Yesterday, the House of Representatives Judiciary Committee conducted an oversight hearing of the PTO. Director Kappos and Robert Budens, president of the Patent Office Professional Association, the PTO employees’ union, were several of the witnesses who testified. Although ostensibly to discuss operations at the PTO and happenings during Director Kappos’ first year in office, the discussion quickly turned to the issue of patent reform.
Although the House passed patent reform bills that died in the Senate during the last several congresses, this time the House seems less inclined to do so. Several members of the committee expressed serious dissatisfaction with the Senate Manager’s Amendment.
Some members of the committee, chiefly Rep. Zoe Lofgren (R-CA), questioned Kappos as to whether he would accept a simpler patent bill that merely addressed the PTO’s most serious problems of funding. Such a bill would cover the issues of fee diversion and PTO fee-setting authority. She clearly does not support the Senate reform bill of which Kappos is an ardent supporter.
Others on the committee also posed questions along this line. In an exchange with Chairman John Conyers (D-MI), Kappos responded that “[w]e have a heritage opportunity on the part of the intellectual property system to pass legislation that has been generations in the making and badly needed.” Rep. Lofgren found Kappos’ refusal to consider a simpler bill dealing only with funding to be “stunningly disappointing.” Rep. James Sensenbrenner, Jr. (R-WI), a former chair of the committee, remarked that “[t]he enemy is . . . on the other side of the Capitol” in reference to the Senate bill.
During his testimony, Robert Budens was particularly critical of the post-grant review provisions of the Senate bill. He believes that these administrative challenges will “siphon resources” from the examining corps to handle these procedures which would further exacerbate the backlog and increase application pendency.
Negotiators for the two houses of Congress have apparently been unable to resolve the differences between the bills. This may further explain why the Senate bill has not yet reached the floor. It is very difficult to get a solid read on statements by members of Congress as to whether they are being sincere or are merely conducting political grandstanding. After yesterday’s hearing, however, it does appear that comprehensive patent reform is less likely in the current Congress.
