[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 104 (Tuesday, July 22, 1997)]
[Senate]
[Pages S7860-S7861]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                     THE OMNIBUS PATENT ACT OF 1997

  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I am delighted that the report is finally 
available for S. 507, The Omnibus Patent Act of 1997. The Senate 
Judiciary Committee voted 17 to 1 in favor of a Hatch-Leahy substitute 
to this bill on May 22. I urge all Members to take the time to learn 
about this legislation, which is designed to assist American 
innovation.
  The Omnibus Patent Act would reform the U.S. patent system in 
important ways. The bill would:
  Reduce legal fees that are paid by inventors and companies;
  Slash redtape in the Patent and Trademark Office;
  Increase the value of patents to inventors and companies; and
  Facilitate U.S. inventors and companies' research, development, and 
commercialization of inventions.
  In Vermont, we have a wide variety of independent inventors and small 
companies. It is especially important to me that this bill help them as 
well as larger, more specialized firms. I have spoken with independent 
inventors and representatives of smaller companies to learn what 
reforms they recommended. I have tried to ensure that their 
recommendations were incorporated into the Hatch-Leahy substitute 
amendment that was reported by the Judiciary Committee.
  I am especially gratified that the Hatch-Leahy substitute responds to 
the concerns of independent inventors and small businesses concerning 
the matter of 18-month publication. These concerns were articulated at 
the Senate Judiciary Committee hearing by the president of the Vermont 
Inventors Association, Bill Parker. Mr. Parker suggested giving 
applicants who only file in the United States a choice whether or not 
to publish early. He also recommended that we enhance the protections 
granted to those who choose 18-month publication if we wish to 
encourage them to take that course.
  The substitute does both of these things. In particular, it allows 
any applicant to avoid publication before the granting of the patent 
simply by making such a request upon filing the application and by 
certifying that the application has not--and will not--be published 
abroad. The substitute also provides for the issuance of patents on 
individual claims in published applications as they are approved, 
rather than waiting for the disposition of all claims contained in such 
an application, as

[[Page S7861]]

now occurs. This allows applicants to gain full patent protection--
including reasonable royalties, damages, and attorneys fees when 
appropriate--for some of their component inventions earlier than they 
would have under the original draft of the bill.
  I was also concerned that, as introduced, the bill did not adequately 
protect an applicant who is diligently prosecuting a patent but whose 
application takes more than 3 years to process. The ability to have a 
full 17 years of patent protection is important to small and large 
patent applicants alike. The Hatch-Leahy substitute makes clear than a 
applicant who diligently prosecutes a patent application before the PTO 
should receive a full 17 years of patent protection.
  Another matter of special importance to me is the section I suggested 
be added in the Hatch-Leahy substitute to enhance access to patent 
information. I have long thought that electronic access should be more 
widespread, and I want to work with the Patent and Trademark Office to 
ensure the effective implementation of statewide electronic 
accessibility of patent information in rural Sates and eventually in 
all areas to make it easier for inventors to study prior art and make 
further advances. This should be of particular benefit to Vermont, 
which is only now getting a patent and trademark depository library.
  Although the goal of the reexamination provisions--reducing legal 
bills for patent applicants--was laudable, I was concerned that the 
legislation protect again harassment by third parties. The Hatch-Leahy 
substitute enhances protection against harassment by strengthening the 
estoppel provisions, to prevent a party from raising an issue that was 
raised or could have been raised in one forum from raising it in some 
other forum thereafter. In this way, the reexamination provision in the 
Hatch-Leahy substitute will provide an alternative to the current 
costly and time-consuming process of Federal litigation and, at the 
same time, protect patent applicants against undue harassment.
  I am also glad that the substitute amendment clarifies that it is not 
the Senate Judiciary Committee's intent to undercut the Copyright 
Office in any way. The Copyright Office has served this country well 
for over a hundred years, and it should continue in that role.
  Vermont has a great tradition of ``Yankee ingenuity.'' In fact, the 
very first U.S. patent was granted to Samuel Hopkins, a native of 
Pittsford, VT, who discovered a process for making potash. Today's 
inventors can be much like the inventors of Thomas Jefferson's day--
individuals in a shop, garage, or home lab. They can also be teams of 
scientists working in our largest corporations or at our colleges and 
universities. Our Nation's patent laws should be fair to American 
innovators of all kinds--independent inventors, small businesses, 
venture capitalists, and larger corporations. To maintain America's 
preeminence in the realm of technology, which dates back to the birth 
of this republic, we need to modernize our patent system and patent 
office. Our inventors know this and that is why they support this 
legislation.
  I am delighted that our Democratic leader, Senator Daschle, has 
joined as a cosponsor of this important legislation. I urge the 
Republican leadership to proceed to Senate consideration of S. 507 
without delay.

                          ____________________