Posts Tagged: "Congresswoman Lofgren"

With sequestration finally cutting the Republicans don’t seem to be in any rush whatsoever, so the Patent Office which really should be exempt is caught in the cross hairs. Although it is easy to point at Congressman Wolf, a Republican, and say the Republicans are to blame, that would be a mistake. Senator Coburn (R-OK) is a Republican and he fought to fully and fairly fund the USPTO. Furthermore, the reason the USPTO is bound by sequestration is thanks to the interpretation of the Office of Management and Budget. OMB is a part of the Executive Branch, so the President is in no way blameless. He has no trouble ignoring Congress when it suites him (i.e., the health care employer mandate delay) but when an argument could logically be made that the USPTO is not covered by sequestration no such argument was made. Thus, this is less a political issue than it is really bad kabuki theater.

On June 24, 2013, 17 Members of Congress wrote a letter to Congressman Frank Wolf (R-VA) and Congressman Chaka Fattah (D-PA), who are respectively the Chairman and the Ranking Member of the Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, Science of the House Appropriations Committee. The letter to Congressmen Wolf and Fattah was short and to the point, saying: “We write to request your assistance in addressing the Office of Management and Budget’s (OMB) recent decision to sequester user fees which fund the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO). As a result, almost $150 million in inventors’ fees in Fiscal Year 2013 have been locked in USPTO’s general fund. We request that the Approrpiations Committee allow USPTO to access the sequestered user fee funds.”

Two weeks ago House Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte (VA-6) announced the House Judiciary Committee’s Republican subcommittee assignments for the 113th Congress. See Republicans of the House Subcommittee on Intellectual Property. Today we meet the Democrats on the Subcommittee. It is the Subcommittee on Intellectual Property, Competition, and the Internet that has primary jurisdiction over matters relating to intellectual property matters. Thus, the House Subcommittee on IP that will be one of the primary focal points for any new legislation that deals with intellectual property over the next two years.

Where exactly does the right to have a repaired vehicle look exactly like a new vehicle come from?  I don’t find that in the Constitution either, but once again patents are right there in Article I, Section 8, Clause 8. For crying out loud it isn’t even like these folks don’t have the ability to repair their cars to brand new.  They can if they use OEM parts.  The trouble is that the insurance industry doesn’t want to pay and would prefer to use cheap, inferior parts rather than OEM parts.  So stiffing innovators is a right of consumers and insurance companies and the fact that the casualties will almost certainly be American jobs is just another inconvenient truth.

Earlier today, WIPO issued a press release, allegedly as the result of “recent media attention and requests for information” relating to what WIPO is and does, and exactly what happened regarding the computer deals that seem to quite clearly violate UN sanctions. Despite the belief of WIPO that the computer deals did not violate UN sanctions, the agency has implemented safe guards relative to their technical assistance program. There will be better coordination between UN organizations and committees to review deals that could potentially tread on UN sanctions.

WIPO is under fire again. It seems that WIPO not only shipped computers to North Korea, but also shipped computers to Iran as well. Congresswoman Zoe Lofgren (D-CA) called this latest WIPO transgression “an outrage.” At a hearing where Deputy USPTO Director Teresa Rea was a witness, Lofgren went on: “Really, it’s an outrage that WIPO would be transferring material, violating the sanctions that we have to North Korea and Iran… I mean it’s basically, it’s funded by U.S. inventors.”

My list is heavily dominated by California locations, and there are probably a couple surprises, but Albuquerque, New Mexico and Syracuse, New York? I make the case for the leading candidates and a few that definitely deserve short list consideration. In addition to the 9 criteria set out by the USPTO I have added a 10th of my own. If you look at the criteria it is hard to understand why Detroit was selected. Detroit doesn’t have a reputation as a particularly livable city, so will it really help retain and recruit examiners? It seems that there were some other considerations at play, and I can’t help but notice that traditionally blue Michigan is a swing state in 2012. With this in mind, I have a hunch that politics will play a big part of the awarding of satellite patent offices. Therefore, I am going to add a tenth criteria – From a purely political standpoint does the location serve a purpose?

On Friday, September 16, 2011, President Obama signed into law “The America Invents Act” (“AIA”) which passed the Senate on September 8, 2011, by a vote of 89-9. The AIA passed the House of Representatives on June 23rd by a vote of 304-117. The measure, which is the product of a seven-years-long legislative battle among patent policy stakeholders, changes how patents are obtained and enforced in the United States. Important reforms to patent law are incorporated into the AIA and, just as significantly, several controversial proposed changes were deleted from the AIA before final passage. This article is a play-by-play of the process and how it unfolded.

Truth be told, it would be enough for Congress to just (1) stop siphoning off money from the USPTO through fee diversion; (2) grant the USPTO fee setting authority; and (3) stand out of the way. So my message to Congress would be this: put the pocketbook down, slowly step back and raise your hands over your head so we can see them!

On Wednesday, May 5, 2010, David Kappos testified in front of the United States House of Representatives Committee on the Judiciary. See Hearing Page and Kappos Prepared Remarks. Many issues were covered during the hearing, but there were a couple matters that jump out as quite important. Most significantly, it seems that once again the Senate patent reform bill may be running into some difficulty in the House of Representatives. Some in the House of Representatives seem interested in slowing down regarding the substantive changes embodied in the Senate bill, but seem willing to consider legislation less grandiose and focused solely on giving the Patent Office fee setting authority and perhaps the ability to retain its fees. This, however, lead to a heated exchange that has been misreported in some outlets, so lets set the record straight.