[Congressional Record Volume 153, Number 139 (Wednesday, September 19, 2007)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E1932]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                       PATENT REFORM ACT OF 2007

                                 ______
                                 

                               speech of

                        HON. MICHAEL E. CAPUANO

                            of massachusetts

                    in the house of representatives

                       Friday, September 7, 2007

       The House in Committee of the Whole House on the State of 
     the Union had under consideration the bill (H.R. 1908) to 
     amend title 35, United States Code, to provide for patent 
     reform:

  Mr. CAPUANO. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to express my opposition to 
H.R. 1908--the Patent Reform Act of 2007. I do so reluctantly, and hope 
to work with my colleagues when this bill moves to conference to 
produce a final product that will adequately address the concerns of 
all sectors of our innovation economy.
  As the Representative of the 8th Congressional District of 
Massachusetts, I feel immensely privileged to represent many of the 
nation's leading innovators. The 8th District is home to some of the 
best institutions of higher learning in the nation, teaching hospitals, 
high tech businesses, financial services firms, and biotechnology 
companies big and small. I recognize how absolutely vital the strength 
and efficiency of our patent system is to each of them and I take the 
reform of that system very seriously.
  H.R. 1908 is the most comprehensive update to the patent system in 
generations. The bill makes changes to our patent system that are 
important to improving the business environment for many sectors of our 
economy. However, the bill also alters our current system in a way that 
could potentially prove damaging to other sectors. I oppose this 
legislation reluctantly because the committee, in particular Chairman 
Berman, has worked diligently to improve this legislation at every 
stage.
  I was very pleaser, for example, to see the in the manager's 
amendment wording to strike the ``prior use'' sections of the bill. 
This change was important to ensuring that those who infringe on 
patents continue to have to meet a reasonable threshold if they assert 
a ``prior use'' defense. I was also pleased that the bill as reported 
from committee eliminated the ``second window'' of review after patents 
are granted. While this section may need additional changes, 
significant progress has been made to improve it.
  I remain concerned, however, about the ramifications of the damages 
section of H.R. 1908. While I understand that the Chairman and the 
Committee have made several improvements to this section as well, as it 
is currently constituted in the bill the damages section will 
unnecessarily elevate apportionment as a method of determining damages 
when a patent has been infringed. This provision could produce 
devastating consequences for some innovators. I believe we must be 
cautious when implementing such a serious change, and that ensuring 
flexibility is of paramount importance.
  I look forward to working with my colleagues on the Judiciary 
Committee in order to produce the most balanced Patent Reform bill 
possible.

                          ____________________