America Invents Act

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Ms. KAPTUR. I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, if this bill is passed into law, it will violate the first right explicitly named in our Constitution, the intellectual property clause. This bill makes a total mockery of article 1, section 8, clause 8, which requires Congress to secure for inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discovery.

Supporters of this bill say it is an attempt to modernize our patent system. What they really mean is that this bill Europeanizes our patent system by granting the rights to an invention to whoever wins the race to the Patent Office.

The Supreme Court has been consistent on this issue throughout our history. First inventors have the exclusive constitutional right to their inventions. This right extends to every citizen, not just those with deep pockets and large legal teams. A politicized patent system will further entrench those very powerful interests with deep pockets and lots of lobbying offices over on K Street.

Claiming to be an inventor is not the same thing as being that inventor, the person who actually made the discovery. A patent should be challenged in court, not in the U.S. Patent Office.

Since the first Congress, which included 55 delegates to the Constitutional Convention, our nation has recognized that you are the owner of your own ideas and innovations. This bill throws that out the window and replaces it with a system that legalizes a rather clever form of intellectual property theft.

I assure you of one thing: If this bill mistakenly passes, this debate will not be over. We will see it head straight to the courts with extended litigation for years to come, along with complete uncertainty to our markets, killing jobs and killing innovation.

I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on H.R. 1249.

I yield 3 minutes to the former chairman of the Judiciary Committee, our esteemed colleague from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner).

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Ms. KAPTUR. I would like to inquire as to the remaining time on both sides, please.

The CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Ohio has 2 minutes remaining; the gentleman from Texas has 30 seconds remaining.

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, this bill is unconstitutional. It will stifle American job creation, cripple American innovation. It throws out over 220 years of patent protections for individual inventors and violates the CutGo rules, increasing our deficit by over $1 billion by 2021.

The proponents claim that the bill is constitutional because it contains the word ``inventor'' and leaves in place the existing statutory language awarding patents to those who invent or discover. But adding a word to the title of a bill cannot paper over its constitutional flaws. The bill denies a patent to the actual inventor simply because he or she files second, and therefore it is unconstitutional.

Earlier this month, in a decision issued on June 6, the Supreme Court reaffirmed that since 1790, the patent law has operated on the premise that the rights in an invention belong to the inventor. Chief Justice John Marshall explained in 1813 that the Constitution and law, taken together, give to the inventor from the moment of invention an inchoate property therein which is completed by suing out a patent. And in 1829, the Supreme Court held that under the Constitution the right is created by the invention and not by the patent. And a New York district judge stated in 1826 that it is very true that the right to a patent belongs to him who is the first inventor.

If this very flawed bill passes, I guarantee you it is going to be tied up in litigation for years to come. With the job situation being what it is, with our need for innovation in this economy, the last thing we should do is try to undermine a system that works. More patents are filed in this country than anyplace else in the world. It is dependable. And it is the first right, even before the Bill of Rights, contained in our Constitution.

We should stand for what is in the Constitution and not try to undermine it for any interest that comes before the Members of this Congress.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time and I ask my colleagues to vote against this bill. Support our own Constitution and the very successful record we've had of American innovation.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Ms. KAPTUR. I thank the gentlelady for yielding to me. I will place in the Record dozens and dozens of organizations that oppose this bill. They oppose the manager's amendment. And what is amazing about these groups is they range the vast ideological spectrum from liberal to conservative to moderate. And they all represent people--thousands and thousands of people--such as the American Bar Association, the Eagle Forum, the American Civil Rights Union, the Christian Coalition, the Family Research Council Action, Friends of the Earth, National Association of Realtors, Innovation Alliance. If one looks across this list, they have deep concerns about this bill and oppose it.

The following groups oppose H.R. 1249 or specific provisions of it or the Manager's Amendment: U.S. Business and Industry Council; National Association of Realtors; Innovation Alliance, American Bar Association; American Medical Association; ACLU; Breast Cancer Action; US-Israel Science & Technology Foundation (Sections 3 and 5); Public Citizen (Section 16); American Association for Justice (Section 16); Joan Claybrook, President Emeritus, Public Citizen; National Consumers League; Trading Technologies; Patent Office Professional Association (POPA); Generic Pharmaceutical Association (Section 12); Eagle Forum; Intellectual Ventures (Section 18); Data Treasury (Section 18).

Angel Venture Forum; BlueTree Allied Angels; Huntsville Angel Network; Private Investors in Entrepreneurial Endeavors; Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers (IEEE-USA); Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation; Brigham Young University; University of Kentucky; Hispanic Leadership Fund; American Innovators for Patent Reform; National Association of Patent Practitioners (NAPP); National Small Business Association; IPAdvocate.org; National Association of Seed & Venture Funds; National Congress of Inventor Organizations; Inventors Network of the Capital Area; Professional Inventors Alliance USA; Public Patent Foundation; Edwin Meese, III, Former Attorney General of the United States; Let Freedom Ring.

American Conservative Union; Southern Baptist Ethics and Religious Liberty Convention; 60 Plus; Tradition, Family, Property; Gun Owners of America; Council for America; American Civil Rights Union; Christian Coalition; Patriotic Veterans, Inc.; Center for Security Policy; Family PAC Federal; Liberty Central; Americans for Sovereignty; Association of Christian Schools International; Conservative Inclusion Coalition; Oregon Health & Science University; North Dakota State University; South Dakota University; University of Akron Research Foundation; University of New Hampshire.

University of New Mexico; University of Utah; University of Wyoming; Utah Valley University; Weber State University; WeReadTheConstitution.com; Family Research Council Action; Friends of the Earth; National Women's Health Network; Our Bodies Ourselves; Center for Genetics and Society; International Center for Technology Assessment; Southern Baptist Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission; United Methodist Church--General Board of Church and Society; American Society for Clinical Pathology; American Society for Investigational Pathology; Association for Molecular Pathology; College of American Pathologists; Association of Pathology Chairs.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source