[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 157 (2011), Part 3]
[Senate]
[Pages 3400-3404]
[From the U.S. 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 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,

[[Page 3401]]

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 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

[[Page 3402]]

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 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.

[[Page 3403]]

  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 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.

[[Page 3404]]

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.

                          ____________________