The patent bill (H.R. 1249) is likely to be voted upon in the House of Representatives by mid-week.
Attached are documents that you may find useful.
1. A joint letter by the Chairmen of the House Appropriations and Budget Committees
objecting to the funding provisions of H.R. 1249. This is a significant
objection and will be a central issue in any consideration of the legislation.
2. An article from the insider magazine Politico about the significance of the letter
from the Appropriations and Budget Committees. On Friday,the Heritage
Foundation issued a letter of opposition to H.R. 1249 and announced that this
would be a “scored”vote,which means it will be reflected in the
Heritage Foundation’s annual ratings of how Members voted.
3. An analysis of the basic legislation by one of China’s top patent experts.
It concludes what the Chinese Government
is saying about so-called ‘Patent Reform Legislation’Pending
before Congress. Below is a quote from the former
Senior Judge,IP Division of Beijing High People’s Court,about a previous
version of the pending American Invents Act H R 1249.
“…the bill…is friendlier to the infringers…it will make the patent less reliable,
easier to be challenged and cheaper to be infringed. It is not bad news
for developing countries which have fewer patents. Many of the Chinese
companies are not patent owners in the U.S. market and their products are often
excluded from the market because of patent infringement accusations. This
bill will give the companies from developing countries more freedom and
flexibility to challenge the…US patent…and make it less costly to
infringe. The bill…will weaken the patent protection…”
The pending bill H R 1249,scheduled to go to the US House Floor as early as the week of June 13 for a
vote,is substantially identical to the previous bill
and therefore the Senior Judge’s comments are still relevant.
4. Letter from 51 Members of Congress to the House leadership asking for a special debate on the
Constitutionality of certain parts of H.R. 1249. This is the first time such a
procedure has ever been used in the House. Note that the letter has
Members who rarely agree with each other on anything. But they are
concerned about the constitutionality of H.R. 1249.