, please see:

• "Patent Reform Discussed on Senate Floor," December 21, 2007
• "Enjoined New Rules and Patent Reform Finally Appearing on Biotech Industry’s Radar," December 20, 2007
• "Chinese IP Judge Discusses Implications of U.S. Patent Reform Bill and Two Congressmen Heed Warning," December 17, 2007
• "IPO President Seeks Deletion of Patent Reform Provision," December 12, 2007
• "Senate May Act on Patent ‘Reform’ Bill in the New Year," December 2, 2007
• "The Wall Street Journal Gets It Half Right," November 5, 2007
• "BIO CEO Provides Briefing on Follow-On Biologics and Patent Reform," September 18, 2007
• "Patent ‘Reform’ Bill Passes House of Representatives," September 9, 2007
• "Reversal in Microsoft Case Weakens Patent Reform Argument," August 7, 2007
• "San Francisco Chronicle Opines on Patent Reform," August 6, 2007
• "Patent Reform Bill to Be Delayed?" June 12, 2007
• "Senate Judiciary Committee Holds Hearing on Patent Reform," June 10, 2007
• "Could Creating a U.S. ‘Utility Model’ Patent Fulfill the ‘Need’ for Patent Law Reform?" May 21, 2007

    By Donald Zuhn —

As we reported on Monday, a draft of the Senate Judiciary Committee’s report on the Patent Reform Act of 2007 (S. 1145) has begun to circulate on the internet.  The 106-page draft report
contains sections on the background and purpose of the bill, the
legislative history of the bill, a section-by-section summary of the
bill, a placeholder for a cost estimate, a regulatory impact
evaluation, and a list of the changes to Titles 15, 28, and 35 that
would result if the Senate bill were passed into law.  The circulation
of the draft report suggests that Senator Patrick Leahy,
Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, intends to keep his
mid-December patent reform bill pledge to seek "favorable Senate action
as early as the floor schedule permits" (see "Patent Reform Discussed on Senate Floor").  In view of the length of the draft report, Patent Docs will be
providing a discussion of selected sections of the bill over the next
few days.  Today, we address sections 3 and 7 of the bill.

Noting that patent applications are now commonly assigned to corporate entities, most frequently the inventor’s employer, and that many employment contracts require employees to assign their inventions to their employer, the draft report contends that it is time that U.S. patent law be changed to eliminate the "antiquated notion" that it is the inventor who files the application.  The draft report also notes that corporate assignees sometimes have difficulty locating inventors and obtaining their signatures for the oath or declaration that must be submitted with an application.

Section 3, entitled "Inventor’s oath or declaration," would allow an "obligated assignee" (i.e., a person to whom the inventor is obligated to assign, but has not assigned, rights to the invention) to submit a substitute statement in place of the oath or declaration when the inventor is unable to do so or is both unwilling to do so and under an obligation to assign the invention.  In addition, section 3 allows obligated assignees (or a person having a sufficient proprietary interest in an invention) to file a patent application.

Section 7, entitled "Submissions by third parties and other quality enhancements," provides two additional changes to U.S. patent law.  First, this section institutes mandatory publication by eliminating prior publication exemptions.  In justifying the change, the draft report asserts that "[t]he publication of patent applications is beneficial to both the patent community and the general public, since it promotes the disclosure benefit of the patent system and allows the public (including competitors) to learn for which inventions patents are being sought."  The second change to be introduced under this section of the bill concerns third-party submissions.  Explaining that restrictions in current U.S. patent law often deter third parties from submitting information relevant to the examination of pending applications, the Senate bill would allow third parties to submit more than just patents or publications, and to provide explanations as to why prior art is being submitted.

For additional information on the draft report, please see:

• "Late Patent Filings – Section 13" January 15, 2008
• "Draft Report on Senate Patent Reform Bill Circulated – Sections 9 and 15," January 14, 2008

For additional information regarding this topic, please see:

• "Patent Reform Discussed on Senate Floor," December 21, 2007
• "Enjoined New Rules and Patent Reform Finally Appearing on Biotech Industry’s Radar," December 20, 2007
• "Chinese IP Judge Discusses Implications of U.S. Patent Reform Bill and Two Congressmen Heed Warning," December 17, 2007
• "IPO President Seeks Deletion of Patent Reform Provision," December 12, 2007
• "Senate May Act on Patent ‘Reform’ Bill in the New Year," December 2, 2007
• "The Wall Street Journal Gets It Half Right," November 5, 2007
• "BIO CEO Provides Briefing on Follow-On Biologics and Patent Reform," September 18, 2007
• "Patent ‘Reform’ Bill Passes House of Representatives," September 9, 2007
• "Reversal in Microsoft Case Weakens Patent Reform Argument," August 7, 2007
• "San Francisco Chronicle Opines on Patent Reform," August 6, 2007
• "Patent Reform Bill to Be Delayed?" June 12, 2007
• "Senate Judiciary Committee Holds Hearing on Patent Reform," June 10, 2007
• "Could Creating a U.S. ‘Utility Model’ Patent Fulfill the ‘Need’ for Patent Law Reform?" May 21, 2007

    By Christopher P. Singer —

As we reported yesterday, a draft of the Senate Judiciary Committee’s report on the Patent Reform Act of 2007 (S. 1145) has begun to circulate on the internet.  The 106-page draft report
contains sections on the background and purpose of the bill, the
legislative history of the bill, a section-by-section summary of the
bill, a placeholder for a cost estimate, a regulatory impact
evaluation, and a list of the changes to Titles 15, 28, and 35 that
would result if the Senate bill were passed into law.  The circulation
of the draft report suggests that Senator Patrick Leahy,
Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, intends to keep his
mid-December patent reform bill pledge to seek "favorable Senate action
as early as the floor schedule permits" (see "Patent Reform Discussed on Senate Floor").  In view of the length of the draft report, Patent Docs will be
providing a discussion of selected sections of the bill over the next
few days.  Today, we address section 13 of the bill.

Section 13 of the draft report expands the situations in which the Director would have authority to consider and accept filings that would otherwise be considered late.  As noted in the report, the current scope of the Director’s authority is limited to revival of an application for unintentional delay; reinstatement of a patent for unintentional delay; revival for unintentional or unavoidable delay in submitting the filing fee or oath; and revival if failure to prosecute was unavoidable.  The proposed amendment, which would introduce 35 U.S.C. § 2(e), serves to expand the Director’s authority to accept any filings which are considered late as long as the filer of the late items can demonstrate that the delay in filing was unintentional.

Under new 35 U.S.C. § 2(e) the Director is authorized to accept a late filing when the filer (1) files a petition within 30 days after the missed deadline, and (2) demonstrates to the satisfaction of the Director that the delay was unintentional.  If the Director fails to act on the petition within 60 days of its filing date, the petition is effectively denied.  The final decision on the request is at the discretion of the Director and cannot be appealed.  This new subsection would be enforced to the extent that it would not apply to any other provision of the patent or trademark laws that allow the Director to accept late filings, or to any statutory deadlines required by treaty.  The applicability of this amendment would be to any application or other filing that (1) is filed on or after the date of the enactment of the bill, or (2) on the date of enactment, is pending before the Director or is subject to judicial review.  In such cases, the 30-day period would start from the enactment of the bill.

According to the legislative history, this section was proposed as an amendment by Senator Kennedy.  Initially, the amendment was agreed to by unanimous consent, but subsequently Senators Grassley and Sessions changed their votes to no, which did not affect the outcome of the overall vote.

For additional information on the draft report, please see:

• "Draft Report on Senate Patent Reform Bill Circulated – Sections 9 and 15," January 14, 2008

For additional information regarding this topic, please see:

• "Patent Reform Discussed on Senate Floor," December 21, 2007
• "Enjoined New Rules and Patent Reform Finally Appearing on Biotech Industry’s Radar," December 20, 2007
• "Chinese IP Judge Discusses Implications of U.S. Patent Reform Bill and Two Congressmen Heed Warning," December 17, 2007
• "IPO President Seeks Deletion of Patent Reform Provision," December 12, 2007
• "Senate May Act on Patent ‘Reform’ Bill in the New Year," December 2, 2007
• "The Wall Street Journal Gets It Half Right," November 5, 2007
• "BIO CEO Provides Briefing on Follow-On Biologics and Patent Reform," September 18, 2007
• "Patent ‘Reform’ Bill Passes House of Representatives," September 9, 2007
• "Reversal in Microsoft Case Weakens Patent Reform Argument," August 7, 2007
• "San Francisco Chronicle Opines on Patent Reform," August 6, 2007
• "Patent Reform Bill to Be Delayed?" June 12, 2007
• "Senate Judiciary Committee Holds Hearing on Patent Reform," June 10, 2007
• "Could Creating a U.S. ‘Utility Model’ Patent Fulfill the ‘Need’ for Patent Law Reform?" May 21, 2007

    By Donald Zuhn —

As reported in today’s issue of the IPO Daily News (an e-mail and online newsletter distributed by the Intellectual Property Owners Association), a draft of the Senate Judiciary Committee’s report on the Patent Reform Act of 2007 (S. 1145) has begun to circulate on the internet.  The 106-page draft report contains sections on the background and purpose of the bill, the legislative history of the bill, a section-by-section summary of the bill, a placeholder for a cost estimate, a regulatory impact evaluation, and a list of the changes to Titles 15, 28, and 35 that would result if the Senate bill were passed into law.  The circulation of the draft report suggests that Senator Patrick Leahy (at right), Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, intends to keep his mid-December patent reform bill pledge to seek "favorable Senate action as early as the floor schedule permits" (see "Patent Reform Discussed on Senate Floor").

Noting that "Congress has not enacted comprehensive patent law reform in more than 50 years," the draft report asserts that "[U.S. patent law] needs to change, both to correct flaws in the system that have become unbearable, and to accommodate changes in the economy and the litigation practices in the patent realm."  The draft report states that changes proposed by "small inventors, academics, universities, government agencies, corporations, non-profit organizations, industry organizations, bar associations, and members of the general public . . . have focused Congressional attention on three major areas of concern:  (i) appropriate procedures for prosecuting, and standards for allowing, patents; (ii) rising rates and costs of patent litigation, along with uncertain damage awards, and (iii) troubling inconsistencies between the US patent system and the other major patent systems throughout the industrialized world."  While the draft report states its case for patent reform, the report also notes that "the bill as originally introduced has been significantly changed to reflect a more balanced, modest approach . . . in response to various concerns raised before the Committee."

The version of the bill set forth in the draft report comprises seventeen sections.  According to the draft report, these sections of the bill would do the following:

1.  title the Act the Patent Reform Act of 2007;
2.  change the system to a "first-inventor-to-file" system;
3.  make it simpler for patent applicants to file and prosecute their applications;
4.  codify and clarify the standard for calculating reasonable royalty damage awards, as well as awards for willful infringement;
5.  create a relatively efficient and inexpensive administrative system for resolution of patent validity issues before the USPTO;
6.  establish the Patent Trial and Appeal Board;
7.  provide for eventual publication of all applications and enhance the utility of third parties’ submissions of relevant information regarding filed applications;
8.  improve venue in patent cases and provides for appeals of claim construction orders when warranted;
9.  give the USPTO the ability to set its fees;
10.  remove the residency restriction for judges on the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit;
11.  authorize USPTO to require patent searches with explanations when a patent application is filed;
12.  codify and improve the doctrine of inequitable conduct;
13.  give the Director of the USPTO discretion to accept late filings in certain instances;
14.  limit patent liability for institutions implementing the "Check 21" program;
15.  end USPTO "fee diversion";
16.  make necessary technical amendments; and
17.  set the effective date of the Act.

In view of the length of the draft report, Patent Docs will be providing a discussion of selected sections of the bill over the next few days.  Today, we will address sections 9 and 15 of the bill.

Observing that most patent and trademark fees — such as filing, issuance, and maintenance fees — are set by Congress, the draft report contends that "[h]istory has shown that such a scheme does not allow the USPTO to respond promptly to challenges facing it."  The draft report also notes that the Patent Office "has argued for years that it must have fee setting authority to administer properly the agency and its growing workload."

Section 9, entitled "Patent and Trademark Office regulatory authority," would allow the Patent Office to set or adjust all of its fees, provided that such changes would do no more than reasonably compensate the Office for the services it performs.  However, before instituting any fee increases or reductions, the Director would have to give notice to, and receive input from, the Patent Public Advisory Committee (or corresponding trademark committee for trademark related fee changes), under procedures set forth in the section.  Fee changes would also have to be published in the Federal Register for notice and comment, and include the "specific rationale and purpose" for the change.  Finally, the Director would be required under the provisions of the section to notify Congress of any fee changes, with Congress then having 45 days to consider and comment on the fee change.

The draft report notes that fees collected by the Patent Office are deposited in the U.S. Treasury, rather than being retained by the Office, and that the Office is instead funded by annual Congressional appropriations.  While the draft report argues that "Congress has fully funded the user fees to USPTO for the last several years," it acknowledges that Congress has not always done so, resulting in "fee diversion."  The Patent Office has contended that such fee diversion has yielded a growing backlog of unexamined applications and an increase in examination pendency.

In response to the criticisms of patent applicants, who informed the Committee that they would be willing to pay higher fees, but only on the condition that none of the fees collected by the Office be diverted, the Senate bill includes Section 15, entitled "Patent and Trademark Office funding."  This section of the bill would permit the Patent Office to retain the fees it collects without relying on annual Congressional appropriations.

The patent law reforms set forth in Sections 9 and 15 would help the Patent Office address its application backlog and pendency problems without having to resort to the draconian and significant changes that would result were the Office’s new continuation and claims rules enacted.  Not surprisingly, both of these "reforms" were proposed by Patent Docs readers in comments to our "Post-GSK: Where Do We Go from Here?" series.  The difference between the Senate and House sections on Patent Office regulatory authority is also of interest.  Whereas the Senate would only provide the Office with fee setting authority, the House bill would provide the Office with much greater authority, even going so far as to authorize the currently, but preliminarily, enjoined continuation and claims rules (albeit while reserving Congress’ right to disapprove of any rules changes within 60 days of publication).