Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 1908) to amend title 35, United States Code, to provide for patent reform.

Mr. Chairman, let me first of all thank the toiling committee chaired by Chairman Conyers and Ranking Member Smith. This has been a long journey. As a new member of the Subcommittee on Intellectual Property, let me also thank both the chairman and ranking member for a tough, tough challenge.

It is important to express that this is a significant change in patent law, but it is done to protect, if you will, the very treasure that has propelled America into an economic engine and that we must insist continue.

I think the changes that have been made certainly to some may be startling, but the effort was to bring all parties together. I am delighted that even though there are questions about, for example, the first-to-file over the first-to-invent, this committee saw fit to add my amendment which means that there will be periodic review so Congress will be instructed on whether or not this works on behalf of all inventors big and small.

Then when we look at the workings in section 5 dealing with first-to- file and dealing with damages. Rather than passing this law forever and ever, an amendment I added will give us an opportunity to study it to assess who is it helping and who is it hurting. We certainly want to ensure that all are given an opportunity.

I am very glad that the manager's amendment has impacted the damages provision. The original bill seemed to require all apportionment in all cases. But in this instance the manager's amendment has made it as one of the factors. Therefore, when you look at a Post-it sticker, you can determine how much the glue has helped the Post-it sticker. This is apportionment of damages in case there was a lawsuit.

I know that there are many groups, such as Innovation Alliance, that I look forward to working with as we make our way through to ensure that this bill answers the questions big and small and fuels the economic engine of manufacturing, universities, pharmaceuticals and others, like small inventors. I ask my colleagues to consider this bill and support it. It has a meaningful response to changing patent law for all involved.

Mr. Chairman, as an original co-sponsor and member of the Judiciary Subcommittee on the Courts, Intellectual Property, and the Internet, I rise in strong support of H.R. 1908, the Patent Reform Act of 2007. I am proud to Support this legislation because in many ways the current patent system is flawed, outdated, and in need of modernization. Under the visionary leadership of Chairman Conyers and Subcommittee Chairman Berman, joined by Mr. Smith and Mr. Coble, their counterparts on the minority side, the Judiciary Committee labored long and hard to produce legislation that reforms the American patent system so that it continues to foster innovation and be the jet fuel of the American economy and remains the envy of the world.

Mr. Chairman, Article I, Section 8, clause 8 of the Constitution confers upon the Congress the power:

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by

securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the

exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.

In order to fulfill the Constitution's mandate, we must examine the patent system periodically. The legislation before us represents the first comprehensive review of the patent system in more than a generation. It is right and good and necessary that the Congress now reexamine the patent system to determine whether there may be flaws in its operation that may hamper innovation, including the problems described as decreased patent quality, prevalence of subjective elements in patent practice, patent abuse, and lack of meaningful alternatives to the patent litigation process.

On the other hand, Mr. Chairman, we must always be mindful of the importance of ensuring that small companies have the same opportunities to innovate and have their inventions patented and that the laws will continue to protect their valuable intellectual property.

The role of venture capital is very important in the patent debate, as is preserving the collaboration that now occurs between small firms and universities. We must ensure that whatever improvements we make to the patent laws are not done so at the expense of innovators and to innovation. The legislation before us, while not perfect, does a surprisingly good job at striking the right balance.

Mr. Chairman, the subject of damages and royalty payments, which is covered in Section 5 of the bill, is a complex issue. The complexity stems from the subject matter itself but also interactive effects of patent litigation reform on the royalty negotiation process and the future of innovation. Important innovations come from universities, medical centers, and smaller companies that develop commercial applications from their basic research. These innovators must rely upon the licensing process to monetize their ideas and inventions.

Mr. Chairman, the innovation ecosystem we create and sustain today will produce tomorrow's technological breakthroughs. That ecosystem is comprised of many different operating models. It is for that reason that we evaluated competing patent reform proposals thoroughly to ensure that sweeping changes in one part of the system do not result in unintended consequences to other important parts.

Let me discuss briefly some of the more significant features of this legislation, which I will urge all members to support.

Section 3: Right of the First Inventor to File

H.R. 1908 converts the U.S. patent system from a first-to-invent system to a first-inventor-to file system. The U.S. is alone in granting priority to the first inventor as opposed to the first inventor to file a patent. H.R. 1908 will inject needed clarity and certainty into the system. While cognizant of the enormity of the change that a ``first inventor to file'' system may have on many small inventors and universities, a grace period is maintained to substantially reduce the negative impact to these inventors.

Moreover, the legislation incorporates an amendment that I offered during the full committee markup that requires the Department of Commerce Undersecretary for Intellectual Property and Director of the Patent and Trademark Office director to conduct a study every seven years on the effectiveness of revisions made in the bill to the patent derivation litigation system and submit the report to the House and Senate Judiciary committees. In embracing this constructive addition to the bill, the Committee Report notes:

[T]he amendments in section 3 of the bill serve to

implement a fundamental change in the operation of the United

States patent system. Such change, while well-reasoned,

requires a mechanism for monitoring its long-term effects.

Section 5: Formula for Calculating Fair and Equitable Remedies

Section 5 of the bill provides useful clarification to courts and juries designed to ensure inventors are compensated fairly, while not discouraging innovation with arbitrary or excessive damage awards. While preserving the right of patent owners to receive appropriate damages, the bill provides a formula to ensure that the patent owner be rewarded for the actual value of the patented invention.

Computing damages in patent cases is an exceedingly complex task. The complexity stems not from the unwillingness of competing interests to find common ground but from the interactive effects of patent litigation reform on the royalty negotiation process and the future of innovation.

To illustrate, consider this frequently cited hypothetical. A new turbine blade for a jet engine is invented which enables the plane to achieve a 40 percent increase in gas mileage. What is fair compensation for the holder of the patent? Damages could fairly be based on the number of turbine blades used, the number of jet engines employing those turbine blades, or on a percentage of the savings of the cost of jet fuel used, or the number of miles flown by aircraft using engines employing the turbine blades, or even, if the higher efficiency of aircraft using the turbine blades was the basis for the market demand for the jet, the jet itself.

The original version of the bill was susceptible to a reasonable interpretation that apportionment would be required in all cases. But as marked up and amended, apportionment is only one of the several methods a court can use in awarding damages, including the use of the current approach established in Georgia-Pacific v. United States Plywood Corp., 318 F.Supp. 116 (S.D.N.Y. 1970), which provides that reasonable royalty damages are ascertained by looking to what the infringer would have paid, and what the patent owner would have accepted, for a license, had one been negotiated at the time the infringement began.

Moreover, apportionment no longer applies to damages based on lost profits. Another change allows plaintiff to recover the enhanced value of previously known elements where their combination in the invention adds value or functionality to the prior art. This is a very important and helpful compromise on the issue of patent case damages. We must keep in mind that important innovations come from universities, medical centers, and smaller companies that develop commercial applications from their basic research. These innovators must rely upon the licensing process to monetize their ideas and inventions.

Thus, it is very important that we take care not to harm this incubator of tomorrow's technological breakthroughs. The bill before us strikes the proper balance.

In addition, it should also be pointed out that included in the bill is another of my amendments adopted during the full committee markup requiring the PTO Director to conduct a study on the effectiveness and efficiency of the amendments to section 5 of the bill, and submit to the Committees on the Judiciary of the House of Representatives and the Senate a report on the results of the study. The report must include any recommendations the Director may have on amendments to the law add any other recommendations the Director may have with respect to the right of the inventor to obtain damages for patent infringement. The study must be done not later than the end of the 7-year period beginning on the date of enactment of this Act and at the end of every 7-year period after the date of the first study. In adopting this amendment, the Judiciary Committee reported that:

[T]he amendments in section 5 of the bill will have many

positive effects on the patent system, but that the changes

are sufficiently significant to require periodic monitoring.

By examining the effects of these changes on a regular basis,

and by paying attention to such feedback as may be obtained

through these studies, Congress can ensure that any

unforeseen negative consequences that may arise can be dealt

with through future legislation or other mechanisms.

Willful Infringement and Prior Use Rights

The legislation also contains certain limitations on willful infringement. A court may only find willful infringement if the patent owner shows, by clear and convincing evidence, that (1) the infringer, after receiving detailed written notice from the patentee, performed the acts of infringement, (2) the infringer intentionally copied the patented invention with knowledge that it was patented, or (3) after having been found by a court to have infringed a patent, the infringer engaged in conduct that again infringed on the same patent. An allegation of willfulness is subject to a ``good faith'' defense. H.R. 1908 also expands the ``prior user rights'' defense to infringement, where an earlier inventor began using a product or process (although unpatented) before another obtained a patent for it.

Post-Grant Procedures and Other Quality Enhancements

Another beneficial feature of H.R. 1908 is that it cures the principal deficiencies of re-examination procedures and creates a new, post-grant review that provides an effective and efficient system for considering challenges to the validity of patents. Addressing concerns that one seeking to cancel a patent could abuse a post -grant review procedure, the bill establishes a single opportunity for challenge that must be initiated within 12 months of the patent being granted. It also requires the PTO Director to prescribe rules for abuse of discovery or improper use of the proceeding, limits the types of prior art which may be considered, and prohibits a party from reasserting claims in court that it raised in post-grant review.

Venue and Jurisdiction

Finally, the bill also addresses changes to venue, to address extensive forum shopping and provides for interlocutory appeals to help clarify the claims of the inventions early in the litigation process. H.R. 1908 would restore balance to this statute by allowing cases to be brought in a variety of locales--including where the defendant is incorporated or has its principal place of business or has committed a substantial portion of the acts of infringement and has a physical facility controlled by the defendant. H.R. 1908 makes patent reform litigation more efficient by providing the Federal Circuit jurisdiction over interlocutory decisions, known as Markman orders, in which the district court construes the claims of a patent as a matter of law.

Conclusion

In short, Mr. Chairman, the argument for supporting H.R. 1908 can be summed up as follows: For those who are confident about the future, the bill, as amended, offers vindication. For those who are skeptical that the new changes will work, the Jackson-Lee amendments added to the bill will provide the evidence they need to prove their case. And for those who believe that maintaining the status quo is intolerable, the legislation before us offers the best way forward.

I urge all members to join me in supporting passage of this landmark legislation.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I started out in this debate to say that we worked very hard for a long period of time to be able to look at the small and the big, the big inventor and the little man inventor. All of them have been great to America, and we have benefited from their inventions and their intellect.

This patent bill preserves the intellectual property, the art, the invention, the minds of America. And it does, in fact, protect us against those who would undermine this very viable economic engine, and that is our mind, our talent.

But I believe that all voices should be heard. And throughout this whole process there is probably no one who focused on the damages issue as much as I did, the proportionality issue. And I worked with Mr. Berman and Mr. Conyers and our bipartisan friends.

So this gives us an opportunity, and my amendment is very simple. And it doesn't wait 7 years or 10 years to give us answers. It's 1 year. It provides us with the opportunity in this landmark legislation to study the patent damage awards in cases where such awards have been based on a reasonable royalty under section 84 of title 35 of the United States Code. The study should at a minimum consider cases from 1990 to the present. It has a very detailed analysis, and what that will do is it will find its way to this Congress and we will have a better way of assessing the impact.

We are concerned. Proportionality is an issue. But we are not ignoring your concerns, and this particular study helps to bring us along.

Let me just quickly suggest the entities that will be impacted in a positive way: the American Intellectual Property Law Association, a number of universities that will be impacted from the University of Illinois to Massachusetts to the University of Iowa, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, New Hampshire, North Carolina, Texas A&M. Small inventors will be impacted by this study because it will give us more information.

I would ask my colleagues to support this amendment.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman for affording me this opportunity to explain my amendment to H.R. 1908, the ``Patent Reform Act of 2007.'' Let me also thank the distinguished Chairman of the Judiciary Committee, Mr. Conyers, and the Ranking Member, Mr. Smith, for the example of bipartisan leadership coming together to address the real problems of the American people and the economy.

I especially wish to thank Mr. Berman and Mr. Coble, the chair and ranking member of the Judiciary Subcommittee on Courts, Intellectual Property, and the Internet for their hard work, perseverance, and visionary leadership in producing landmark legislation that should ensure that the American patent system remains the envy of the world. I am proud to have joined with all of them as original co-sponsor of H.R. 1908, the Patent Reform Act of 2007.

On behalf of the small business enterprises, technology firms, and academics I am privileged to represent, I want to publicly thank them for working with me on two other amendments to the bill offered by me which were adopted during the full committee markup.

Mr. Chairman, my amendment is a simple but important addition to this landmark legislation, which I believe can be supported by every member of this body. My amendment calls for a study of patent damage awards in cases where such awards have been based on a reasonable royalty under Section 284 of Title 35 of the United States Code. The study should, at a minimum, consider cases from 1990 to the present. The results of this study shall be reported to the House and Senate Judiciary Committees.

I have attached to my statement a partial listing of groups, organizations, institutions, and industries that will benefit from the study called for in my amendment.

Mr. Chairman, Article I, Section 8, clause 8 of the Constitution confers upon the Congress the power: ``To promote the Progress of

Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.''

In order to fulfill the Constitution's mandate, we must examine the patent system periodically to determine whether there may be flaws in its operation that may hamper innovation, including the problems described as decreased patent quality, prevalence of subjective elements in patent practice, patent abuse, and lack of meaningful alternatives to the patent litigation process.

On the other hand, we must be mindful of the importance of ensuring that small companies have the same opportunities to innovate and have their inventions patented and that the laws will continue to protect their valuable intellectual property.

Chairman Berman is to be commended for his yeoman efforts in seeking to broker a consensus on the subject of damages and royalty payments, which is covered in Section 5 of the bill. But as all have learned by now, this is an exceedingly complex issue. The complexity stems not from the unwillingness of competing interests to find common ground but from the interactive effects of patent litigation reform on the royalty negotiation process and the future of innovation.

Important innovations come from universities, medical centers, and smaller companies that develop commercial applications from their basic research. These innovators must rely upon the licensing process to monetize their ideas and inventions. Thus, it is very important that we take care not to harm this incubator of tomorrow's technological breakthroughs. It is for that reason that we need to study whether patent damage awards in cases where such awards have been based on a reasonable royalty under 35 U.S.C. 284 have and are hindering technological innovation.

And it is important to emphasize Mr. Chairman, that this evaluation will be based on empirical data rigorously analyzed.

Among the matters to be studied and reviewed are the following: Whether the mean or median dollar amount of reasonably royalty-based patent damages awarded by courts or juries, as the case may be, has significantly increased on a per case basis during the period covered by the study, taking into consideration adjustments for inflation and other relevant economic factors; Whether there has been a pattern of excessive and inequitable reasonable-royalty based damages during the period covered by the study and, if so, any contributing factors; To the extent that a pattern of excessive and inequitable damage awards exists, measures that could guard against such inappropriate awards without unduly prejudicing the rights and remedies of patent holders or significantly increasing litigation costs; and To the extent that a pattern of excessive and inequitable damage awards exists, whether legislative proposals that would mandate, or create a presumption in favor of, apportionment of reasonable royalty-based patent damages would effectively guard against such inappropriate awards without unduly prejudicing the rights and remedies of patent holders or significantly increasing litigation costs.

In short, Mr. Chairman my amendment can be summed up as follows: For those who are confident of the future, my amendment offers vindication. For those who are skeptical that the new changes will work, my amendment will provide the evidence they need to prove their case. And for those who believe that maintaining the status quo is intolerable, my amendment offers a way forward.

I urge all members to support my amendment.

Appendix

AmberWave Systems Aware, Inc., Canopy Venture Partners,

LLC, Cantor Fitzgerald, LP, Cryptography Research, Cummins-

Allison Corp., Digimarc Corporation, Fallbrook Technologies,

Inc., Helius, Inc, Immersion Corporation, Inframat

Corporation, InterDigital Communications Corporation,

Intermolecular, Inc., LSI Metabolix.

QUALCOMM, Inc., Symyx, Tessera, US Nanocorp. 3M, Abbott,

Accelerated Technologies, Inc., Acorn Cardiovascular Inc.,

Adams Capital Management, Adroit Medical Systems, Inc.,

AdvaMed, Advanced Diamond Technologies, Inc., Advanced

Medical Optics, Inc., Advanced Neuromodulation Systems, Inc.,

Aero-Marine Company.

AFL-CIO, Air Liquide, Air Products, ALD NanoSolutions,

Inc., ALIO Industries, Allergan, Inc., Almyra, Inc.,

AmberWave Systems Corporation, American Intellectual Property

Law Association (AIPLA), American Seed Trade, Americans for

Sovereignty, Americans for the Preservation of Liberty,

Amylin Pharmaceuticals, AngioDynamics, Inc. Applied Medical,

Applied Nanotech, Inc.

Argentis Pharmaceuticals, LLC, Arizona BioIndustry

Association, ARYx Therapeutics, Ascenta Therapeutics, Inc.,

Association of University Technology Managers (AUTM),

Asthmatx, Inc., AstraZeneca, Aware, Inc., Baxa Corporation,

Baxter Healthcare Corporation, BayBio, Beckman Coulter, BIO--

Biotechnology Industry Organization, BioCardia, Inc.

BIOCOM, Biogen Idec. Biomedical Association, BioOhio,

Bioscience Institute, Biotechnology Council of New Jersey,

Blacks for Economic Security Trust Fund, BlazeTech

Corporation, Boston Scientific, Bridgestone Americas Holding,

Inc., Bristol-Myers Squibb, BuzzLogic, California Healthcare

Institute, Canopy Ventures, Carbide Derivative Technologies,

Cardiac Concepts, Inc.

CardioDynamics, Cargill, Inc., Cassie-Shipherd Group,

Caterpillar, Celgene Corporation, Cell Genesys, Inc., Center

7, Inc. Center for Small Business and the Environment, Centre

for Security Policy, Cephalon, CheckFree, Christian Coalition

of America, Cincinnati Sub-Zero Products, Coalition for 21st

Century Patent Reform, Coalitions for America.

CogniTek Management Systems, Inc., Colorado Bioscience

Association, Conceptus, Inc., CONNECT, Connecticut United for

Research Excellence, Cornell University, Corning, Coronis

Medical Ventures, Council for America, CropLife America,

Cryptography Research, Cummins Inc.

Cummins-Allison Corporation, CVRx Inc., Dais Analytic

Corporation, Dartmouth Regional Technology Center, Inc.,

Declaration Alliance

Deltanoid Pharmaceuticals, Digimarc Corporation,

DirectPointe, Dow Chemical Company, DuPont, Dura-Line

Corporation, Dynatronics Co., Eagle Forum, Eastman Chemical

Company.

Economic Development Center, Edwards Lifesciences, Elan

Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Electronics for Imaging, Eli Lilly and

Company, Ellman Innovations LLC, Enterprise Partners Venture

Capital, Evalve, Inc. Exxon Mobil Corporation, Fallbrook

Technologies Inc., FarSounder, Inc., Footnote.com, Gambro

BCT, General Electric.

Genomic Health, Inc., Gen-Probe Incorporated, Genzyme,

Georgia Biomedical Partnership, Glacier Cross, Inc.

GlaxoSmithKline, Glenview State Bank, Hawaii Science &

Technology Council, HealthCare Institute of New Jersey,

HeartWare, Inc., Helius, Inc., Henkel Corporation.

Hoffman-LaRoche, Inc., iBIO, Imago Scientific Instruments,

Impulse Dynamics (USA), Inc., Indiana Health Industry Forum,

Indiana University, Innovation Alliance, Institute of

Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE)-USA.

InterDigital Communications Corporation, Intermolecular,

Inc., International Association of Professional and Technical

Engineers (IFPTE), Invitrogen Corporation, Iowa Biotechnology

Association, ISTA Pharmaceuticals, Jazz Pharmaceuticals,

Inc., Johnson & Johnson, KansasBio, Leadership Institute, Let

Freedom Ring, Life Science Alley, LITMUS, LLC, LSI

Corporation, Lux Capital Management, Luxul Corporation,

Maryland Taxpayers' Association.

Masimo Corporation, Massachusetts Biotechnology Council,

Massachusetts Medical Device Industry Council (MassMEDIC),

Maxygen Inc., MDMA--Medical Device Manufacturer's

Association, Medical College of Wisconsin, Medlmmune, Inc.,

Medtronic, Merck, Metabasis Therapeutics, Inc., Metabolex,

Inc., Metacure (USA), Inc., MGI Pharma Inc., MichBio.

Michigan Small Tech Association, Michigan State University,

Millennium Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Milliken & Company, Mohr,

Davidow Ventures, Monsanto Company, NAM--National Association

of Manufacturers, NanoBioMagnetics, Inc. (NBMI), NanoBusiness

Alliance, Nanolnk, Inc., Nanolntegris, Inc., Nanomix, Inc.,

Nanophase Technologies, NanoProducts Corporation, Nanosys,

Inc., Nantero, Inc., National Center for Public Policy

Research, Nektar Therapeutics, Neoconix, Inc.

Neuro Resource Group (NRG), Neuronetics, Inc., NeuroPace,

New England Innovation Alliance, New Hampshire Biotechnology

Council, New Hampshire Department of Economic Development,

New Mexico Biotechnical and Biomedical Association, New York

Biotechnology Association.

Norseman Group, North Carolina Biosciences Organization,

North Carolina State University, North Dakota State

University, Northrop Grumman Corporation, Northwestern

University, Novartis, Novartis Corporation.

Novasys Medical Inc., NovoNordisk, NUCRYST Pharmaceuticals,

Inc., NuVasive, Inc., Nuvelo, Inc., Ohio State University,

OpenCEL, LLC, Palmetto Biotechnology Alliance, Patent

Cafe.com, Inc., Patent Office Professional Association,

Pennsylvania Bio, Pennsylvania State University, PepsiCo,

Inc., Pfizer, PhRMA--Pharmaceutical Research and

Manufacturers of America, Physical Sciences Inc., PointeCast

Corporation.

Power Innovations International, Power Metal Technologies,

Inc., Preformed Line Products, Procter & Gamble, Professional

Inventors' Alliance.

ProRhythm, Inc., Purdue University, Pure Plushy Inc.,

QUALCOMM Inc., QuantumSphere, Inc., QuesTek Innovations LLC,

Radiant Medical, Inc., Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute,

Research Triangle Park, NC, Retractable Technologies, Inc.,

RightMarch.com.

S & C Electric Company, Salix Pharmaceuticals, Inc.,

SanDisk Corporation, Sangamo BioSciences, Inc., Semprius,

Inc, Small Business Association of Michigan--Economic

Development Center, Small Business Exporters Association of

the United States, Small Business Technology Council, Smart

Bomb Interactive, Smile Reminder, SmoothShapes, Inc., Solera

Networks, South Dakota Biotech Association, Southern

California Biomedical Council, Spiration, Inc., Standup Bed

Company.

State of New Hampshire Department of Resources and Economic

Development, Stella Group, Ltd., StemCells, SurgiQuest, Inc.,

Symyx Technologies, Inc., Tech Council of Maryland/MdBio,

Technology Patents & Licensing, Tennessee Biotechnology

Association, Tessera, Inc., Texas A&M, Texas Healthcare,

Texas Instruments, Three Arch Partners, United Technologies,

University of California System, University of Illinois,

University of Iowa, University of Maryland, University of

Michigan, University of Minnesota, University of New

Hampshire, University of North Carolina System, University of

Rochester, University of Utah, University of Wisconsin-

Madison.

US Business and Industry Council, US Council for

International Business, USGI Medical, USW--United

Steelworkers, Vanderbilt University and Medical Center,

Virent Energy Systems, Inc., Virginia Biotechnology

Association, Visidyne, Inc., VisionCare Opthamalogic

Technologies, Inc., Washington Biotechnology & Biomedical

Association.

Washington University, WaveRx, Inc., Wayne State

University, Wescor, Inc., Weyerhaeuser, Wilson Sonsini

Goodrich & Rosati, Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation

(WARF), Wisconsin Biotechnology and Medical Device

Association, Wyeth.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, my intent was to respond to the disparate voices.

Would you at least admit that this improves or adds to by giving us additional information?

Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Zoe Lofgren).

May I inquire as to how much time I have remaining?

I yield 45 seconds to the distinguished chairman, Mr. Conyers.

Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the distinguished gentleman from California.

I thank my friend from Texas.

I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 1908.

The proponents suggest that it is the most fundamental and comprehensive change of American patent law in over a half century. Well, that's true, and that's why it should be defeated, because the changes are almost all aimed at undermining the technological creators and strengthening the hand of foreign and domestic thieves and scavengers who would exploit America's most creative minds and use our technology against us. It would be a disaster for individual inventors, with an impressive coalition strongly opposing this legislation: universities, labor unions, biotech industries, pharmaceuticals, nanotech, small business, traditional manufacturers, electronics and computer engineers, as well, of course, the patent examiners themselves who are telling us this will have a horrible impact on our patent system.

They are all begging us to vote ``no.'' This so-called reform will make them vulnerable to theft by foreign and domestic technology thieves. Our most

cutting-edge technology will be available to our enemies and our competitors. That is why I call this the Steal American Technologies Act. The billionaires in the electronics industry and the financial industries who are supporting H.R. 1908, many of them already have built their factories in China, would do away with the patent system altogether if they could. They are so powerful and arrogant that they have set out to fundamentally alter our traditional technology protection laws, laws that have served America well for over 200 years.

Yes, this is an issue vital to the well-being of the American people, to our standard of living; yet we find ourselves with a severely limited debate. There is only 1 hour of debate. Those of us who are opposing this legislation haven't even been given the right, which is traditional in this body, to control our own time. Yes, the way we are handling this debate is a disgrace. There will be 12 minutes available for those of us who oppose a bill that they claim is so important for the future of our country.

What do we know about this bill? It is a horror story for American inventors and a windfall for foreign and domestic thieves. We don't even know what is in the bill. The manager's amendment has been changed even after the committee did its business. So it wasn't even fully debated in the committee and much less fully debated at the subcommittee level. No, what we are doing is a power play here. That is what we are witnessing. The opposition doesn't even get the chance to argue our case adequately before this body or before the American people. Our inventors and our innovators are begging us not to pass this legislation. Foreign and domestic technology thieves are licking their chops. Let's not let the big guys beat down and smash the little guys, which is what the purpose of this legislation is.

There are problems in the Patent Office, that is true, that can be fixed without having to fundamentally alter the principles that are the basis of our patent system, which is what this legislation does. This legislation, in the name of reform, is being used as a cover to basically destroy the patent system that has served us so well. In the long term, it will destroy American competitiveness and the standard of living of our working people. That is what is at stake here. Overseas, the people in India, China, Japan and Korea are waiting. We have quotes from newspapers suggesting that as soon as this bill passes, they will have a greater ability to take American technology even before a patent is granted and put it into commercial use against us.

This is a shameful, shameful proposal. The American people have a right to know. We are watching out for their interests. I don't care what the billionaires in the electronics industry and the financial industry say. We should have more debate on this. We should have had 2 or 3 hours of debate on this if it is as important as they say. Instead, we have been muzzled, and it is a power grab. Vote against

Mr. Chairman, parliamentary inquiry.

Does the person who controls the time against the manager's amendment have to be against the manager's amendment?

Who controls the time in opposition?

I would suggest that whoever does control the time should be in opposition, and if Mr. Smith, who I respect greatly, does not oppose the manager's amendment, he should not be in control of the debate against the manager's amendment, and I would note that there are others of us who would like to have that.

Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim the time in opposition to the manager's amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to yield 5 minutes of the 10 minutes in opposition to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur) for her to control that time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Manzullo).

How much time do I have left?

And the time on the other side?

I yield myself 3 minutes.

Let's just note when we are talking, Ms. Kaptur and Mr. Manzullo talk about one of the horrible provisions of the bill, which changes the whole concept of how damages are assessed, and who has benefited by this.

We have to ask ourselves, we talk about the Wright brothers, the little guys who actually made all the difference in whether or not America has a high standard of living, the damages that these inventors have when people violate their rights and how those damages are assessed. That's right in this legislation.

Yes, they are changing it to the benefit of the infringers. They are beating down the little guys, making it more difficult for the Wright brothers and for all the other little guys who have come up with these ideas in order to help the big corporations.

By the way, let me just add this thought: we are not just talking about American corporations here. We are not talking about making inventors just vulnerable to the big American corporations. We are talking about multinational corporations, and we are talking about foreign corporations.

Our little guys, with just this change, are going to be dramatically damaged. Their ability, in order to protect their rights, will be dramatically reduced.

This is just one example of the type of diminishing of the rights of the inventor in this bill. Yet, we aren't able to discuss it fully. One hour of debate for a bill that's being described here as one of the most important pieces of legislation in the century? One hour of debate in which the opposition was not given a chance to control any time in opposition? This is a disgrace. What's going on?

This alone should raise the red flag to all of our Members saying something is going on here; there is a power play people in our legislation aren't being able to control their time. What's happening here? We have a manager's amendment now that was permitted to be changed after it left committee. There wasn't even a proper debate on this bill then and this manager's amendment in the committee, much less the subcommittee.

So what we have here is a power play by somebody. The rules don't count when it comes to the bill, because somebody out there really wants it really bad in order to not give us a chance to give the other side, not give the full committee a chance even to discuss these details that are changed in the manager's amendment, not to let the subcommittee play its role.

Now, all I am suggesting is this should raise a red flag for all of our Members. All of us should be aware that when these types of shenanigans are being played, something is going on, that the legislation that's being pushed through probably is not good legislation, but, instead, helps a small group of powerful people.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

First and foremost, let us note that over and over again we hear, well, they are not opposing the bill. Well, the labor unions and others, many of them are opposing the bill. But the ones you're describing, you're just saying they aren't necessarily supporting the bill. What we are saying, they are not supporting the bill. This has been reconfirmed by what my colleagues have said in the last 10 minutes.

Also, let us note, over and over again we hear, we're going to work this out. We're going to work all these things out in the bill as it moves through the process, which means to all of us there are major flaws in this bill, huge flaws in this bill, and we have to take it just on faith that they're going to work out all these flaws as it goes through the process.

I would suggest that we take this, we vote ``no'' on this bill, and then let's correct those flaws and come back to the floor when you've got a bill that isn't flawed. Let's go back to the floor when you can support a bill with an honest debate and not be so afraid of a debate that you'll neuter the chances and mute our opposition voices by giving us almost no time to discuss the issues.

I would yield to my friend, Ms. Kaptur.

Reclaiming my time, Ms. Kaptur has made a really important observation here, and that is, at the end of the day, yeah, the Issa amendment does make some changes, but at the end of the day, there will be American patent applications in which the inventor would like to keep secret until he gets the patent issued to him, which will be published for all of the thieves in China and India and Japan and Korea and elsewhere who would like to have all of that information before the patent is issued. There will still be a significant number of patent applications published for the whole world to see, and the patent applicant doesn't want that.

I certainly will.

So in the end, where Mr. Issa's amendment does take things one or two steps forward, the fact is it doesn't come anywhere close to offering the protection that currently exists in the law that is being destroyed by the language in the Steal American Technologies Act, H.R. 1908.

Let me just note, for my own situation, in terms of the chairman asking

me about my credentials in terms of being associated with labor, I was a member of a labor union. I actually scrubbed toilets at times in my life. I have had menial jobs. I care about the working people. My family comes from working class farmers, poor farmers and people who went off to defend this country.

The American people, the standard of living of ordinary people depends on technology. This bill that's being proposed will give our technological secrets to our competitors which undermines the working people's chances here of competing with cheap labor overseas.

If this bill passes, those people who will be our competitors overseas, even if Mr. Issa's amendment passes, they will have our secrets before the patent is issued and be outcompeting us with our own technologies.

Announcement by the Acting Chairman

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

This is yet another example of why this overall bill should be defeated. The fact is that we shouldn't be changing the provision and permitting outside agencies and taking authority away from us from setting the basic ground rules about patents in the first place. This idea that, well, let me put it this way. This bill is so filled with this type of imperfection, and as we have had our guarantee from those people who brought this bill to the floor so precipitously, they will work really hard to make sure all the flaws are out. I would suggest that that statement alone should have all these red flags going up for all of us. And then the muting of the opposition and not permitting us an adequate amount of time to actually discuss the provisions of the bill and not giving us time to control our own opposition, again, should be the red flags for all of us who's listening to this debate.

I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gohmert).

Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have?

I yield 1 minute to Ms. Kaptur.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Let me just note I think it is really much more important to talk about provisions of the bill rather than trying to point out things about each other, and that is one of the reasons we needed more time in this debate so that we could actually get into the provisions of this bill.

The fact that no matter what happens with Mr. Issa's first amendment, that still there will be patent applications that will be published for the world to see even before the patent is issued; that our overseas competitors will then have information that they will be able to use to outcompete us even before our patents are issued to those inventors who have applied for patents. Those are the issues we need to talk about.

We need to talk about why the assessment of damages has been changed in a way that helps these big guys, these big companies that Ms. Kaptur has just outlined, as well as the foreign corporations, I might add, at the expense of the small inventor. The inventor is just trying to prevent theft of his lifetime of work. We have to know why we have had different ways of determining the validity of a patent and opening up challenges in the front of the patent as well as afterwards so that we add cost after cost after cost to the little guy.

We need to discuss these things in detail. Instead we have 1 hour in which the opposition, I think, had 12 minutes in order to discuss these issues. This should raise a flag to everyone listening to this debate. Why is Congress trying to stampede the rest of the Members of Congress into voting for an act that could be so damaging to the American people?

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the gentlewoman's amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to Mr. Manzullo.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to Mr. Gohmert from Texas.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to Mr. Roscoe Bartlett, Ph.D., a man who holds 20 patents, a man who is greatly respected for his scientific knowledge and who has been deeply appreciated for the advice he has given us in that endeavor in the last 15 years in Congress.

(Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Let's note that there are several amendments that were not permitted by the Rules Committee. I did not submit amendments because those of us who have been following this bill realize it is fundamentally flawed. The purpose of the bill is to support those large corporations that Ms. Kaptur noted who are dramatically supporting the legislation. And it is being opposed, I might add, by a large number of universities, unions, pharmaceutical industries, biotech industries, et cetera, et cetera. So we have everybody except the electronics industry and the financial industry, who are already over in China making their profit at our expense, are opposed to the bill.

I yield my remaining 30 seconds to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Bartlett).

Madam Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Members of the House, I am proud and privileged to be the chairman of the Judiciary Committee for this historic consideration of the Patent Reform Act of 2007.

I can't help but begin by commending those members of Judiciary who were in this battle before I became chairman, namely, Lamar Smith of Texas; namely, Howard Berman of California; namely, Mr. Coble of North Carolina, all who have worked in a remarkable way. Even when the leadership changed in the committees and Smith became ranking and Berman became Chair, the cooperation and bipartisanship continued. I think it is important to lay that groundwork because of the intense cooperation in which we have sought to consult with every conceivable organization, individual, all stakeholders in this matter; and I think it has had a very telling effect on a bill that brings us all together here this afternoon.

After all, patent reform is enshrined in the Constitution, isn't it? Article I, section 8. After all, we have had a patent office pursuant to constitutional direction since 1790. So for a couple hundred years, this has been the driving force for American competition, creativity, inventiveness, and a prosperous economy. Thomas Jefferson was the first patent examiner in our American history. So I am humbly standing in the well to tell you that the continued robustness of the patent concept is very important. It has been estimated that the value of intellectual property in the United States amounts to $5 trillion, and much of that is in the value of the patents that come from the legislation produced by this bill.

Well, if it is so great, why are we here? Well, because certain things have happened over the course of years that need some re- examination. One of them is the trolling situation in which patents of less than high quality, they have created a whole legal industry, as some will continue to describe here today, in which, with very little pretext or excuse, patents are challenged and create a huge nuisance value. They flood the courts with unnecessary litigation. There are abusive practices that have grown up around the concept of patents, and there are certain inefficiencies where, for example, we use the first- to-invent system of granting patents, while most of the active and creative inventors in other countries use the first-inventor-to-file system, and we harmonize that in this legislation.

So there are problems, and they have been addressed with great care, because sometimes they go against the grain or to the detriment of the rest of the people, the stakeholders in this great legal activity of granting patents.

So I am here to tell you that we finally closed the circle, and I am proud of this, being from the highly organized State of Michigan, that with our friends in Labor we have been able to work out differences that they had originally had with this measure. All the consumer groups, there are several of them that have now joined with us. The United States Public Interest Research Group has come in. The pharmaceuticals have mostly come in. The Association of Small Inventors has come in.

We have done a great job, and we have created a manager's amendment to which we have allotted 20 minutes to discuss separately from the bill itself. I am proud, as you can tell, of the bipartisan nature of this work, because that is what it takes to make some 22 changes in the manager's amendment, more than two dozen changes in the underlying bill; and dealing with the question of damages and post grant opposition are stories that can only be told by the gentleman from California with his appropriate brevity. So it is in this spirit that we begin this final discussion of this measure.

I thank all the Members of the Congress not on the Judiciary Committee who have helped us in so many different ways.

Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chairman, part of the Smith-Berman-Coble trio is the chairman now of the Courts, Intellectual Property and Internet Subcommittee. His indefatigable commitment to patent reform is now well known by all of the House, and I'm pleased to yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Berman).

Madam Chairman, I am pleased to yield to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Boucher). He is the last Member on this side that's getting 3 minutes.

(Mr. BOUCHER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Madam Chairman, I yield 10 seconds to my colleague from California (Mr. Berman).

Madam Chairman, I am pleased now to yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Emanuel).

Madam Chairman, I am pleased to add to that trio in the Judiciary that has worked for so long on patent reform. Her name is Zoe Lofgren, and she is a subcommittee Chair; but she stayed with patent reform. I yield her 2\1/2\ minutes.

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Watt), who has worked continuously on this bill to improve it.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 10 seconds.

I just want to tell the previous speaker that we have had to accommodate about 20 different parts of our American industry and society, and, of course, everybody is not equally happy. Apparently you are one of those.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Johnson).

(Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/4\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).

(Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to call on my neighbor and friend, Marcy Kaptur from Toledo, Ohio; and I recognize her for 2 minutes.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Maine (Mr. Michaud).

Mr. Chairman, I take 5 seconds to assure my distinguished friend from Maine that I have more industry in my State than he does, and I am protecting them pretty much.

Mr. Chairman, I now introduce for our closing speaker the distinguished gentleman from Florida, Mr. Bob Wexler, to have the balance of our time.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Yes, of course.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself as much time as I may consume.

I rise in support of the manager's amendment which is, of course, very bipartisan and which makes further changes to the underlying bill.

Now, this is a work in progress. The reason it came up so late in the afternoon yesterday in the Rules Committee is we were making changes to accommodate the minority side, and so even now the manager's amendment is a piece of work that will not be concluded until we come out of conference, and I'm sure Mr. Berman will have some comments to make about that.

I want anyone who has not seen the manager's amendment or wants to review it, even as it's discussed on the floor today, to please come to my seat, and I will be happy to provide them with a copy of it.

Well, what does it do? We deal with damages, the most controversial provision of the bill, with labor, with the universities, with inequitable conduct, and additional changes that will be made.

For workers and inventors, how do we help them? Well, there was concern that in our attempt to simplify the assignment procedures, we cut the inventor out of the process. We've ensured that changes to applications will require inventor involvement.

And also, there was a fear about working environment at the PTO. We inquired of the Government Accountability Office to conduct a study of examining work conditions.

And finally, the examiners themselves were concerned about the quality submission requirements, that their job would be outsourced. We ensured that that will not happen.

Now, damages. We made further changes to explain clearly that a portion that is not mandatory in the calculations of damages can be considered under a similar formula that courts use today.

Universities, we spent enormous time, and I have as many universities in Michigan as anybody has in any other State in the Union, and to address their concern, we spent unbelievable amounts of time negotiating with them individually and collectively about the expansion of prior user rights which might reduce the value of their patents and harm their ability to license invention.

We've eliminated the expansion. Instead, we're calling for a study of the operation of prior user rights in countries where they already exist to determine their effects.

It allows universities to sue in districts where they are located but does not extend that right to universities' associated nonprofit organizations.

We deal with inequitable conduct by tightening the standards for pleading and finding inequitable conduct as a defense to infringement.

We continue to operate in good faith with additional changes. We've adopted suggestions made by outside groups to improve our post-grant opposition provision, changed the discovery standard to interest of justice and ensured that a patent owner can bring a patent suit, even if a post-grant suit is instituted.

So we've addressed every concern that has been brought to our attention. No concern was too small or too technical, and we continue even now to listen to the parties in other ways to continue to enhance the bill.

So now is the time for patent reform.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

I can't help but take 6 seconds in rebuttal.

The universities support this measure. Small inventors support this measure. This bill is to create jobs in America. How could anybody think that I would be supporting a bill that didn't do this in patent law reform?

I yield 2 minutes to the ranking member of the Judiciary Committee, Mr. Lamar Smith.

Would the ranking member yield to me?

Thank you. I want to assure the gentleman.

Mr. Chairman, I would submit for the Record a letter dated September 7, 2007, between myself and the chairman of Ways and Means, Charles Rangel.

House of Representatives,

Committee on Ways and Means,

Washington, DC, September 7, 2007.

Hon. John Conyers, Jr.,

Chairman, Judiciary Committee,

Washington, DC.

Dear John: I am writing regarding H.R. 1908, the Patent

Reform Act of 2007. During consideration of the bill by the

Rules Committee, a manager's amendment was made in order that

includes provisions affecting section 337 of the Tariff Act

of 1930.

As you know, section 337 falls within the jurisdiction of

the Committee on Ways and Means. The Ways and Means Committee

has jurisdiction over all issues concerning import trade

matters.

In order to expedite this legislation for floor

consideration, the Committee will forgo action on this bill,

and will not oppose the inclusion of this provision relating

to

section 337 of the Tariff Act within H.R. 1908. This is being

done with the understanding that it does not in any way

prejudice the Committee with respect to its jurisdictional

prerogatives on this bill or similar legislation in the

future.

I would appreciate your response to this letter, confirming

this understanding with respect to H.R. 1908, and would ask

that a copy of our exchange of letters on this matter be

included in the Record.

Sincerely,

Charles B. Rangel,

Chairman.

How much time remains?

I yield myself 6 seconds before I yield the rest of the time to Mr. Berman.

This is curious, here I am a son of Labor, out of Labor, represents Labor all my life, being told publicly that I don't represent the little guy from people whose connection with working people in collective bargaining movements is unknown.

With that, I yield to my dear friend, Mr. Berman, for the remainder of our time.

We have reviewed the amendment. It's an important contribution. We are prepared to accept the amendment.

Could the gentleman from California (Mr. Issa) yield briefly?

I'm glad we've all proved our working class credentials in support of working people, and I'm very impressed, if not surprised. And so I want to describe this debate that's currently going on on this second provision.

Here is the one man in Congress with more patents as a small-time inventor than anybody in the House and the Senate being explained to why this is contrary to the interests of small-time inventors. Very interesting.

Ladies and gentlemen, I keep noticing that the opponents to the bill, opponents to the rule, opponents to the manager's amendment, opponents to the amendments to include it in this are all opposed to everything, anything. And I am glad these great sons of Labor, like the gentleman from California who knows his voting record on Labor and so, unfortunately, do I, recognize how he is supporting the working people and the person who has invented more inventions than all of us put together is opposing the small inventors. What a debate this is.

I just rise to let you know, sir, that on this side of the aisle, we are proud to support this amendment.

Announcement by the Acting Chairman

Mr. Acting CHAIRMAN. All Members are reminded to address their comments to the Chair.

I rise only to say to the distinguished previous speaker that this mistaken impression that this is being amended on the run is incorrect. And I'm glad you listened to the full debate, and I respect your position.

The point that you think it's being amended on the run is that we had nearly 50 organizations in which we were negotiating with up until the last moment, and even now, sir. That's why we have a manager's amendment.

I will yield to the gentleman.

I thank the ranking member.

Mr. Chairman, there are some things that need repair in the U.S. patent system, but something about this bill kept troubling me. When I read the provision regarding the transfer of venue, I began to realize something was very wrong. The provision said the court may transfer an action only to a district where ``the defendant had substantial evidence or witnesses.''

I could not believe it. That provision did not even allow a judge to consider fairness or justice or caseloads or time delays or whether the plaintiff was a small entrepreneur with only a few patents who could be led to bankruptcy by being forced to file in a court where it had a 5- year delay. I would have been absolutely staggered during my years as a judge to see a venue provision like this. Many agreed and realized that was grossly overreaching and proponents of the bill immediately recognized that and were willing to work.

But patent cases increased in the Eastern District of Texas when companies like Texas Instruments realized they could get a trial within 18 months in front of some of the best judges in the country and get fairness. Initially, there were more plaintiff victories, but, as I understand, the last year or so it has been 50-50, which there is nowhere in the country comparable to that.

I began to realize something was very wrong and one-sided when something like that could get into a bill, and especially the manager's amendment, without being noticed. And who would want something like that? Then you realize, it is big companies who do not want others to have the opportunities that they did.

So that made me look again at the damage provision that was being completely changed. I realized to whom that was helping and whom that would destroy, and I realized that the language for that must have come from the same type source who did not want anything but a small cookie cutter or mold to consider damages when, for years now, there have been many more factors that needed to be considered. You have drug cases. You have objects that are patented. You have concepts.

The Comprehensive Patent Reform bill being pushed at this time has some good features.

There are some things that need repair in the U.S. patent system. But, something about this bill kept troubling me.

When I read the provision regarding the transfer of venue, I began to realize something was very wrong. The provision said that the court may transfer an action only to a district where ``the defendant has substantial evidence or witnesses.'' That provision did not even allow the judge to consider fairness, or justice, or case loads and time delays of other courts or whether the plaintiff was a small entrepreneur with only a few patents who will be destroyed if the case is transferred to a court with a 5-year wait to trial. In my days as a trial judge, I would have been absolutely staggered to see a venue rule so incredibly one-sided. It was grossly overreaching and proponents of the bill immediately recognized that when it was pointed out, but they just had not noticed that. They then agreed to changes that prevent the language from being quite so egregious.

As our colleague from the high tech area of California pointed out moments ago, there have been patent cases filed in the Eastern District of Texas in my district. That began happening when Texas Instruments, not some small patent troll, along with others who had patents being infringed, could not get a prompt trial elsewhere, realized the Eastern District of Texas had some of the best judicial minds who were rarely ever reversed, and they could receive a trial within 2 years instead of 5. So lawsuits were filed there. As far as the rates of victories by plaintiffs to defendants, she cited old data and the new data shows that the district being excoriated in the past year probably has had more equality of verdicts than anywhere else in the country, which means the issue is a red herring for something else to get passed that is potentially deadly to invention.

I agreed we needed to do something about patent trolls who buy patents so they can sue to try to hold up a company for cash. I agreed that's not right. I was willing to help fix it. But after proposing solutions to that which were met by a desire to use that issue only as an excuse to make comprehensive, devastating changes to two centuries of patent law, I realized something inappropriate was at work here.

I began to realize something was very wrong for a terribly one-sided provision to make its way into the official bill being considered as a Manager's Amendment at the full Judiciary Committee. I began to think about who must have written or at least pushed to get that type of totally one-sided provision in there. It was not anyone interested in fairness. It was someone interested in really tilting the playing field completely one way. That had to be from huge defendants who wanted to drag small entrepreneurs into dilatory situations so that their invention or component could be usurped without proper compensation, even though it might mean the bankruptcy of the inventor and the destruction of the opportunity for the little guys with the inventive vision and spirit, which actually spurred some of the greatest developments and wealth we know and have in this country.

So when I looked again at the damage provision that was being completely changed, I realized whom that was helping and whom that would destroy and I realized that language came from the same type source. It is extremely one-sided and completely abrogates the ability of a court to use factors or standards that are applicable in the vast variety of patent cases which arise. Patents are obtained for so many different types of objects, drugs, and even concepts. To try to force such a huge spectrum of patents into one small specific type of cookie cutter or mold is of great concern to so many.

Then, I remembered also something about this ``comprehensive'' type approach--that's what was being said about immigration reform!! In the case of Immigration, ``Comprehensive Reform'' was being used to make some changes most of us could probably agree on in order to mask within those acceptable provisions other problematic provisions unacceptable to most Americans which could probably not pass by themselves. After finding examples of inappropriately oppressive language that was being stuffed or hidden in a large comprehensive bill, I am left wondering why not just fix the limited areas that are agreeable and not shove a brand new comprehensive, revolutionary change--that some say will absolutely set over 200 years of patent law on its head--that may give some of the largest corporations in the country the ability to prevent others from having the same opportunities they had to become large.

It is real easy to continue to excoriate these horrid ``patent trolls'', which could easily be addressed by very small changes to a very limited provision. If you want to limit patent trolls, then restrict the abilities of those who purchase the patents or rights to sue as secondary holders of patents. If that is not enough, there are other limited ways to handle it, though one must be careful not to destroy principal patent assets after a company is bought out by another. But I would humbly submit that when an easy fix is rejected to such a problem because some desire the issue to mask an effort that may well denigrate or destroy the adequate ability to preserve such assets--something is amiss in Washington, DC.

As objections from many areas have grown, the private interests pushing this bill have realized they may have pushed too far too fast, so have sought to appear less draconian, but we must review what this bill does. The bill before us today completely changes: The damages or compensation that may be obtained from a wrongdoer for stealing or usurping someone else's patent; the law on where such suits for infringement may be filed; the effect of a patent; the law on administrative review of patents and privacy issues of the patent before it is final. Is it any wonder that the worst thieves nationally and internationally of U.S. intellectual property are hoping we pass this bill.

It is also important to point out that we have heard here today promises about things that will be fixed between now and when the law were to become law. We've been told that our input is welcome toward such fixes. The trouble is, we were told the same thing at the full committee. I was one who was called by name to help the group work on fixes to major problems. Though I am not questioning motivation at this juncture, I have made myself available to meet and have offered suggestions, but the group that was going to meet and work on the changes before today never met that I was advised. My staff says they were never advised. So much for getting in that valuable input.

The question remains: do we need this much of a complete change to a system that has spurred, nurtured and protected the greatest advancements in the history of mankind. I would submit that it is imperative that we back up, vote this down, and come back with non- comprehensive provisions that do not include provisions that will tilt the playing field and so dramatically change our laws to protect intellectual property rights. We should borrow from the old Code in Medicine to first do no harm!

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate so much my friend from California. And, in fact, I like Mr. Issa so much, I want more people like Darrell Issa. I want more people to have the opportunity to create patents, to use ingenuity, to do well based on their thought processes. And I'm afraid now this bill will prevent us from having the opportunity to have more Darrell Issas.

The amendment works on one of the problems, well, gee, we'll look at the regulations. But, my goodness, this is a comprehensive bill. We keep hearing, you know, we need comprehensive bills. And red flags went up in my mind. And where have I heard that? Oh, yes, on immigration reform. We had to have a comprehensive bill because there were some things that needed to be passed, some people thought, that they knew could not pass if they had the bright enough light of day shown on them, and so we have a comprehensive bill to put some things in there that do more damage than good.

We need more time to look at these provisions so that we can ensure that there are more Darrell Issas that get to have the same opportunities to do as well and make us as proud as our good friend from California.

Mr. Chairman, our chairman of the Judiciary Committee commented that it looks like the people opposed to anything are opposed to everything.

I'm really not. I think this is a good idea, a good amendment; and I applaud my colleague from Texas for pushing this forward.

I would like to have had these results before we went forward with this so-called comprehensive bill.

I yield to the gentlewoman from Texas.

Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, as I said, I think it's a good idea and I'm going to vote for it. But I would rather have this as a stand-alone before we do all of these what some have referred to as draconian comprehensive measures.

And I do not question whatsoever the sincerity or the effort on behalf of the chairman for working people and others. And I do not question the sincerity when we were told, and I was among those who were told, you could be in a group that will revise this. I just never was given that opportunity.

Mr. Chairman, I thank my good friend from the great State of Michigan, the chairman of the committee, for yielding.

Unfortunately, I have to disagree with him on this bill and urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on H.R. 1908 because we don't want to weaken the U.S. patent system. This is surely not the time with a trillion- dollar trade deficit to do more selling out of America and to try to harmonize our standards down to some of the worst intellectual property pirates like China.

This bill essentially makes it easier for infringers to steal U.S. inventions, and it is truly sad that we are only given a few seconds to talk about this. That alone should tell our colleagues, vote ``no,'' give us a chance to open this up and talk about how this is going to affect jobs in America.

This bill affects two-thirds to 80 percent of the asset value of all U.S. firms. Most industrial companies in this country oppose it. Over 200 organizations across this country oppose it, including the electronics industry, pharmaceuticals, small inventors, and universities. And, yet, we just get a few seconds here.

Let me tell you what is going on. Mr. Emanuel was down here earlier reading a list of the big semiconductor companies, the high-tech firms. This bill does heavily benefit them because they are some of the worst intellectual property infringers.

What this bill does is it supports those large transnational corporations that repeatedly infringe on the patents of others, and they are looking to reduce what they have to pay in the courts. Now, they have had to pay about $3.5 billion in fines over the last couple of years, and it was deserved. But that represents less than 1 percent of their revenues. What they are trying to do is use this bill to make it harder for small inventors and others to file.

What does this bill change? It says to an inventor, unlike since 1709 in this country, when we say if you are first to invent, that patent belongs to us, they want to change it to first-to-file. In other words, they can file it anywhere else in the world and someone else can take that and infringe on that invention. It is not first-invention anymore, it is first-to-file. Boy, there is a lot more to say and our time should not be squashed in this House on an issue of such vital importance to the industrial and the commercial base of this country.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I thank the gentleman kindly for yielding me this time.

On the manager's amendment, you know what's really sad about this bill is that it is very complicated, and it's a work in progress as we sit here on the floor. It's too important for America and for the future of our industrial and economic base to be treated this way, and I know that the Chair of the subcommittee and the full committee are listening as I speak today. We shouldn't be drafting this in a manager's amendment on the floor.

There's been some inference that the AFL-CIO supports this bill. The AFL-CIO does not support this bill. They support the fact that it is being improved but they do not support the bill.

In addition to that, there's something very important I was not able to address earlier, and that is that this bill prematurely reveals inventors' secrets. In 1999, the Patent Act required the Patent Office to publish on the Internet a patent application 18 months from the date of filing, but the act also allowed inventors to opt out from that if they agreed not to file for patent in another nation. That's the so- called opt-out provision.

Now, between 20 and 33 percent of U.S.-origin patents opt out of the system. They're small people. They're trying to get the venture capital to start up their company and so forth, and the average time the Patent Office takes to process a patent is 31 months. Thus, all the secrets in all patent applications will be made available to every pirate in the world for more than a year before a small inventor, any inventor has a chance for patent protection.

Now, we're going to be told, well, Mr. Issa's amendment will fix this. No, it will not, and we will argue against that a little bit more down the road.

Several speakers this morning, Mr. Welch of Vermont and Mr. Johnson of Georgia, said, well, we need this reform because we haven't had patent reform since 1952. That's not true. There have been 17 amendments in major bills before this Congress that deal with patent reform in the last 15 years.

The problem with this bill is that it tries to harmonize to lower standards in the world rather than cause other countries to harmonize up to our standards. It takes away the right of first to invent, and it transfers it to first to file. That means an inventor who come here to the Patent Office here in the United States, no matter how small, and file a patent and got the right as an inventor first to invent could be superseded in the international market by someone who happened to catch that invention on the Internet or elsewhere and file it in China first. So it changes it from a first-to-invent to a first-to-file system. This is a substantial change from the system that has been in place in this country since the early 1700s.

You know what I said earlier what's going on here is the big proponents of this, the semiconductor companies, and Mr. Emanuel read some of their names, have been fined substantially for patent infringement over the last several years, about $3.5 billion, and they're trying to get the law changed to make it easier for them. You know what, they have a right to exist. They have a right to function. The problem is they have been taken to court, and there are 15 standards the courts use to ascertain damages. They want to reduce it to one and make the 14 optional. You know what, the Federal judges are saying don't do that; we like the current system. It gives the courts the flexibility that they use.

Why should a few transnational corporations, sort of the big tech companies, have this much power in this Congress? Why don't we have the right of others to be heard here fully rather than having to condense such a serious debate into a few seconds here on the floor?

Why am I opposed to this bill? I'm opposed to this bill because it gives too much power to the big tech transnationals, and it takes away power from the universities that are opposed to this; although, some in California, where so many of these big tech companies are located, are happy. But come to Ohio, come to Wisconsin, come to New York. There are lots of universities that are opposed to this. So it's giving too much advantage to a few companies.

In addition to that, it totally turns upside down the first-to-invent system to a first-to-file system, and it would permit lots of infringements internationally.

It does eliminate the opt-out provision where, if a small inventor doesn't want their invention put up on the Internet, it takes away the opt-out provision from them. Mr. Issa's amendment does not fix it. We want an opportunity to fix that, because we want to protect the third of inventors that do not file internationally, that do not want their patents put out there like that, and they are not the big companies. They're the smaller companies. And why force them to go into court? They don't have the money to defend themselves anyway.

There's broad-based opposition to this bill. There are lots of organizations, including the Institute of Electronic Engineers, Medical College of Wisconsin. There are many, many others, Cornell University, all opposed to this.

I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time and allowing me to broaden the record here in the very few short seconds we have been allowed.

Mr. Chairman, I just want to place on the record that Issa's amendment, Issa's choice, is would you rather have the inventor shot with a pistol or a rifle? In either case, he or she ends up dead.

Now, why is that? Because the 1999 Patent Act required the Patent Office to publish on the Internet a patent application 18 months from the date of filing. But the issue really is, it takes an average of 31 months for patent review. Mr. Issa, I think, brings it up to 24 months. Thus, what happens is there's a gap between when it's filed and when it's approved, and you have to go up on the Internet. Under current law, you can opt out of that so you can protect your invention and not have some pirate in China or Japan or somewhere else take it from you. That is not in this bill.

The elimination of the opt-out provision is a terrible, terrible omission and a major change from existing law, and the Issa amendment does not make it better.

Will the gentleman yield further?

I just would point out, in the area of biology and microbiology, the average amount of time for patent approval is over 40 months. So, in other words, your invention is out there, and you have no way to protect it globally.

Will the gentleman yield on that?

I would like to defend your labor credentials. You voted against NAFTA on this floor. You were a leader on your side of the aisle. That vote was proven to be right.

What this is going to do, this is going to ``NAFTAtize'' the patent system and allow China to infringe on more of our inventions. We should not permit this to happen. We should be allowed to fully debate this for the people of this country.

Two-thirds of the value of companies, up to 80 percent of our industrial companies value, relate to their patents, and we should be given more respect. We should give our constituents more respect than compressing this debate into such a narrow time slot.

Would the gentleman kindly yield to me?

Does your amendment preserve the opt-out provision of existing law?

And how many months or years do you have to wait before you get that opt-out provision? Can you do it immediately?

Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to place on the record opposition to Mr. Issa's amendment to try to politicize decision making that is done by professionals over at the Patent Office. But in doing so, also to place on the record who's financing the expensive lobbying campaign on behalf of the bill that is before us today. They are a coalition of companies including transnational corporations: Adobe, Microsoft, Cisco, Intel, eBay, Lenovo, Dell and Oracle.

During the period of 1993-2005, four of them alone paid out more than $3.5 billion in patent settlements. And in the same period, their combined revenues were over $1.4 trillion, making their patent settlements only about one-quarter of 1 percent of those revenues. Now they wish to reduce even those costs, not by changing their obviously unfair and often illegal business practices, but by persuading Congress and also the Supreme Court to weaken U.S. patent protections.

We ought to stand up for American inventors. We should not allow this bill to go forward. It should have sunlight. I know my colleagues are doing the best they can, but they can surely do better than this.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman very much for yielding.

As I said with Issa's choice, it is either being shot with a pistol or a rifle. It does not guarantee that once the patent is granted that that person can keep their intellectual property, can opt out and not have it published for that 18-month period. So we are taking away that intellectual property protection.