[Congressional Record Volume 147, Number 68 (Thursday, May 17, 2001)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E846]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                       INTRODUCTION OF H.R. 1886

                                 ______
                                 

                           HON. HOWARD COBLE

                           of north carolina

                    in the house of representatives

                         Thursday, May 17, 2001

  Mr. COBLE. Mr. Speaker, I rise to introduce H.R. 1886, a bill aimed 
at closing an unfortunate administrative loophole and bridging a legal 
gap in the working of our intellectual property system. As you know, I 
chair the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Courts, the Internet and 
Intellectual Property. In that capacity, my colleagues and I have as 
one of our continuing goals making certain that the U.S. patent system 
is the finest regime in the world. This bill relates to two important 
areas within our jurisdiction, namely the procedures linking the courts 
and the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (PTO). This legislation 
eliminates an asymmetry in an administrative procedure disallowing the 
public the right to appeal a question from the PTO to a higher and 
independent authority for redress.
  This legislation closes a procedural loophole that is a gap in the 
law. Today, many of these administrative appeals are prohibited by 
current law. In my view, this makes the patent system unable to fully 
serve the needs of inventors and the public. Congress created the U.S. 
Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in 1982 with a specific goal. 
It was intended to be a specialized forum that brings both legal and 
technical expertise to bear on appeals of certain issues of national 
importance, including patent issues. The overwhelming consensus is that 
in the past 20 years, the Federal Circuit has proven to be a marked 
success. It contributes to the fairness of the system in two ways. 
First, it ensures predictability and certainty to appeals within the 
subject matter of its jurisdiction. Second, it is a check on the 
agencies within its jurisdiction.
  We have all heard stories about patents that issue but are 
subsequently challenged based on new evidence pertaining to scope and 
validity. This bill will ensure that the outcome of these challenges 
initiated by the public and consumers through the optional inter partes 
reexamination will be fair by establishing the right to appeal and 
judicial review. It is a very limited measure and it does not lead to 
any additional district court trials, or other added discovery burdens 
or expenses for inventors. It is aimed at the improved functioning of 
our domestic system and has no relation to what our trading partners 
use in their systems. While this is admittedly a small bill--some will 
describe it merely as a housekeeping bill--I believe that it will 
contribute greatly to the improved functioning of our patent system for 
all parties involved.

                          ____________________