[Congressional Record Volume 157, Number 34 (Tuesday, March 8, 2011)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1348-S1352]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
PATENT REFORM ACT OF 2011
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will
resume consideration of S. 23, which the clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
A bill (S. 23) to amend title 35, United States Code, to
provide for patent reform.
Pending:
Reid/Ensign amendment No. 143, to include public
institutions of higher education in EPSCOR jurisdictions in
the definition of a micro entity.
Reid amendment No. 152 (to Reid amendment No. 143), to
provide an effective date.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, American ingenuity and innovation have been
a cornerstone of the American economy from the time Thomas Jefferson
examined the first patent to today. The Founders recognized the
importance of promoting innovation. The Constitution explicitly grants
Congress the
[[Page S1349]]
power to ``promote the progress of science and useful arts by securing
for limited times to inventors the exclusive rights to their respective
discoveries.''
The discoveries made by American inventors and research institutions,
commercialized by American companies and protected and promoted by
American patent laws, have made our system the envy of the world.
The Senate has before it the America Invents Act. This will keep
America in its longstanding position at the pinnacle of innovation.
This bill will establish a more efficient and streamlined patent system
that will improve patent quality and limit unnecessary and
counterproductive litigation costs, while making sure no party's access
to court is denied.
I was glad to see the overwhelming bipartisan vote in favor of ending
debate and invoking cloture that was cast yesterday. Yesterday was one
of the rare instances ever in Vermont where snow impeded us and made it
impossible for us to get back. I am delighted to be back here for what
I hope will be the successful conclusion and vote on our legislation.
This is, after all, the product of eight hearings over the last three
Congresses, hundreds of meetings, and dozens of briefings. I again
thank Secretary Locke and PTO Director Kappos for their involvement,
their wise counsel and their support.
Last Congress, I introduced the Patent Reform Act of 2009 as a
precursor to the America Invents Act today, along with Senator Hatch
and others, and our bill was the subject of consideration and
amendments over several thoughtful sessions of markups in the Senate
Judiciary Committee in March and April of 2009. At that time, Senator
Kyl asked that I convene a meeting with the Director of the Patent and
Trademark Office to discuss whether there were further changes the
office needed in the legislation to improve the office's efficiency. We
held those discussions, and we held countless other meetings and
briefings with interested parties in an effort to improve the
legislation, again on a bipartisan basis. Bruce Cohen in my office,
Aaron Cooper, Ed Pagano and others, had meeting after meeting just as
predecessors of theirs had. In short, we spent a whole lot of time
making sure this was done right and we did it in a bipartisan manner.
Bolstering the American economic recovery and strengthening our efforts
in global competition should not be matters of partisanship or
political advantage.
The process of discussions, debates and deliberation has resulted in
legislation that is going to be a much-needed boon to our economy. It
is also a model for our legislative process. It shows what you can do
when you set aside partisan rhetoric and instead negotiate and
collaborate together in good faith.
I know I speak for Senator Kohl, Senator Whitehouse, Senator
Klobuchar, Senator Gillibrand, Senator Coons and the other Democratic
cosponsors of the bill when I thank the four senior Republican members
of the Judiciary Committee, Senator Hatch, Senator Grassley, Senator
Kyl and Senator Sessions for working with us. Innovation and economic
development are not uniquely Democrat or Republican objectives, so we
worked together to find the proper balance for America--for our
economy, for our inventors, for our consumers. It is both a process and
a result that should make us all proud.
The last time Congress significantly updated the patent system was
more than a half century ago. In the intervening decades, our economy
has changed dramatically. A patent system developed in our 1952 economy
before the Internet, before cell phones, before computers, before
photocopiers, even before the IBM Selectric typewriter, needs to be
reconsidered in light of 21st century realities, while staying true to
the consistent constitutional imperative of encouraging innovation and
invention.
Our patent laws that were the envy of the world in the 20th century
desperately need to be updated if we are going to compete effectively
and win the future. China and the European Union are improving their
patent laws. We can't remain complacent. If we are going to win the
global competition by out-innovating the rest of the world, we need a
patent system that works in the 21st century.
The array of voices heard in this debate represent virtually all
sectors of our economy, all interests in the patent system. They have
not been uniform, as expected, but they know the legislative process is
one of compromise and accommodation where possible, and it has been
that way during the 6 years we have been at work on this bill. Three
major areas of concern emerge from this discussion. The America Invents
Act addresses each one of them.
First, there is significant concern about delays in the patent
application process. The Patent and Trademark Office, PTO, currently
has a backlog of more than 700,000 unexamined patent applications.
There are several reasons for this, not the least of which is the PTO
is overwhelmed with patent applications and doesn't have the resources
necessary to work through that backlog.
The Director of the PTO often says the next great invention that may
drive our economic growth may be waiting on the shelf, waiting to be
granted. Some estimate that each issued patent represents three to 10
jobs. We can ill-afford to keep so many job-creating patents backlogged
at the PTO. The America Invents Act authorizes the PTO to set its fees
and ensures that the PTO will have access to those fees. We want the
PTO to work through its backlog and be current. In his white board
presentation on the need for patent reform this week, Austan Goolsbee,
the chair of the President's Council of Economic Advisers, illustrated
this point by noting that when Alexander Graham Bell applied for a
patent that led to the telephone, it was granted in a month. The patent
in 1974 that led to the cell phone took less than three years. The
average time this year for a patent to be processed is almost three
years and several thousand take far longer.
I want to commend Austan Goolsbee, the chairman of the Council of
Economic Advisers. His white board presentation this week on the
importance of patent reform shows we need to help America win global
competition and create jobs. The creation of more than 220,000 jobs in
the private sector last month, the creation of 1.5 million jobs over
the last 12 months, and the unemployment rate finally being reduced to
8.9 percent are all signs that the efforts we have made over the last
two years to stave off the worst recession since the Great Depression
are paying off and the economic recovery is taking hold. The almost
full percent point drop in the unemployment rate over the last three
months is the largest decline in unemployment since 1983. Despite
interruptions of economic activity in many parts of the country caused
by winter weather over the last months and days, despite the
extraordinary rise in oil prices, the Dow Jones industrial average has
climbed back to over 12,000 from a low point of 6,500. Passage of the
America Invents Act should help bolster our economic recovery and keep
us on the right path toward business development and job creation.
According to an article in the New York Times just a couple of weeks
ago, patent applications last year amounted to 2,000 a day. There are
currently 1.2 million patent applications in the pipeline. Among them
could be the next medical miracle, the next energy breakthrough, the
next leap in computing ability, or the next killer app. We should be
doing all we can to help the PTO Director. It makes no sense that it
takes 2 years for an inventor to get an initial ruling on his or her
patent application and another year or more to receive a patent, this
during a time when technology changes sometimes by the hour, to say
nothing by the year and the 2 year and 3 year. As the New York Times
reporter Edward Wyatt notes: ``The delays and inefficiencies are more
than a nuisance for inventors . . . . [P]atent delays cost jobs, slow
the economy and threaten the ability of American companies to compete
with foreign businesses.''
Second, there is a concern about the quality of patents that have
issued. Just as high quality patents are the key to innovation, low
quality patents are a drag on the economy because they provide monopoly
rents over products or processes that were not inventive.
Patent examiners are facing a difficult task given the explosion in
the
[[Page S1350]]
number of applications and the increasing complexity of those
applications. When Congress last overhauled the patent system in 1952,
the PTO received approximately 60,000 patent applications; in 2009, it
received more than 480,000.
The America Invents Act will improve the quality of patents issued by
the PTO in several ways. At the outset, our legislation makes the
commonsense change that third parties who see a patent application and
know that it is not novel and nonobvious, can assist the PTO examiners
by providing relevant information and explaining its relevance.
The bill will also create a new post-grant review process for patents
that recently issued to improve the quality of patents in the system,
as recommended by the National Academy of Sciences, and it will
streamline the current ``inter partes'' system so that it will be a
more efficient alternative to litigation.
The third concern is that as business competition has gone global,
and patent applicants are increasingly filing applications in the
United States and other countries for protection of their inventions,
our system puts American inventors and businesses at a disadvantage.
The filing system in the United States differs from that in other
patent-issuing jurisdictions, which have ``first-inventor-to-file''
systems. The difference causes confusion and inefficiencies for
American companies and innovators. The inefficiencies exist both in the
application process and in determining what counts as ``prior art'' in
litigation. I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record an
editorial from today's New York Times, which calls the transition to
first-inventor-to-file ``simpler and cheaper'' and says it ``should
benefit the little guy.''
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
(See exhibit 1.)
Mr. LEAHY. The America Invents Act transitions to a first-inventor-
to-file process, as recommended by the administration, while retaining
the important grace period that will protect universities and small
inventors, in particular. We debated this change at some length in
connection with the Feinstein amendment. That amendment was rejected by
the Senate by a vote of 87 to 13. The Senate has come down firmly and
decisively in favor of modernizing and harmonizing the American patent
system with the rest of the world.
When we began the patent reform debate 6 years ago, there was also a
significant concern that the costs and uncertainty associated with
patent litigation had been escalating, which was resulting in a drag on
innovation. Damage awards had been inconsistent and not always related
to the value of the invention. This disconnect and uncertainty was a
problem that also led to unreasonable posturing during licensing
negotiations.
Fortunately, the courts have made great strides in addressing this
issue, and there is general consensus that legislation need not and, in
fact, should not affect the law of damages as a result.
The Senate has before it bipartisan legislation that can lead to
long-needed improvements in our patent laws and system. This is a
measure that can help facilitate invention, innovation and job
creation, and do so in the private sector. This can help everyone from
startups and small businesses to our largest, cutting edge companies.
The America Invents Act promotes innovation, and will improve our
economy, by addressing the impediments to innovation. As the President
challenges Americans to win the future, Congress cannot afford to sit
idly by while innovation--the engine of our economy--is impeded by
outdated laws. Our legislation leverages the ingenuity of our
businesses, our universities, and our independent inventors, and
creates a system in which that ingenuity can improve our economy. It
will create jobs, improve products and reduce costs for American
companies and American consumers.
I began working on patent reform years ago, along with Chairman Smith
in the House, because of my belief that we needed a more efficient and
streamlined system. For many years, patent law interested only a niche
audience, and developments were reported only in trade publications.
Now they are discussed everywhere from the front page of the Wall
Street Journal to the New York Times, and all three branches of
government have taken an active role.
The America Invents Act is about economic development. It is about
jobs; it is about innovation; it is about consumers. All benefit under
a patent system that reduces unnecessary costs, removes inefficiencies,
and holds true to the vision of our Founders that Congress should
establish a national policy that promotes the progress of science and
the useful arts.
When Thomas Jefferson examined that first patent in 1790--a patent
that went to a Vermonter--no one could have predicted how the American
economy would develop and what changes would be needed for the law to
keep pace, but the purpose then remains the purpose today: promoting
progress.
If we are to maintain our position at the forefront of the world's
economy, if we are to continue to lead the globe in innovation and
production, if we are to continue to enjoy the fruits of the most
creative citizens, then we must have a patent system that produces high
quality patents, that limits counterproductive litigation over those
patents, and that makes the entire system more streamlined and
efficient.
Now is the time to bolster our role as the world leader in
innovation. Now is the time to create jobs at home. Now is the time for
Congress to act on patent reform. I urge all Senators to support the
American Invents Act.
Exhibit 1
[From the New York Times, Mar. 7, 2011]
Patents, Reform and the Little Guy
In the last decade, Congress has missed several chances to
reform a patent system that is slow, costly and puts the
United States at odds with the rest of the industrial world.
On Wednesday, the Senate has another opportunity to reform
the nation's patent law.
The America Invents Act offers a step toward a more
effective and transparent patent protection system. This
should encourage investment in inventions and faster
diffusion of ideas. The bill, which has broad bipartisan
support, would boost the patent office's resources by letting
it keep all the fees it collects. This would enable it to
speed up the review of patent applications--which currently
takes almost three years to process--and work through an
immense backlog of 715,000 applications.
The bill should reduce costly litigation by creating an in-
house system to look into claims of patent infringement
before they go to court.
The bill would also replace the first-to-invent standard
prevailing in the United States--which grants formal
protection to the creator of an innovation--with the first-
inventor-to-file system used in most nations.
This change would make it cheaper for American patent
holders to get patent protection around the world. But it has
been met with vocal opposition from some groups of small
businesses and inventors who claim the change would benefit
big corporations at their expense.
We disagree. The new law would make the process simpler and
cheaper. That should benefit the little guy.
Small inventors who needed time and money to fully develop
and test their ideas could request a provisional patent until
they were ready for a full filing. It costs $110. And because
it is easy to determine who filed a patent first, the new
system would better protect small inventors from challenges
by corporations with deep pockets, reducing the chance of
costly litigation.
Right now, proving who invented something first is
difficult and expensive. According to the patent office, it
costs $400,000 to $500,000 to challenge a patent on the
grounds of a prior invention. Most small inventors don't have
that kind of money. Big corporations do.
In fact, the current system mostly protects whoever files
first for a patent. Of the last three million applications
filed, only 113 were granted to entities who filed second but
proved they had invented first. In 88 of these cases, the
winners were large corporations.
The patent system is too cumbersome, and it doesn't protect
the small inventor. The America Invents Act is a smart
reform.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the
quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Budget
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I rise today to add my voice to the debate
that has been going on in the Chamber about spending proposals and how
we get through the balance of this current fiscal year and ensure that
we do not
[[Page S1351]]
end up with a government shutdown and some of the repercussions that
will come about from that.
I am blessed to represent a State that has not only a
disproportionate share of Federal employees but also has a large number
of private sector employees who rely upon predictability from the
government. Unfortunately, with these lurchings from 2-week extensions,
we are not providing that kind of predictability.
As you know, I strongly believe this is a moment in time for this
body, colleagues in the House, and the President and others to come
together regarding the question of how we no longer simply look at our
debt and deficit on a piecemeal basis but we actually take on this
issue on a comprehensive basis as so many, both elected officials and
financial officials, continue to suggest. That came in earlier today in
testimony from former Senator Alan Simpson and former Presidential
Chief of Staff Erskine Bowles about the consequences of our failure to
act if we do not get our comprehensive deficit and debt under control.
It is a problem that is not going to get easier. Every day we fail to
act we add $4 billion to our national debt.
Unfortunately, some of the proposals that are coming, particularly
from the House at this point, the House budget plan, do nothing
significant to address our long-term deficit and debt issues.
I travel around Virginia. Yesterday I was down with our colleague
from Georgia, Senator Chambliss. We met with literally hundreds of
business leaders from across central Virginia, and their message was
clear: No more games, no more showmanship, get something done. That
``something'' they want done is a comprehensive approach to our
Nation's fiscal challenges. That will mean, yes, cutting down on
spending. That will mean, as well, making our Tax Code more efficient
so American business can grow and compete.
It will also mean at the same time that part of that tax reform
effort adds revenues because trying to deal with this problem by simply
cutting or simply taxing will not be sufficient. Instead, the folks
across Virginia, and I imagine across Montana as well, are saying: This
is a moment in time we have to put everything on the table, and we have
to ensure we actually provide a long-term solution.
One of the things that has been most frustrating as I listened to
this current debate about CRs and what we are going to do for the
balance of this fiscal year is that the debate has focused almost
entirely, the spending cuts proposed from the House, on domestic
discretionary spending. The $60-plus billion the House has celebrated
all comes from that one narrow slice of the pie. Domestic discretionary
spending accounts for less than 12 percent of our Federal spending. We
cannot solve the $1.5 trillion current-year deficit or the over $14
trillion long-term debt without going beyond that 12 percent of our
budget.
What should be particularly challenging to our colleagues is that
every day we fail to act, we are seeing not only our debt grow, but we
are seeing the amount of taxpayer dollars that we have to spend to pay
off current interest rates--current interest payments continuing to
rise. As a matter of fact, it is expected at some point over the next 3
or 4 years the amount that we pay out of every dollar collected, simply
on interest, will exceed the 12 percent of our current domestic
discretionary spending. So all of these current fights about these
current cuts that are being proposed, all will be subsumed in interest
payments we will all have to make as Americans; dollars that, quite
candidly, do not go to build another school, to make another
investment, to build another road; dollars that are not recycled in
this country but increasingly are owned by folks abroad, increasingly
by our bankers in Asia and a disproportionate number from China.
When we have the chance to vote on H.R. 1 this afternoon, I will be
voting no. I will be voting no because I think this narrow focus on
domestic discretionary spending only for cuts will not get us to the
point we need to be in terms of long-term deficit reduction.
Let me again point out where I think the House proposal is so
shortsighted. One of the things that Erskine Bowles and Alan Simpson
said today: There is no silver bullet in this challenge we have in
front of us. It is going to take significant spending cuts. It is going
to take looking at the revenue side through the aspects of tax reform.
But those two things, revenues and spending alone, still will not get
us out of this problem. We have to get a third leg on the triangle, and
the third leg on the triangle is a growing economy. How do we grow an
economy in a place where America, while still the world's leading
economy, does not drive the economy the way it did even 20 years ago?
We saw 20 years ago where the world would have to wait on America to
get its financial act together. The world is not waiting now--China,
India, Brazil, countries abroad are moving ahead. If we are going to
remain competitive, we have to continue to invest smartly.
The President said we have to make sure we educate, we have to invest
in our infrastructure, and we have to be able to out-innovate. That
means targeted research and development. Unfortunately, the House
proposal, which not only focuses on domestic discretionary to the
exclusion of other areas of spending but also focuses these cuts on the
remaining 6 or 7 months of our fiscal year, takes a disproportionate
whack out of these key areas where we must maintain certain levels of
investment if we are going to grow the economy to make sure the other
cuts and other revenue raisers won't have to be as Draconian.
Let me give a couple of examples. I know the Presiding Officer comes
from an energy-rich State. He also realizes we have to diversify our
energy mix in this country and no longer be dependent upon foreign oil.
One of the things that those of us who have hallowed the benefits of
the Internet over the last 20-plus years are quick to point out is that
the Internet came about because of initial government investment
through ARPA. That led to the development of the networks that created
the Internet that have spawned tremendous economic growth in this
country.
I believe, and I think many of our colleagues on both sides of the
aisle believe, that we need a similar investment in the energy field.
That was created, the RPE Program, at the Department of Energy. If we
move forward with the House budget proposal, that will cut $1 billion
out of the kind of basic research we need to make sure we have a full
portfolio of domestic energy sources, renewable energy sources. I, for
one, believe it also has to include conservation, nuclear, increased--
continued domestic oil and gas, coal--all these have to be part of the
mix. But we have to do it in a smarter and cleaner way. Right now, at
this point, to cut $1 billion out of that kind of basic next generation
research and development, the same kind of research and development
that in the IT field created the Internet, would be shortsighted. I
think that is true in the minds of most business folks.
We have to get our health care costs under control. Part of getting
our health care costs under control means continuing to unlock
innovation. Perhaps one of the greatest growth fields of the next 20
years, and something I know the chairman of the Judiciary Committee has
been working on in terms of his patent reform, is making sure in the
life sciences area America continues to lead in terms of innovation.
Well, where does that innovation come from in terms of government
dollars being leveraged four, five, six times? That comes from an
investment in NIH. Unfortunately, the House budget proposal cuts $1.3
billion from NIH funding. Well, if you are in stage 2 or stage 3 of the
next-generation cancer development drug, to have those kind of trials
cut back, to have that kind of basic research cut back, not only in
terms of American economic growth but the personal toll it could take
on folks who are desperately waiting for solutions to a disease, I
believe, is again not a good policy choice at this moment.
As we move forward as well, we have to make sure we outeducate our
competitors. No one believes America's future is going to be based on
low-wage labor; it is going to be based on a well-educated, innovative,
and well-trained workforce.
I think one of the areas this President has not gotten the
appropriate
[[Page S1352]]
credit for is the fact that he has advanced forward dramatic education
reform within his proposals. Unfortunately, the House bill will cut $5
billion from the Department of Education and over $1 billion from the
Head Start Program.
When we are trying to look at our kids competing against kids from
India and China, does it make sense, if we are going to grow our
economy, to slash education programs, if we are going to have that
well-trained workforce?
So I do believe the House proposal is shortsighted. I believe it does
not do anything to take on the structural deficit our country is
facing. I will continue to work with the Presiding Officer and I think
a growing number of Members from both sides of the aisle. Our
suggestion is to go ahead and take the good work that was put forward
by the Presidential debt and deficit commission as at least a starting
point and put in place as consequences if we do not act; that we will
not solve this issue--which, I believe, is the issue of the day, which
as Chairman Mike Mullin said is the No. 1 national security issue for
this country, to get our deficit and debt under control--unless we can
broaden this debate from the 12 percent of domestic discretionary to
include, yes, defense spending, entitlement spending, tax reform,
trying to make sure everything is on the table.
The House approach does not do that. The House approach is
shortsighted. The House approach will not allow us to grow our economy
in a way we need. I will be voting against that proposal when it comes
to the floor. But I look forward to working again with all my
colleagues to make sure we get a true comprehensive deficit and debt
reduction plan that this Congress can vote on and put into action.
I yield the floor and I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that
the order for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. President, I wished to rise to speak on
the legislation that is currently before the Senate, the America
Invents Act of 2011. I wish to applaud the work of Judiciary Committee
Chairman Leahy and Ranking Member Grassley for working so hard to bring
this complex, bipartisan legislation to the Senate floor.
As we work to rebuild our economy, get Americans back to work, and
win the global economic race, we should all appreciate this effort to
spur innovation and create jobs. Patent reform is an important issue
for Colorado's economy and, of course, our national economy. High-tech
innovators represent over 12,000 jobs in Colorado, and they are an
important part of our economic recovery.
In addition, Colorado has a vibrant biotech, clean energy, and
aerospace set of industries. That is why I believe getting patent
reform right and achieving consensus on provisions such as inter partes
reexamination is so important.
Inter partes reexamines a proceeding at the Patent Office that allows
for the validity of a patent to be challenged in an administrative
proceeding. These proceedings are intended to serve as a less-expensive
alternative to courtroom litigation and provide additional access to
the expertise of the Patent Office on questions of patentability.
Inter partes reexam is often the preferred method of examination
because a panel of experts is more likely to reach the correct decision
on a technical question compared to a jury composed of laypeople. The
inter partes process is not frequently used today because of procedural
restrictions in the existing law. Rather than expanding the
opportunities to use the inter partes reexamination process, the
America Invents Act before us today imposes standards that are more
restrictive than current law and are not supported by top high-tech
innovators.
We need a patent reform bill that is fair to America's innovative
technology companies and all users of the patent system.
By failing to provide any relief from the huge burden abusive patent
lawsuits impose on technology companies and instead reducing the
protections in current law, I fear this legislation will force these
companies to spend hundreds of millions of dollars on frivolous
lawsuits. These are dollars that otherwise would be used to employ
engineers, produce and market new goods and services, and help Colorado
and America win the global economic race.
As this legislation moves to the House, we must work to achieve
consensus on inter partes reexamination. While I do not believe we have
the right balance quite yet, I do believe this bill is a good faith
effort to improve our patent system, and I am going to support moving
it forward because we cannot let job-creating patents languish any
longer.
As we all know, the Patent Office has an enormous backlog of nearly
700,000 applications, in addition to a half million new applications
every year. Each of these pending applications will create on average 3
to 10 jobs. But while these applications collect dust in America, other
countries are getting a head start on technologies that can
revolutionize the way we live. I am very pleased the America Invents
Act will address the funding challenges faced by the Patent Office.
This legislation will allow the Director of the Patent Office to set
fees as necessary, but it will also ensure that those fees stay at the
Patent Office--all without any cost to taxpayers. This legislation will
allow the Director to finally clear the backlog and create needed jobs
through innovation. It is my hope that the funding provisions in the
America Invents Act stay in this legislation as it moves to the House.
I am also pleased that this legislation includes an amendment I
cosponsored with Senator Bennet to establish additional satellite
patent offices around the country. It is no secret that we believe
Colorado is well situated to house a regional satellite patent office
because of the combination of our rich and diverse innovative economy,
our strong research universities and the fact that Colorado is a great
place to live. I am confident that Colorado will be competitive in the
process of selecting these new satellite patent offices.
In the end, I believe the America Invents Act goes a long way to help
unleash America's innovative spirit, but we need to make sure that we
don't make changes that could have unintended consequences for some of
our most innovative companies. Let's get patent reform right. Let's
move it forward, and let's continue working to make our patent system
fair, efficient and supportive of innovators as we seek to compete in
the global economy.
I thank the Presiding Officer for his attention and interest in his
own State of Montana.
I yield the floor.
____________________