Patent Reform Act of 2011

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. BENNET. Mr. President, I would like to speak briefly on my amendment to strike the damages and venue provisions from this legislation. I thank the chairman and committee for working with my office on this important amendment and incorporating it into the managers' amendment.

I know the committee has been working tirelessly to address concerns with this bill, and I applaud their efforts for trying to build consensus.

As I discussed yesterday, I believe a well-functioning patent system is critical for our economic growth. The reforms in this legislation will promote innovation and create jobs.

In my State alone, nearly 20,000 patent applications have been granted between the years 2000 and 2009. These applications have created the foundation for our clean energy economy and emerging tech and bio industries.

Small inventors start new Colorado companies, and more established companies are able to expand their operations in a very competitive, knowledge-based economy.

An efficient and high-quality U.S. Patent and Trademark Office is essential to maintaining American leadership in innovation. The improvements to the patent system in this bill will help us grow new industries and will help cure the backlog and delay that has stunted the ability of inventors to patent their ideas.

Right now, the average pendency period for a patent application is 36 months. That is unacceptable if we are to compete with the rest of the world. This doesn't even account for those patents that have been tied up in years of litigation after they are granted.

This is why we need to ensure that patent owners have certainty. Consistency, uniformity, and fairness are essential to innovation.

Prolonged litigation and legal uncertainty only serve to stifle the incentive to innovate. We need clarity and efficient review by the courts to make sure we don't have a system where patents are tied up for years. Likewise, we also need to make sure there is a fair outcome where there is an infringement. Those whose rights are infringed have every right to take their case to court and receive the appropriate damages.

This is why I introduced my amendment on damages and venue. We need more certainty for patent owners, and I think portions of the bill may not do enough in this regard, in the face of litigation. In fact, the venue and damages portions of the bill may actually generate more uncertainty, not less.

The Federal Circuit Court of Appeals has made significant progress on damages and venue issues. The courts are moving in the right direction, and I believe it is wiser to allow this process to run its course than to add a new layer of laws that could only serve to confuse patent litigants. So in my view, congressional intervention on damages and venue is not needed at this time.

I would like to close by again thanking the chairman for his leadership and willingness to take into account the views of others on these important issues.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source