John Conyers

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Thank you, sir. I appreciate that. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Madam Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. CONYERS. I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman from California, Dana Rohrabacher, be added to this amendment as a cosponsor.

Mr. CONYERS. I yield myself 2\1/2\ minutes. Ladies and gentlemen, this bipartisan amendment adds an important provision to H.R. 1249. It would permit the conversion of the United States to a first-to-file system only upon a Presidential finding that other nations have adopted a similar one-year grace period. This one- year grace period protects the ability of an inventor to discuss or write about his or her ideas for a patent up to a year before he or she actually files for patent protection. And without this grace period, an inventor could lose his or her own patent. This grace period provision within H.R. 1249 would grant an inventor a one-year period between the time he first publishes his invention to the time when he's required to file a patent. During this time, this would prohibit anyone else from seeing this publication, stealing the idea, and quickly filing a patent behind the inventor's back. Yet the only way for American inventors to benefit from the grace period provision contained in 1249 is to ensure that the foreign countries adopt a similar grace period as well. The amendment would encourage other countries to adopt a similar period in their patent system consistent with a recommendation by the National Academy's National Research Council. Current law in the United States allows a grace period of 1 year, during which an applicant can disclose or commercialize an invention before filing for a patent. Japan offers a limited grace period, and Europe provides none. If the first-to-file provision in the bill is implemented, we must ensure that American inventors are not disadvantaged. Small American inventors and universities are disadvantaged abroad in those nations where there is no grace period. The grace period provision within H.R. 1249 would grant an inventor a one-year period between the time he first publishes his invention to the time when he is required to file a patent. During this time, this would prohibit anyone else from seeing this publication, stealing the idea, and quickly filing a patent behind the inventor's back. Yet, the only way for American inventors to benefit from the grace period provision contained in H.R. 1249 is to ensure that foreign countries adopt a grace period, as well. Small American inventors and universities are disadvantaged abroad in those nations where there is no grace period. As a result, they often lose the right to patent because these other countries do not care about protecting small business and university research. The United States needs to do more to protect the small inventor and universities not just here but abroad. Unfortunately, other countries will not do it on their own even though they want the United States to convert to a ``first-to-file'' system. If H.R. 1249 passes without my Amendment, we will be giving away a critical bargaining chip that we can use to encourage other countries to follow our lead. My Amendment ensures that the only way to benefit from the grace period in H.R. 1249 is to have foreign countries adopt a grace period. Without this Amendment, we will be unilaterally transitioning the United States to a ``first-to-file'' system with a weak grace period without any incentive for foreign countries to adopt a grace period. I should also note that identical language was included in H.R. 1908, the ``Patent Reform Act of 2007,'' which the House passed on September 7, 2007. Accordingly, I urge my colleagues to support this Amendment.

Mr. CONYERS. I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher).

Mr. CONYERS. Madam Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. CONYERS. Madam Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. CONYERS. This bipartisan amendment makes a technical revision to H.R. 1249. It addresses the confusion regarding the calculation of the filing period for patent term extension applications under the Hatch- Waxman Act. By eliminating confusion regarding the deadline for patent term extension applications, this amendment provides the certainty necessary to encourage costly investments in life-saving medical research. It also is consistent with the only court case to address this issue entitled, The Medicines Co. v. Kappos. As a result of this amendment, all applications and cases will be treated henceforth in the same manner. I also want to point out that this exact language has passed the House overwhelmingly on a voice vote in the past, and the prior version of the provision was unanimously passed by the House on two previous occasions and was also in another instance voted out by the Senate Judiciary Committee on a bipartisan basis. It was also accepted in a voice vote by the House Judiciary Committee at a markup earlier this year. Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CONYERS. I would like to yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Massachusetts, Ed Markey, of the Energy and Commerce Committee.

Mr. CONYERS. I yield, unfortunately only 75 seconds, to my good friend, also from Massachusetts, Mr. Richard Neal.

Mr. CONYERS. Madam Chair, I am proud now to yield 30 seconds to the distinguished gentleman from Kansas, Mike Pompeo.

Mr. CONYERS. I yield the balance of my time to the distinguished gentleman from New Jersey, Scott Garrett.

Mr. CONYERS. Madam Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. CONYERS. I thank you, my friend. We are not criticizing the Rules Committee. The CutGo violation, which you have not even seen the CBO letter that described the $1.1 billion----

Mr. CONYERS. This would spend $1.1 billion. That's not technical, my friend. It would spend $1.1 billion.

Mr. CONYERS. I thank Jared Polis, who is a brilliant former member of the Judiciary Committee, and we miss him very much. Ladies and gentlemen, the reason these two bills are put together is very easy to fathom, that is that we have started off by, for the first time in the 112th Congress, violating the CutGo rule, formerly known as the pay-as-you-go rule, and we're trying to mask it by talking about how wonderful the second bill, the Jobs and Energy Permitting Act, H.R. 2021, is. But it's not going to work, friends, because we know why we're trying to play down the patent bill that the rule is originally committed to. It is because there are growing numbers of Members that are not only going to vote ``no'' on the rule, but they are going to vote ``no'' on the bill since for the first time since January that this CutGo rule was instituted, which prohibits consideration of a bill that has the net effect of increasing spending within a 5-year window, it is waived. In other words, you can't pass a bill that will increase spending without providing an offset. There is no offset. That is understood. But here is what the Congressional Budget Office said, that this bill will increase direct spending by $1.1 billion over the 2012-2021 period. It will increase it by $140 million by establishing a new procedure post-grant review. It will increase it by $750 million, because they establish a procedure that would allow patent holders to request the PTO to review an existing patent. It will increase it by $251 million by allowing inter partes reexamination, that is, to make it tougher and longer for a small inventor to be able to get his patent secured. So please vote ``no'' on this rule for the reason that it violates the pay-as-you-go, now known as the cut-and-go rule.

Mr. CONYERS. I thank the gentleman. I say to the gentleman, Mr. Nugent, the Congressional Budget Office sent us and you a letter saying it would increase direct spending by a total of $1.1 billion. That is not even a small increase. And, by the way, the fact that somebody else waived the pay-as-you-go rule doesn't give you the right to waive cut-as-you-go. This is outrageous that this would be allowed in the first 6 months of the year, and it has never been waived before in the 112th Congress. And he says it is not going to cost us very much, or nothing. Announcement By the Speaker Pro Tempore

Mr. CONYERS. Yes. The letter to the distinguished chair of the Rules Committee came from the Congressional Budget Office, and I would be pleased to quote it to you. The $1.1 billion is an accumulation of several other costs that they reported.

Mr. CONYERS. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. CONYERS. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I just wanted my dear friend--and I recognize he has only been here 5 months--to realize that this is not a technical CutGo violation. This is a $1.1 billion violation. That's real money that we're going to have to get from somewhere else, and we're waiving CutGo for the first time in the 112th Congress. I am appealing to Republicans and Democrats, Mr. Speaker, to join with us against this outrageous and costly and blatant violation of the House rules that they wrote.

Mr. CONYERS. Will the gentlewoman yield?

Mr. CONYERS. The reason that both these bills were combined is that they're trying to mask all the defects in the patent bill, and that's why they put this great new jobs, supposedly, creating bill together.

Mr. CONYERS. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. CONYERS. I thank the distinguished member of the Judiciary Committee and the chair of Oversight and Government Reform. The Congressional Budget Office sent the letter, Mr. Issa, about the manager's amendment, which had nothing to do with the bill.