[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 135 (Friday, September 23, 1994)]
[Senate]
[Page S]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: September 23, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
            PTO SPECIAL DEALS PUT PATENT SYSTEM IN JEOPARDY

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the 
gentlewoman from Maryland [Mrs. Bentley] is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mrs. BENTLEY. Mr. Speaker, American inventors are upset over being 
zapped in the pending GATT agreement. Patent and Trademark Office 
officials are contacting congressional offices in an effort to assure 
members and staff alike that changing the patent term in the GATT 
enabling legislation to a firm 20 years from filing date is in the 
public interest. If you believe that, you also believe in the ``good 
tooth fairy.'' So it is for good reason that American inventors are 
upset over the change in the patent term.
  The objections range from inventors working in a garage to big 
companies with millions of dollars invested in research in developing a 
patent.
  They wonder how the public interest is served if inventors are unable 
to capitalize their inventions because of a shorter patent life? 
Patents mean jobs and a robust commerce, so how can shortening the 
patent life possibly benefit American workers--or for that matter--the 
American Government which depends upon taxes from business 
transactions?
  In an article entitled ``GATT Provisions Could Hurt Biotech Patents'' 
the Genetic Engineering News of September 1 reports the harm of 
changing the patent term for the $7 billion biotech industry.
  The story quoted James A. Forstner, corporate counsel for Dupont--
Wilmington, DE--and international committee chair of the American Bar 
Association, Intellectual Property Law Section that changing the term 
to 20 years from filing would result in a shortened patent life for 
biotech.
  Mr. Forstner explained that the average patent takes 2 years to 
issue, but in biotechnology it can run to 7 years. He stated, ``Thus, 
the average biotech patent could lose 3 to 4 years of protection.''
  That certainly can be a substantial loss to a company as well as to 
the competitive stand of U.S. industry.
  This potential loss was explained in a letter from the Biotechnology 
Industry Organization by Charles Ludlam, Vice President for Government 
Relations. He pointed out that ``Without patent protection the 
potential to recoup our investment and generate a reasonable rate of 
return is negligible. If our patent terms are reduced, even by a few 
years, funding for research will be reduced.''
  In the same letter Ludlam pointed out that ``GATT does not require 
patent terms to be limited to 20 years from application. It requires 
only that they be at least 20 years from application.'' So, why is the 
administration attempting to change the term from what was negotiated 
in GATT?
  The answer is that Patent Commissioner, Bruce Lehman, signed an 
agreement with the Japanese to change our patent term to match the 
Japanese system in exchange for a 2-month period to allow for American 
firms to file patents in Japan in English instead of Japanese. This was 
done without congressional hearings. I am not belittling the value of 
filing in English, but I do question Mr. Lehman's methods. I do believe 
that inadequate consideration was given to the results of such changes. 
And if I do say so, Mr. Speaker, once again the U.S. side of the 
negotiating table has been bam-boozled.
  Perhaps he is unaware that Japan has targeted the American patent 
system first in the late 1800's, again in the early 1900's and again as 
late as 10 years ago.
  Years ago, Japan sent a committee to the United States to determine 
what made this country an industrial power. The report concluded that 
the patent system was the secret of U.S. industrial might. if Japan 
could understand the secret then, it is surprising that our present own 
Government officials and trade negotiators do not understand the same 
fact.
  We need congressional hearings involving a wide range of small 
inventors before we fundamentally alter the U.S. system. These changes 
will give up the technological lead of the United States for the next 
100 years. Perhaps you want to explain this in your States in terms of 
jobs and opportunities. Let us stop this nonsense and keep the Lehman/
Japan changes to our patent system out of GATT.

                          ____________________