SUBSCRIBE TODAY!
Subscribing entitles a reader to complete stories on all topics released as they happen, special features, confidential documents and access to the complete, searchable story archive online back to 2004.
IP-Watch Summer Interns

IP-Watch interns talk about their Geneva experience in summer 2013. 2:42.

Inside Views

Submit ideas to info [at] ip-watch [dot] ch!

We welcome your participation in article and blog comment threads, and other discussion forums, where we encourage you to analyse and react to the content available on the Intellectual Property Watch website.

By participating in discussions or reader forums, or by submitting opinion pieces or comments to articles, blogs, reviews or multimedia features, you are consenting to these rules.

1. You agree that you are fully responsible for the content that you post. You will not knowingly post content that violates the copyright, trademark, patent or other intellectual property right of any third party or which you know is under a confidentiality obligation preventing its publication and that you will request removal of the same should you discover that you have violated this provision. Likewise, you may not post content that is libelous, defamatory, obscene, abusive, that violates a third party's right to privacy, that otherwise violates any applicable local, state, national or international law, that amounts to spamming or that is otherwise inappropriate. You may not post content that degrades others on the basis of gender, race, class, ethnicity, national origin, religion, sexual preference, disability or other classification. Epithets and other language intended to intimidate or to incite violence are also prohibited. Furthermore, you may not impersonate others.

2. You understand and agree that Intellectual Property Watch is not responsible for any content posted by you or third parties. You further understand that IP Watch does not monitor the content posted. Nevertheless, IP Watch may monitor the any user-generated content as it chooses and reserves the right to remove, edit or otherwise alter content that it deems inappropriate for any reason whatever without consent nor notice. We further reserve the right, in our sole discretion, to remove a user's privilege to post content on our site. IP Watch is not in any manner endorsing the content of the discussion forums and cannot and will not vouch for its reliability or otherwise accept liability for it.

3. By submitting any contribution to IP Watch, you warrant that your contribution is your own original work and that you have the right to make it available to IP Watch for all purposes and you agree to indemnify IP Watch, its directors, employees and agents against all damages, legal fees and others expenses that may be incurred by IP Watch as a result of your breach of warranty or of these terms.

4. You further agree not to publish any personal information about yourself or anyone else (for example telephone number or home address). If you add a comment to a blog, be aware that your email address will be apparent.

5. IP Watch will not be liable for any loss including but not limited to the following (whether such losses are foreseen, known or otherwise): loss of data, loss of revenue or anticipated profit, loss of business, loss of opportunity, loss of goodwill or injury to reputation, losses suffered by third parties, any indirect, consequential or exemplary damages.

6. You understand and agree that the discussion forums are to be used only for non-commercial purposes. You may not solicit funds, promote commercial entities or otherwise engage in commercial activity in our discussion forums.

7. You acknowledge and agree that you use and/or rely on any information obtained through the discussion forums at your own risk.

8. For any content that you post, you hereby grant to IP Watch the royalty-free, irrevocable, perpetual, exclusive and fully sub-licensable license to use, reproduce, modify, adapt, publish, translate, create derivative works from, distribute, perform and display such content in whole or in part, world-wide and to incorporate it in other works, in any form, media or technology now known or later developed.

9. These terms and your posts and contributions shall be governed and interpreted in accordance with the laws of Switzerland (without giving effect to conflict of laws principles thereof) and any dispute exclusively settled by the Courts of the Canton of Geneva.

Latest Comments
  • So simply put, we have the NABP saying that all ph... »
  • The original Brustle decision was widely criticise... »

  • For IPW Subscribers

    A directory of IP delegates in Geneva. Read more>

    A guide to Geneva-based public health and intellectual property organisations. Read More >


    Monthly Reporter

    The Intellectual Property Watch Monthly Reporter, published from 2004 to January 2011, is a 16-page monthly selection of the most important, updated stories and features, plus the People and News Briefs columns.

    The Intellectual Property Watch Monthly Reporter is available in an online archive on the IP-Watch website, available for IP-Watch Subscribers.

    Access the Monthly Reporter Archive >

    Patent Reform Debate: Live Updates From The US House Of Representatives

    Published on 22 June 2011 @ 8:36 pm

    By for Intellectual Property Watch

    Intellectual Property Watch is providing play-by-play action from today’s floor debate of HR 1249, the bill to reform US patent law. IP-Watch Subscribers check back here for updates. Updated Thursday 23 June 6:45pm.

    6:45pm – The US House of Representatives passed HR 1249 on Thursday evening – the closest action patent reform has come to being enacted into law in the past 10 years. See the full IP-Watch story here.

    Thursday, 23 June, 10:30 – HR 1249 is on the House floor with many amendments lined up. Here is the list:

    THURSDAY, JUNE 23RD
    On Thursday, the House will meet at 10:00 a.m. for morning hour and 12:00 p.m. for legislative business. First votes expected: 1:00 – 2:00 p.m. Last votes expected: 4:00 – 5:30 p.m.
    One Minute Speeches (15 per side)
    Complete Consideration of H.R. 1249 – America Invents Act (Structured Rule) (Sponsored by Rep. Lamar Smith / Judiciary Committee / Budget Committee)
    The rule provides for no further general debate and makes in order the following amendments:
    Reps. John Conyers / Dana Rohrabacher Amendment (10 minutes of debate)
    Reps. Baldwin / Sensenbrenner / Kind Amendment (10 minutes of debate)
    Rep. Gwen Moore Amendment (10 minutes of debate)
    Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee Amendment (10 minutes of debate)
    Rep. Ben Ray Lujan Amendment (10 minutes of debate)
    Reps. Gary Peters / James Renacci Amendment (10 minutes of debate)
    Rep. Jared Polis Amendment (10 minutes of debate)
    Reps. Conyers/ Markey / Neal / Pompeo / Garrett / Lance / Gallegly Amendment (10 minutes of debate)
    Rep. Jackie Speier Amendment (10 minutes of debate)
    Rep. Maxine Waters Amendment (10 minutes of debate)
    Rep. James Sensenbrenner Amendment (10 minutes of debate)
    Rep. Donald Manzullo Amendment (10 minutes of debate)
    Reps. Dana Rohrabacher / Marcy Kaptur Amendment (10 minutes of debate)
    Reps. Schock / Boren / Waters / Sensenbrenner / Franks / Kaptur Amendment (10 minutes of debate)
    Rolled Amendment Votes:
    Rep. Lamar Smith Manager’s Amendment

    Begin Consideration of H.R. 2219 – Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 2012 (Open Rule) (Sponsored by Rep. Bill Young / Appropriations Committee)
    The rule provides for one hour of general debate and makes in order any amendment offered that complies with the House rules. Members are advised, however, that amendment debate on H.R. 2219 is not expected this week.
    Special Order Speeches

    9:18 pm – House members left HR 1249 as unfinished business after the “no” votes against the manager’s amendment prevailed. Rep. Lamar Smith, the Texas Republican who heads the House Judiciary Committee, asked for a recorded vote and further debate and action on the amendment was postponed until a time yet to be determined.

    8:45 pm – House members are debating the patent reform bill, HR 1249, once again on the chamber’s floor.

    Many Democrats are still urging their colleagues to vote against the bill, while most Republicans are supportive of it. The biggest issue is a manager’s amendment passed Tuesday night that would deposit all fees and other money collected by the USPTO above what was originally budgeted into a fund that would be supervised by Congress. Democrats and some Republicans say that language leaves room for those extra fees to be diverted for uses other than those dealing with patent activities, and will end up costing more.

    But Republicans, particularly House Rules Committee Chairman David Dreier of California, stressed that the bill does not cost more money, it just changes the way the money is classified. They also stressed that the extra money set aside in a reserve fund would only be used by the USPTO, not by any other agency, and only for patent matters.

    “Any fees that are collected but not appropriated to the PTO will be placed in a special fund to be used only by the PTO for their operations. This solves the fee diversion issues,” said Rep. Bob Goodlatte, the Virginia Republican who heads the House Judiciary Intellectual Property Subcommittee.

    Those funds “can’t be spent on anything else, but they have to be justified to the Congress before they are appropriated,” he added. Noting that many patent applications don’t get a first look by patent examiners for about three years, Goodlatte urged lawmakers to pass the bill to help make the office more efficient.

    “This is the closest we have ever come” to passing patent reform during the past decade, he said.

    3:30 pm [revised] – The House has voted 215-189 in favour of considering a rule for patent reform, although Democrats raised a point of order to try to prevent the rule from moving forward. Further debate and a vote on the rule is scheduled for later today.

    1:45 pm – Democrats and some Republicans on Wednesday took to the floor of the US House of Representatives to oppose a Republican-crafted manager’s amendment to the patent reform bill.

    Former House Judiciary Committee Jim Sensenbrenner, blasted the House Rules Committee for voting out a bill Tuesday night (IPW, US Policy, 22 June 2011) that violates House rules and requested the bill be sent back to the House Judiciary Committee. Arguments are surrounding a technical amendment to the bill that Sensenbrenner and many Democrats say violates Republicans’ own “CutGo” rules – endorsed by the Republican majority to ensure Congress delivers corresponding reductions to offset any new spending.

    Since the House Rules Committee adopted the amendment Tuesday night, a slew of stakeholder organisations have criticised it for not definitively ending fee diversion from the US Patent and Trademark Office. The manager’s amendment is attached to HR 1249, the House patent reform bill.

    Rep. John Conyers, a Michigan Democrat and ranking member of the House Judiciary Committee, said the Republican amendment is a “$1.1 billion violation.”

    “That’s real money that we’re going to have to get from somewhere else and we’re waiving CutGo for the first time in the 112th Congress,” Conyers said, calling it an “outrageous and costly and blatant violation of the House rules they [Republicans] wrote.”

    Sensenbrenner, along with Conyers and Rep. Don Manzullo, a Republican from Illinois, introduced an amendment this week to allow the USPTO to keep all the fees it raises and use the money to hire more staff and purchase better equipment to help eliminate the patent backlog, instead of giving Congress the power over those extra fees.

    Rep. Zoe Lofgren, a California Democrat, said the measure as it stands doesn’t permit consideration of that amendment – which she says will correct the violation of the rule.

    “I’m very disappointed that having worked on the patent reform measures since 1997 that we are yanking defeat from the jaw of victory here today,” Lofgren said. “I cannot support this measure … not only does it violate the rules, it costs the Treasury and it will disempower small, innovative inventors. This is wrong and the amendments that could have been put in order to correct them were not permitted. I think this is really quite a shame.”

    Rep. Dana Rohrabacher, a Republican from California who has railed against the bill for days in the media, noted that the Congressional Budget Office on Tuesday night would incur “significant new deficit spending” with post-grant review, first-to-file and other provisions.

    “This bill will lay the foundation not only for weaker patent protection for American inventors, but it will also knock the legs out … from us finally being responsible in our spending patterns. This bill is not about making the patent office more efficient,” but about harmonising American patents laws with those of countries overseas, which Rohrabacher says would hurt the American economy and innovation.

    If HR 1249 is passed without an outright end to fee diversion – which the Senate-passed bill calls for – the two chambers will have to go to conference to resolve the differences.

    Although Rep. Adam Schiff, a California Democrat, repeatedly asked why – if there is no intention to allow fees to be diverted from USPTO use – there is a need for the amendment in the first place, House Appropriations Chairman Rep. Hal Rogers, a Kentucky Republican, said it’s routine for agencies to get approval from Congress for transferring such funds.

    The manager’s amendment spells out that the extra money taken in by USPTO will be placed in a type of “escrow” account “just for their purposes, just for their use.” When the agency needs the money, it requests it from Congress. “It’s a standard procedure,” Rogers said.

    Liza Porteus Viana may be reached at lizapviana@gmail.com.

     


    Leave a Reply

    We welcome your participation in article and blog comment threads, and other discussion forums, where we encourage you to analyse and react to the content available on the Intellectual Property Watch website. By participating in discussions or reader forums, or by submitting opinion pieces or comments to articles, blogs, reviews or multimedia features, you are consenting to these rules.

    We welcome your participation in article and blog comment threads, and other discussion forums, where we encourage you to analyse and react to the content available on the Intellectual Property Watch website.

    By participating in discussions or reader forums, or by submitting opinion pieces or comments to articles, blogs, reviews or multimedia features, you are consenting to these rules.

    1. You agree that you are fully responsible for the content that you post. You will not knowingly post content that violates the copyright, trademark, patent or other intellectual property right of any third party or which you know is under a confidentiality obligation preventing its publication and that you will request removal of the same should you discover that you have violated this provision. Likewise, you may not post content that is libelous, defamatory, obscene, abusive, that violates a third party's right to privacy, that otherwise violates any applicable local, state, national or international law, that amounts to spamming or that is otherwise inappropriate. You may not post content that degrades others on the basis of gender, race, class, ethnicity, national origin, religion, sexual preference, disability or other classification. Epithets and other language intended to intimidate or to incite violence are also prohibited. Furthermore, you may not impersonate others.

    2. You understand and agree that Intellectual Property Watch is not responsible for any content posted by you or third parties. You further understand that IP Watch does not monitor the content posted. Nevertheless, IP Watch may monitor the any user-generated content as it chooses and reserves the right to remove, edit or otherwise alter content that it deems inappropriate for any reason whatever without consent nor notice. We further reserve the right, in our sole discretion, to remove a user's privilege to post content on our site. IP Watch is not in any manner endorsing the content of the discussion forums and cannot and will not vouch for its reliability or otherwise accept liability for it.

    3. By submitting any contribution to IP Watch, you warrant that your contribution is your own original work and that you have the right to make it available to IP Watch for all purposes and you agree to indemnify IP Watch, its directors, employees and agents against all damages, legal fees and others expenses that may be incurred by IP Watch as a result of your breach of warranty or of these terms.

    4. You further agree not to publish any personal information about yourself or anyone else (for example telephone number or home address). If you add a comment to a blog, be aware that your email address will be apparent.

    5. IP Watch will not be liable for any loss including but not limited to the following (whether such losses are foreseen, known or otherwise): loss of data, loss of revenue or anticipated profit, loss of business, loss of opportunity, loss of goodwill or injury to reputation, losses suffered by third parties, any indirect, consequential or exemplary damages.

    6. You understand and agree that the discussion forums are to be used only for non-commercial purposes. You may not solicit funds, promote commercial entities or otherwise engage in commercial activity in our discussion forums.

    7. You acknowledge and agree that you use and/or rely on any information obtained through the discussion forums at your own risk.

    8. For any content that you post, you hereby grant to IP Watch the royalty-free, irrevocable, perpetual, exclusive and fully sub-licensable license to use, reproduce, modify, adapt, publish, translate, create derivative works from, distribute, perform and display such content in whole or in part, world-wide and to incorporate it in other works, in any form, media or technology now known or later developed.

    9. These terms and your posts and contributions shall be governed and interpreted in accordance with the laws of Switzerland (without giving effect to conflict of laws principles thereof) and any dispute exclusively settled by the Courts of the Canton of Geneva.

     

     
    Your IP address is 54.83.227.6