Yesterday, the House Subcommittee on Courts, the Internet, and Intellectual Property referred H.R. 2791, The Patent and Trademark Fee Modernization Act (PTFMA) of 2005, to the full Committee on the Judiciary.

No amendments were made during markup by the subcommittee.

[Copyright 2005 J. Matthew Buchanan. Originally published on Promote the Progress.]

The House Subcommittee on Courts, the Internet, and Intellectual Property held a markup hearing on the Patent and Trademark Fee Modernization Act (PTFMA – H.R. 2791) today.  The bill has been referred to the whole Committee on the Judiciary for consideration.

I’m working to determine if any amendments were offered in the markup.

Remember, PTFMA was introduced on the same day as the Patent Act of 2005 and includes the controversial anti-fee diversion provisions that were excised from last year’s major PTO bill, H.R. 1561, on the eve of its passage by way of absorption into the omnibus appropriations bill.

Currently, two completely different approaches to ending fee diversion are sitting in Congress. PTFMA sets up a refund system to avoid fee diversion.  In contrast, the COMPETE Act (S. 1020), which sits idle in the Senate, avoids fee diversion using a fee reduction system.  With today’s markup and referral to the full Committee, PTFMA enjoys an early lead, likely because H.R. 1561 enjoyed such broad support in the last Congress.

You can download both PTFMA and the COMPETE Act in the PTP Patent Reform Library.

From the conclusion of the GAO’s report on USPTO patent automation systems:

“…[A]fter spending over a billion dollars on its efforts, the agency is still not yet effectively positioned to process patent applications in a fully automated environment; moreover, when and how it will actually achieve this capability remains uncertain.”

I can hear it now:  “Yeah, we should give these guys more money….”  Great.  Just great.

The Government Accountability Office has issued a report of its review of the progress of the USPTO on its various patent automation projects, including the Image File Wrapper (IFW) system and the Electronic Filing System (EFS).

View and/or download a .pdf of the report here.

The Report is harshly critical of the Office, noting top-level failures:

“USPTO’s ineffective planning and management of its patent automation projects, in large measure, can be attributed to enterprise-level, systemic weaknesses in the agency’s overall information technology investment management processes.”

The recommendations of the report are equally harsh.  One is that the Office reassess and, where necessary, revise its approach for implementing information systems that support automation of the patent process.  In essence, the GAO is recommending that the Office return to the drawing board to rethink the way it implements IT before it proceeds with any new initiatives.

I’ve been critical of the USPTO EFS and IT systems generally for some time.  I think this negative report is a positive for the community as it may serve as an impetus for changes.

But, then again, maybe it won’t.  Jon Dudas, in his written comments that are included in the report, concluded that “[i]n light of the progress that the USPTO has made even during the period of GAO’s assessment, we do not believe that such significant gaps exist as to warrant a pause and reassessment of our key management processes.”  Dudas did acknowledge some weaknesses and described changes that have already been made.

At it’s best, the Report will cause delays in planning and implementation of new systems at USPTO, such as a simplified EFS that can be used by everyone. At it’s worst, the Report might give appropriators pause before allocating additional funding to the Office.

Brazil is still threatening to ignore patents that cover AIDS drugs.  At least this time she was kind enough to set a 10–day deadline.

I’m back.  It’s off topic for Promote the Progress, but I managed to work the reason for my brief absence into this post on the Rethink(ip) blog.

I’ll be back to a regular schedule near the end of this week.

Yesterday, the Patent and Trademark Office formally announced that patent law harmonization talks stand stalled at the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO).  Efforts to harmonize patent laws around the globe have been a fine mess for some time.  But now, an impasse is evident, and the future is very murky.

The US has lead a group of developed nations in an effort to limit harmonization talks to a group of “first package” issues (scope of prior art, grace period, novelty, etc.).  The limitation is intended to spur progress on the talks — many believe that without any limitation on the broad spectrum of potential agenda items, the prospect for progress is dismal.  In contrast, developing nations have opposed the attempts to limit the agenda and seek to include discussions on other items, including the scope of patentable subject matter and compulsory licensing provisions.  Not surprisingly, Brazil has been the most visible opponent to the efforts of developed countries.

See this prior PTP post for a background of the positions of various nations and status of the talks before the announcement made yesterday:  International patent law harmonization efforts: a fine mess (March 16, 2005).

The future of WIPO as a framework for international harmonization is in serious jeopardy.  The stalling of talks at the agenda-setting stage highlights the deep divide between the substantive agendas of the two groups.  If developed and developing nations can’t agree on the subjects to be addressed, the likelihood that any substantive progress can be made is extremely low.

So what is the future for WIPO as a framework for harmonization?  We’ll have to wait for that answer.  Look for the PTO to lead additional meetings of developed nations in the near future.

[Copyright 2005 J. Matthew Buchanan. Originally published on Promote the Progress (http://www.promotetheprogress.com).]

I updated the Patent Reform Library this morning to include the following new resources:

1.  The Patent and Trademark Fee Modernization Act of 2005 (HR 2791).  This bill includes a refund system, much like that proposed in PTFMA 2004 (108 HR 1561) to address the fee diversion issue.

2.  The opening statement of Chairman Lamar Smith from the June 9th oversight hearing of the House Subcommittee on Courts, the Internet, and Intellectual Property.

3.  Prepared testimony of each witness from the June 9th oversight hearing of the House Subcommittee on Courts, the Internet, and Intellectual Property.

4.  A link to Crouch’s redlined version of affected sections.  This is a very helpful document that shows the sections of the patent law affected by the Patent Act of 2005 (HR 2795) as if it were enacted in its present form.

All new information added in today’s update can be found in the “Legislative Materials” section of the Library.

As always, the PTP Patent Reform Library can be found here: http://promotetheprogress.com/archives/2005/06/the_ptp_patent_1.html.

[Copyright 2005 J. Matthew Buchanan.  Originally published on <a href=”http://www.promotetheprogress.com”>Promote the Progress</a> (http://www.promotetheprogress.com).]

Brazil is threatening to suspend the intellectual property rights of American products if the U.S. government doesn’t address a WTO deadline to change its cotton subsidy practices by July 1.  According to this article, the threat is designed to draw IP-intensive industries, such as the entertainment, computer, and pharmaceutical industries, into the no-tech battle over cotton subsidies.

Interesting tactic – ‘suspension’ of IP rights as part of a trade battle.  Seems like a novel approach, albeit unconventional, drastic, and probably illegal.  Also seems like the kind of thing that would make US companies rethink any capital investments in Brazil that are currently being contemplated.

Thanks to this and the recent  overtures to break patents on AIDS medicines, there appears to be little chance that Brazil will be out of IP hot seat anytime soon.

[Copyright 2005 J. Matthew Buchanan. Originally published on Promote the Progress (http://www.promotetheprogress.com).]