Howard Coble

Mr. COBLE

Mr. COBLE. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. COBLE. Mr. Chairman, generally on this Hill the Committee on the Judiciary is not known as the most bipartisan committee here, but there is an exception which has been struck to that belief on this bill. I would be remiss prior to putting my oars into the water and commencing this voyage if I did not recognize a few of my colleagues. Start naming Members and I will inevitably omit someone who should have been named, but I want to mention the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Conyers], the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Frank], the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Delahunt], the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Lofgren], of course, our chairman, the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Hyde], the gentleman from Roanoke Valley, VA [Mr. Goodlatte], the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Pease] has been helpful, the gentleman from Utah [Mr. Cannon]; others I am sure, as well. But we have done this in a bipartisan manner, Mr. Chairman. I think we have crafted a bill, perfect; no, there is not much perfect done around this town or in this world, but a good, solid bill that will serve Americans well. I rise in support of the manager's amendment to H.R. 400, Mr. Chairman. Some of these amendments are technical. Most of them have been created for the benefits of small businesses defined as those who employ under 500 workers, and independent inventors, who are deserving of some extra protection in our patent system. The manager's amendment took an extremely long time to develop, and it strikes some very crucial compromises by granting additional protection while still preventing abuse. Inventors have complained that the Patent and Trademark Office has not been able to spend its valuable resources on the most important function of the office, that is, granting patents and registering trademarks with quality review in the shortest time possible. The manager's amendment separates completely policy functions from operational functions. Policy functions are left to the Department of Commerce, giving patent and trademark policy a necessary representative at the President's table, while management and operational functions, day to day, if you will, are vested completely in the PTO. This will allow the PTO to be led by a director who will have only one mission: to process and adjudicate efficiently and fairly the important Government functions of granting and issuing patents and registering trademarks. As we know, Mr. Chairman, the Committee on the Judiciary has been working with several groups to reach a compromise on special protections for small businesses and independent inventors from publication. We are offering a compromise which will grant protection while still preventing the practice of submarine patenting. While publication has many benefits for both independent inventors and small businesses, the manager's amendment gives these groups a choice over whether or not they wish to be published. It will effectively exempt independent inventors and small businesses from publication by deferring publication until 3 months after the inventor has received at least two determinations on the merits of each invention claimed, on whether or not their patent will issue. At this stage, the applicant knows whether or not he or she will receive a patent, in which case the patent would be published upon grant anyway under today's law. If it will not be granted, the applicant then may withdraw his application and avoid publication and protect the invention by another means. Mr. Chairman, this is not a perfect exemption for opponents of this bill, nor is it a perfect exemption for supporters; rather, it is a compromise. If the applicant purposely tries to delay an application between the first and second office action, he or she will, unfortunately, succeed. If the PTO is slow and does not issue a second office action within 18 months, publication will still not occur until 3 months after that second action. The PTO has indicated that after two office actions of those who wish to proceed, 97 percent are granted in short order and, therefore, published. This should move the date of publication to almost exactly the time when publication would occur today. However, those who want to purposely procrastinate for long periods of time and frustrate the prosecution of their patent applications will be published and, therefore, ultimately unable to submarine. Another provision concerned the so-called gift provision contained in the bill. While the provisions contained in the bill did not grant the PTO any authority it does not already possess, we have deleted it from the bill. The PTO can accept a gift today.

Mr. COBLE. Mr. Chairman, the manager's amendment also adopts two measures included in the bill introduced by the gentleman from California [Mr. Hunter] which provide for an incentive program to better train examiners. While the current bill ensures that the advisory board for the new PTO should be composed of diverse users of the office in order to help Congress conduct more effective oversight, the manager's amendment expressly requires that inventors be included as members. The Committee on Appropriations has expressed concern over the borrowing authority in the bill, as have some critics, although many misunderstood how the authority works under the control of Congress. Much ado has been made about a procedure which would offer a small possibility for the new PTO to borrow money instead of having to raise fees on inventors to pay for any high-technology future products. Accordingly, our amendment strikes the borrowing authority. In further guaranteeing diligent inventors at least 17 years of patent term from the time of issuance, the manager's amendment allows inventors adequate time to respond to inquiries from the PTO regarding their applications. Small businesses and independent inventors have been concerned that the new PTO may not recognize the longstanding reduction in fees applicable to these constituencies. The manager's amendment requires that the agency continue to provide that small businesses and independent inventors pay half price for their patent applications. Independent inventors have claimed that the scope of the reexamination provisions contained in H.R. 400 is too broad. This has been amended to extend greater due process. As we can tell, Mr. Chairman, the committee has worked hard to accommodate the interests of our small business community, not just in this amendment but in the many amendments adopted throughout the process, while maintaining strong protection for U.S. interests against our foreign competitors. I strongly urge all of my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the manager's amendment.

Mr. COBLE. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. COBLE. Mr. Chairman, the applicant can, of course, withdraw if it is not to be granted.

Mr. COBLE. The purpose for that, Mr. Chairman, if I may say so, is to direct attention to the submariner.

Mr. COBLE. Yes, sir.

Mr. COBLE. If the gentleman will yield, that is my understanding, and I will be happy and any of the rest of us on the committee will be happy to work with the gentleman from California [Mr. Kim] on his committee of jurisdiction with Federal buildings, and I presume that is what prompts his question.

Mr. COBLE. I would say to the gentleman from Michigan, not unlike many other features about this bill, a lot of it was misunderstood, but I have heard virtually no complaints about that.

Mr. COBLE

Mr. COBLE. Mr. Speaker, on Saturday, April 19, a gentleman renowned for his warm and pleasant greeting and service for many years to thousands of Senators and Representatives, staff members, journalists, and others involved in and around Capitol Hill will observe a milestone in his life. Bob Reed, the stately and congenial mixologist at The Monocle Restaurant, will celebrate his 70th birthday on Saturday. In the more than a quarter century that Mr. Reed has served his customers, he has become a friend to many, regardless of party affiliation or ideology. I am sure that my colleagues join me in extending our most sincere congratulations to Bob on this special day in his life and wish him many, many more birthday anniversaries in the years ahead.

Mr. COBLE

Mr. COBLE. I thank the gentleman from North Carolina and the gentleman from Iowa, the chairman.

Mr. COBLE. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. COBLE. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, I say to the chairman that I would like to extend some of the remarks uttered by the gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Burr]. I share his concerns, but not at all as to the intent of the bill. You start going after homeowners and you are opening up a bucket of snakes. I am not against homeowners at all. But I have a concern, Mr. Speaker, and I would be happy to hear from the chairman as to whether or not we may be encouraging and nurturing unnecessary and frivolous litigation.

Mr. COBLE

Mr. COBLE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. I had not planned on coming over here, because I am working on another matter known well to the Speaker, but I felt obliged to be here. Let us first admit what has gotten us into this mess: Excessive spending for the past 25 to 30 years. If more prudence had been practiced in those days, folks, we would not be here talking about this. That cow, however, is out of the barn, so now we have to play the hand that is dealt us. I am not one in favor of rushing to the Constitution each time the whim strikes me, but we live in an era today, Mr. Speaker, when activities occur regularly that would astound our Founding Fathers. I was talking to one of my constituents about 3 weeks ago, and she told me how much taxes she must pay on or before today. This woman is not impoverished, but she is by no measuring stick wealthy. She would be lower middle. The amount she told me almost knocked me off my chair. As imperfect as it is, my friends, there is no doubt that the United States of America is the greatest country in the world, but oftentimes I wonder if other countries impose such hardships upon savings, upon investing, upon hard work as America does. Capital gains and estate tax. Let us call the estate tax what it is, the death tax. They are probably the two most lucid illustrations I could offer. The estate tax ought to be abolished. Forget about reducing it or increasing the threshold, it should be abolished. It generates relatively little revenue when compared to total tax collections. Tax day and the IRS are synonymous. I look across this great hall and see my friend from Ohio, who is probably the most outspoken critic of the IRS. And I am not saying that all IRS agents and employees are no good; I am not saying that at all. I am certain there are many who are good Federal employees. But I am equally certain, Mr. Speaker, that there is much heavy-handed activity, there is much yanking taxpayers around, there is much intimidation that flows from the IRS to taxpayers who are then placed in vulnerable positions. Such activity is intolerable and inexcusable and should not be allowed to be practiced. Finally, the more difficult we can make it to increase taxes, the better all America will be served. In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I say, happy tax day, America.

Mr. COBLE

Mr. COBLE. Mr. Speaker, there have been many accusations about H.R. 400, popularly known as the patent bill, which will be on the floor this coming Thursday, allowing the Japanese and other foreign entities to steal our technology. The problem is that those making these accusations are disseminating misinformation, or inaccurate information to be more specific. This bill does not discriminate against American applicants. On the contrary, it levels the playing field so that Americans will stop being treated unfairly in our own country. It is the current system that protects what the gentleman from California [Mr. Rohrabacher] calls Japanese or Chinese interests. Under the abuses employed by foreign applicants today, which continue to be allowed under the bill of the gentleman from California, foreign applicants are laughing all the way to the bank. Get this: A foreign applicant can file a patent application in his own country, or anywhere other than the United States, while delaying his application in the United States; a practice, by the way, which H.R. 400 prevents. Consequently, the foreign applicant's patent issues quickly overseas and not in the United States until much later. Under the Rohrabacher system, as the foreign-issued patent is about to expire, the foreign company may then abandon its delay tactics in the United States and allow its U.S. patent to issue, ensuring years of monopoly protection in our country. So the foreign applicant initially prevents American companies from selling competing products abroad, and to make matters worse, when the foreign patent expires, the foreign applicant receives a U.S. patent, which then prevents American companies from selling competing products here. This encourages, by the way, Mr. Speaker, American companies to move overseas taking with them American jobs. Here is another example: Right now a foreign applicant can come into the United States, take a product which is being held as a trade secret by an American company, patent it, and make the American inventor pay royalty fees for its own invention. This actually occurs. Small businesses represented who testified in front of our subcommittee have shared their personal stories about this. The gentleman from California, Mr. Rohrabacher's bill allows this to continue. H.R. 400 allows the original American inventor to continue using his invention in the same way he was using it before he was sued by the foreign patent holder. Here is another abuse, committed by foreign and American applicants which the gentleman from California, [Mr. Rohrabacher] allows and which our bill, H.R. 400, stops; it is called submarine patenting. This procedure is a tool of self-serving predators who purposely delay their applications and keep them hidden under the water until someone else with no way to know of the hidden applications invests in the research and development to produce a new consumer product, only to have the submarine rise above the surface and sue them for their innovation. One recent suit earned a submariner $450 million at the expense of consumers. Submariners do not hire workers, do not invest in the economy, and they do not advance technology. They only live to sue others who do invest and contribute. The gentleman from California, [Mr. Rohrabacher] will tell you that there are hardly any submariners out there and that they constitute a minuscule amount. Of course, we all know that if you make your living suing American innovators, you sue as many as possible and hope to settle for nuisance value. That is why many cases initiated by submariners are not recorded. I urge everyone to take a look at the front page story of the Wall Street Journal about the problem which appeared on April 9. It is a great problem which my bill prevents. And it is these submariners, Mr. Speaker, who probably stand to benefit more than any other group if our bill is defeated. Some folks are confused about what this bill does and does not do in view of my previous illustrations. There have been some concerns that have arisen which have involved great discussion and significant negotiation. Those will form the basis of a floor manager's amendment which I will offer to this body on Thursday. Inventors have complained that the office has not been able to spend its valuable resources on the most important function of the office, that is the Patent and Trademark Office. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the support of my colleagues on Thursday. Mr. Speaker, I want to take 5 minutes to address some of the scare tactics being employed by critics to a very important patent law reform bill coming to the floor and explain the contents of an important floor manager's amendment which will be offered to H.R. 400 on Thursday. After much negotiation with all interests involved with this bill, the Judiciary Committee will put forth a comprehensive amendment containing many improvements and alleviating many concerns, especially of the independent inventor and small business communities. There have been many accusations about H.R. 400 allowing the Japanese, or other foreign entities, to steal our technology. The problem is that those making the accusations don't understand the bill. This bill does not discriminate against American applicants, on the contrary, it levels the playing field so that Americans will stop being treated unfairly in our own country. It is the current system that protects what Mr. Rohrabacher calls Japanese or Chinese interests. Under the abuses employed by foreign applicants today, which continue to be allowed under Mr. Rohrabacher's bill, foreign applicants are laughing all the way to the bank. Get this: a foreign applicant can file a patent application in his own country, or anywhere other than the United States, while delaying his application in the United States--a practice which H.R. 400 prevents. Consequently, the foreign applicant's patent issues quickly overseas, and not in the United States until much later. Under the Rohrabacher system, as the foreign-issued patent is about to expire, the foreign company may then abandon its delay tactics in the United States and allow its U.S. patent to issue, ensuring years of monopoly protection in our country. So the foreign applicant initially prevents American companies from selling competing products abroad, and to make matters worse, when the foreign patent expires, the foreign applicant receives a U.S. patent which then prevents American companies from selling competing products here. This encourages American companies to move overseas, taking American jobs with them. Here's another example: right now a foreign applicant can come into the United States, take a product which is being held as a trade secret by an American company, patent it, and make the American inventory pay royalty fees for its own invention. This really happens. Small businesses who testified in front of our subcommittee have shared their personal stories about this. Mr. Rohrabacher's bill allows this to continue. H.R. 400 allows the original American inventor to continue using his invention in the same way he was using it before he was sued by the foreign patent holder. Here's another abuse, committed by foreign and American applicants, which Mr. Rohrabacher allows and H.R. 400 stops. It's called submarine patenting. This procedure is a tool of self-serving predators who purposely delay their applications and keep them ``hidden under the water'' until someone else, with no way to know of the hidden application, invests in the research and development to produce a new consumer product, only to have the submarine rise above the surface and sue them for their innovation. One recent suit earned a submariner $450 million at the expense of consumers. Submariners do not hire workers, invest in the economy, or advance technology. They only live to sue others who do invest and contribute. Mr. Rohrabacher will tell you that there are hardly any submariners out there and that they constitute a minuscule amount. Of course, we all know that if you make your living suing American innovators, you sue as many as possible and hope to settle for nuisance value. That's why many cases brought by submariners are not recorded. I urge everyone to take a look at the front page story of the Wall Street Journal about this problem which appeared on April 9. It is a great problem which my bill prevents. So you see, Mr. Speaker, some folks are confused about what this bill does and what it doesn't do. There have been some concerns that have come up on which there has been great discussion and significant negotiation. Those will form the basis of a floor manager's amendment which I will offer on Thursday. Inventors have complained that the Office has not been able to spend its valuable resources on the most important function of the Office-- granting patents and issuing trademarks with quality review in the shortest time possible. The manager's amendment separates completely policy functions from operational functions. Policy functions are left to the Department of Commerce, while management and operational functions are vested completely in the PTO. This will allow the PTO to be led by a Director who will have only one mission: to process and adjudicate efficiently and fairly the important Government functions of granting patents and issuing trademarks. Independent inventors and small businesses have expressed concern over the publication requirement contained in the bill. While publication has many benefits for both of these groups, the manager's amendment will give them a choice over whether or not they wish to be published. It will effectively exempt independent inventors and small businesses from publication by deferring it until 3 months after they have received at least two determinations on the merits of each invention claimed on whether or not their patent will issue. At this stage, the applicant knows whether or not his patent will issue, in which case it would be published anyway under today's law. If it will not be granted, the applicant can withdraw its application and avoid publication and protect the invention by another means. Critics have been concerned about the language in the bill, taken from current applicable law, that allows the PTO to continue its current practice of accepting gifts in order to allow examiners to visit research sites to help them to a better job. In order to alleviate any concerns, founded or unfounded, the manager's amendment will explicitly subject the acceptance of any gifts to the provisions of the criminal code and require that written rules be promulgated to specifically ensure that the acceptance of any gifts are not only legal, but avoid any appearance of impropriety. The manager's amendment will also adopt two measures included in a bill introduced by my colleague, Mr. Hunter of California, which provide for an incentive program to better train examiners, and require publication for public inspection all solicitations made by the PTO for contracts. These are good ideas that make H.R. 400 an even better bill, and I thank the gentlemen for his contribution to this important debate. While the current bill ensures that the Advisory Board for the new PTO should be comprised of diverse users of the Office in order to help Congress conduct more effective oversight, the manager's amendment will explicitly require that inventors be included as members. While this was always the intent of the provision, it will be clarified. The Appropriations Committee has expressed concern over the borrowing authority in the bill, and critics, although many misunderstand how the authority works under the control of Congress, have made much ado about a procedure which would offer a small possibility for the new PTO to borrow money instead of having to raise fees on inventors to pay for any high technology future projects. Accordingly, the manager's amendment will strike the borrowing authority provisions from the bill. In further guaranteeing an inventor at least 17 years of patent term from the time of issuance, the manager's amendment will allow inventors adequate time to respond to inquiries from the PTO regarding their applications. The manager's amendment will also allow inventors who were adversely affected by the change in patent term in 1995 to receive a further limited examination to avoid losing term. Small businesses and independent inventors have been concerned that the new PTO may not recognize the longstanding reduction in fees applicable to these constituencies. The manager's amendment requires that the agency continue to provide that small businesses and independent inventors pay half-price for their patent applications. Independent inventors have claimed that the reexamination provisions contained in H.R. 400 are too broad, even though they simply offer an alternative to expensive Federal court litigation that occurs today at the expense of and sometimes leading to the bankruptcy of small businesses and independent inventors. To make reexamination an even more attractive and cheaper alternative, the manager's amendment will require all multiple requests for reexamination to be consolidated into a single proceeding. Importantly, reexamination is also limited to prior patents and publications and will not be expanded at all from the process as it is done today. As you can see, Mr. Speaker, the committee has been constructively engaged with the small business and independent inventor community for over 2 years. These final safeguards for those constituencies will be added to the numerous safeguards already contained in the bill, including special provisions for the university and research communities.

Mr. COBLE

Mr. COBLE. Mr. Speaker, several weeks ago I received a call from a man who identified himself as a frustrated small inventor. He then proceeded to give me a tongue-lashing about the patent bill, H.R. 400, claiming that it would put the little guy out of business. I asked him what was his source of information. He referred to a talk show featuring a Congressman who said that. I asked the caller if he had read the bill. No. I asked him if he wanted to read the bill. Yes. I mailed a copy of the bill to him, and then about 10 days later he called me and apologized. He said, this is a good bill, not at all like I was told on the talk radio show. Yesterday, Mr. Speaker, a woman came to me, a Member of this body who was scheduled to speak on behalf of the bill later this week. She said, I cannot do it. I said, why? Because I have received mail that says H.R. 400 is bad for the little guy. I said, were there any details spelled out? No, she said. This is how she bases her opinion. This is how the caller based his opinion. Scare tactics are very effective. Scare tactics make a formidable opponent.

Mr. COBLE

Mr. COBLE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that when the House adjourns on Monday April 14, 1997, it adjourn to meet at 10:30 a.m. on Tuesday, April 15, for morning hour debates.

Mr. COBLE

Mr. COBLE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that when the House adjourns today it adjourn to meet at 2 p.m. on Monday next.

Mr. COBLE

Mr. COBLE. Mr. Speaker, the Constitution charges Congress with the responsibility of creating an incentive for inventors to share their inventions with society by granting a monopoly for a limited amount of time in which the inventor alone can prosper from the success of the invention. Why was this incentive necessary? Because the Founding Fathers knew that our country would not achieve progress in science and the useful arts without effective disclosure of the inventions of our citizens. This straightforward point, which is integral to the understanding and promoting the beneficial patent changes set forth in H.R. 400, is regrettably lost on some of the critics of the bill. Disclosure through publication provides many benefits. It allows other inventors to discover what inventions have already been applied for and encourages them to invest their time and efforts in other inventions which further benefit our country. It serves as a ``Do Not Tread On Me'' flag for the inventor who submitted the application, so that others know not to try to copy the invention or they will be found liable for infringement. It allows venture capitalists the opportunity to consider financing an invention which may lead to the financial success of the inventor, and it benefits society so that we can continue to move forward in science and technology instead of keeping cherished knowledge hidden below the surface. What does an inventor get in exchange for publication? The inventor receives the constitutional monopoly over his or her invention granted by Congress and enforced through the courts. The entire patent system is based on bringing new inventions into the public light and avoiding secrets. If an inventor chooses to keep his invention secret, he should not apply for a patent, because he is not willing to exchange disclosure of his invention for Federal protection. Instead, he may keep his invention as a trade secret, which is protected under the State trade secret and unfair competition laws. That is the deal. In order to get Federal patent protection, disclosure must occur. It occurs now when a patent is granted. Most are granted within 20 to 22 months. Why disclosure at 18 months? There are several good reasons to publish patent applications in 18 months. First, with disclosure comes protection against infringement. Inventors will be protected earlier if patent applications are published at 18 months. Now, patents are published when they are granted. The term ``patent pending'' on an invention may serve to warn that protection will ensue when the patent for the invention is issued, but it does not provide true protection. By publishing applications at 18 months, inventors are protected before their patent is issued and may enforce their patent rights from the publication date. Under current law, a small business or independent inventor could go bankrupt by investing everything it has in a project that another entity has claimed in an earlier, secret application. Publishing in 18 months also prevents some applicants from gaming the current system to purposely delay their patent and keep their invention secret in violation of the constitutional exchange of disclosure for protection. These inventors want the best of both worlds. They want to keep their invention secret forever, like a trade secret, but still receive the Federal grant of a patent. This was not the intention of the Founding Fathers and does not benefit society. These types of applicants are called submariners, and they are protected by the opponents of H.R. 400 which will be on the floor imminently, probably next week. They file submarine patents which destroy competition and stifle technological innovation. Submariners purposely delay their applications and keep them hidden under the water until someone else, who has no way of knowing of the hidden application, invests in the research and development to produce a new consumer product only to have the submariner arise above the surface and sue them for their innovation. Submariners do not invest in the American economy, they do not hire American workers, they do not market their inventions, and they do not make money from selling their inventions. There are more benefits as well, Mr. Speaker, to publication at 18 months. It would finally treat our patent applicants more fairly relative to foreign entities which apply for protection in the United States. Under current conditions, a U.S. inventor filing abroad has his or her application published at 18 months in the language of the host country. This means that foreign competitors may review, but not steal, the U.S. application. Mr. Speaker, I urge all of my colleagues to examine H.R. 400 very carefully and very meticulously, and I appreciate the support of my colleagues. One final point, Mr. Speaker. Those who oppose H.R. 400 are entitled to their convictions, misguided as they are. They are not, however, entitled to misrepresent the contents of my bill by lowering the level of discourse on this subject. Patent law is complex and arcane; it is not sexy and engaging when seriously discussed, especially on television. This would explain the current controversy surrounding the legislation. My patience has been tried in this regard, but I will resist the temptation to respond in like manner. Statement of the Honorable Howard Coble, Chairman, Subcommittee on Courts and Intellectual Property, Committee on the Judiciary, U.S. House of Representatives on the 18-Month Publication Provisions Contained in H.R. 400 Article I, Section 8, clause 8 of the Constitution charges Congress with the responsibility of creating an incentive for inventors to share their inventions with society by granting a monopoly for a limited amount of time in which the inventor alone can prosper from the success of the invention. Why was this incentive necessary? Because the Founding Fathers knew that our country would not achieve progress in ``Science and the Useful Arts'' without effective disclosure of the inventions of our citizens. Disclosure through publication provides many benefits. It allows other inventors to discover what inventions have already been applied for and encourages them to invest their time and efforts in other inventions which further benefit our country; it serves as a ``Don't Tread On Me'' flag for the inventor who submitted the application so that others know not to try to copy the invention or they will be found liable for infringement; it allows venture capitalists the opportunity to consider financing an invention which may lead to the financial success of the inventor; and it benefits society so that we can continue to move forward in science and technology instead of keeping cherished knowledge hidden below the surface. What does an inventor get in exchange for publication? The inventor receives the Constitutional monopoly over his or her invention granted by Congress and enforced through the courts. The entire patent system is based on bringing new inventions into the public light and avoiding secrets. If an inventor chooses to keep his invention secret, he should not apply for a patent because he is not willing to exchange disclosure of his invention for federal protection. Instead, he may keep his invention as a trade secret, which is protected under state trade secret and unfair competition laws. That's the deal--in order to get federal patent protection, disclosure must occur. It occurs now when a patent is granted. Most are granted within 20-22 months. Why disclosure at 18 months? There are several good reasons to publish patent applications at 18 months. First, with disclosure comes protection against infringement. Inventors will be protected earlier if patent applications are published at 18 months. Right now patents are published when they are granted. The term ``patent pending'' on an invention may serve to warn that protection will ensue when the patent for the invention is issued, but it does not provide true protection. By publishing applications at 18 months, inventors are protected before their patent is issued, and may enforce their patent rights from the publication date. Under current law, a small business or independent inventor could go bankrupt by investing everything it has in a project that another entity has claimed in an earlier secret application. Publishing at 18 months also prevents some applicants from gaming the current system to purposely delay their patent and keep their invention secret, in violation of the Constitutional exchange of disclosure for protection. These inventors want the best of both worlds. They want to keep their inventions secret forever, like a trade secret, but still receive the federal grant of a patent. This was not the intention of our Founding Fathers and does not benefit society. These types of applicants are called ``Submariners.'' They file ``Submarine Patents'' which destroy competition and stifle technological innovation. Submariners purposely delay their applications and keep them ``hidden under the water'' until someone else, who has no way of knowing of the hidden application, invests in the research and development to produce a new consumer product, only to have the submarine rise above the surface and sue them for their innovation. One recent suit earned a Submariner $450 million at the expense of consumers. Submariners do not invest in the American economy, they do not hire American workers, they do not market their invention and they do not make money from selling their invention. They have seemingly one purpose, and that is to make money by clogging the courts with litigation and suing those who do hire our workers and invest in our economy. They purposely file very broad applications and hope that another company or inventor will invest in technology similar to that contained in the patent application. Because there was no disclosure, the innocent company or inventor had no idea the technology was protected. Had the innocent company or investor known of the application, it could have invested elsewhere to contribute to consumers and society in a different way. When a Submariner hits ``the jackpot,'' he sues as many parties as possible, hoping that his patent, which may have been pending secretly for years, will pay off in infringement actions. In many cases, a Submariner will sue parties he knows are not truly violating his patent in hopes of achieving a ``nuisance'' settlement. Unfortunately, this activity forces higher consumer costs and does not lead to American technological progress. There are more benefits to publication at 18 months. It would finally treat our patent applicants more fairly relative to foreign entities which apply for protection in the United States. Under current conditions, a United States inventor filing abroad has his or her application published after 18 months in the language of the host country; this means that foreign competitors may review (but not steal) the U.S. application. Since our system lacks this feature, however, a foreign entity never reveals the subject of its application until the patent issues. Publication after 18 months in the United States will allow an American company to review foreign applications here in English. Under no circumstances does 18-month publication create newfound opportunity for an American or foreign competitor to steal the contents of a published application. Just as is the case when a patent is granted, any competitor who appropriates an invention after publication but before grant must pay damages to the patent applicant. H.R. 400 provides for 18-month publication, but allows an inventor to avoid publication if it is unlikely he will receive a patent. Under the provisions of H.R. 400, any inventory who is applying for a patent exclusively in the United States has up to three months after an initial determination by the Patent and Trademark Office to decide whether or not he wishes to proceed. If the PTO determines that the applicant will not likely receive a patent, the applicant may withdraw his application and seek protection under trade secret and unfair competition laws. If the patent is likely to be issued and the applicant proceeds, it will be published and protected after 18 months. H.R. 400 carries out Congress' special obligation under the Constitution to provide protection in exchange for disclosure and will serve to benefit America's inventors. H.R. 400 is necessary for the Progress of Science and the Useful Arts.

Mr. COBLE

Mr. COBLE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the business in order under the Calendar Wednesday rule be dispensed with on Wednesday next.

Mr. COBLE

Mr. COBLE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 400, which will effectively end the practice of submarine patenting. A patent submariner resorts to dilatory tactics that inhibit the ability of the Patent and Trademark Office to review the application in an expedited manner. Submariners do not invest in the economy, nor do they hire workers and they do not invent anything. They sue innocent third parties who independently develop technology, invest in the economy and do in fact hire workers. How do we stop submariners and still guarantee 17 years of term? H.R. 400 requires an 18-month publication. The innocent third party will be served with notice that a patent is pending and be able to move on to another invention. The rights of the patent applicant are in no way compromised, since he would receive protection at the time of publication, which means longer protection than inventors currently receive. Mr. Speaker, good patent policy concerns itself with more than the rights of the inventor. H.R. 400 improves our existing system by protecting the interests of all. I urge support of H.R. 400.

Mr. COBLE

Mr. COBLE. Mr. Speaker, as we are in the middle of what is known as March Madness, all eyes are focused on the basketball arenas of America. An integral part of what makes the game so much fun and adds to the fans' excitement are the cheerleaders. These young men and women who exhort the crowd to support their team add much to the pageantry of college basketball and, for that matter, all sports. We are particularly mindful of the contributions that cheerleaders make to the enjoyment of all types of sports these days because the Sixth District of North Carolina is the home of the 1996-97 North Carolina high school cheerleading champions. Southwestern Randolph High School [SWRHS] near Asheboro, NC, last month captured the State 2-A cheerleading championship. This championship is all the more special because it came in the final year of Coach LuEllen Loflin's tremendous career at SWRHS. Led by Loflin, the Cougars have won North Carolina's 2-A cheerleading championship 5 of the past 6 years and 6 of the past 8. As written in the Asheboro Courier-Tribune: For the past 15 years, Loflin has been involved as the coach of the varsity cheerleaders, a span of time which has seen cheerleading evolve from a group of girls who jump up during sporting events to a group of skilled athletes who spend hundreds of hours each year perfecting dance routines loaded with acrobatics and precision maneuvers. Members of her squad told the Courier-Tribune that Coach Loflin will be missed. ``She's a pillar of support and confidence and love and friendship and all those wonderful adjectives,'' senior cocaptain Christine Copple told the Asheboro newspaper. ``She's one of us,'' fellow cocaptain Lisa Sizemore told the Courier-Tribune about Coach Loflin. ``We can all go to her and talk about anything. She's a second mother to us. Without her, we wouldn't be where we are today.'' Darian Walker, the lone male on the team, was pleased to capture another trophy for a great coach. ``To come back and win it one more time before Miss Loflin left was really great,'' Walker said. ``It was one of the best feelings I ever had.'' In addition to Copple, Sizemore, and Walker, every member of the Cougar cheerleading squad is to be congratulated for a championship season, including senior captain Melissa Pritchard, and fellow seniors Nicki McKensie, Stephanie Stone, and Amy Sykes; juniors Sara Knapp and Alicia Miller; sophomores Katie Copple, Misty Cox, Ann Culpepper, and Jamie Parrish; and freshmen Kelly Bryant and Marie Nance. After 15 years of dedicated service to SWRHS, LuEllen Loflin will step down as coach of the cheerleading squad. She leaves a tremendous legacy of achievement. On behalf of the citizens of the Sixth District of North Carolina, we congratulate Coach Loflin and the Southwestern Randolph Cougars for winning the 2-A high school cheerleading championship.

Mr. COBLE

Mr. COBLE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on the bill under consideration.

Mr. COBLE. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. COBLE. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.