A .pdf of the COMPETE Act of 2005 (S.1020), as introduced in the Senate, is available here.
Title III of the Act contains the anti-fee division provisions. The .pdf file is set up to open directly to this section of the bill.
The anti-fee diversion mechanism of the COMPETE Act is different than that proposed in the Patent and Trademark Fee Modernization Act of 2005 (H.R.1561). That bill set up a refund mechanism by which the Director could award refunds to some or all fee payers from a reserve fund that contained fees collected in excess of the amount appropriated to the Office for the year.
The COMPETE Act takes a seemingly simpler approach. Under the proposed legislation, the Director is required, in the event that estimated fees exceed appropriated amounts for a fiscal year, to reduce fees so that estimated collections are equal to the appropriated amount for that year. Basically, this is an attempt to ensure that no excess funds are collected by the Office.
Estimated fees v. appropriated amounts. Can you imagine the anticipation before the Office releases its “estimates”?
Also, if it turns out that filings sky-rocketed in the first 9 months of a given year, it’s possible that filing fees in the remaining three months would be dramatically reduced once the Director reduced fees as he’s required to do under the proposed language. Happy December – its a filing free-for-all!
Isn’t all this talk of refunds and reduced fee mechanisms a little excessive? Can’t an anti-fee diversion provision simply state “No monies collected by the Office shall be used for any purpose not relating to the official business of the Office?”
