Search Form
First, enter a politician or zip code
Now, choose a category

Public Statements

Leahy-Smith America Invents Act

Floor Speech

Location: Washington, DC


Mr. KOHL. Madam President, I have long supported reforming our patent system and was pleased with the bill the Senate passed in March. It was not what everyone wanted, but it was an effective compromise that would spur innovation and economic growth. I am disappointed with changes the House made to the bill, specifically the expansion of the ``prior user rights'' defense a provision which raises serious concerns for the University of Wisconsin's patent licensing organization which fosters innovative discoveries, spawning dozens of small businesses and spurring economic growth in Wisconsin.

Let me explain why. A patent grants an innovator the right to exclude others from using an invention in exchange for making that invention public. The publication of patents and the research behind them advance further innovation and discovery. Anyone who uses the invention without permission is liable for infringement, and someone who was using the invention prior to the patent has only a limited defense for infringement. The purpose of limiting this defense to infringement is to encourage publication and disclosure of inventions to foster innovation. So by expanding the prior user defense we run the real risk of discouraging disclosure through the patent system. This is concerning to the University of Wisconsin because they depend on publication and disclosure to further research and innovation.

I appreciate the inclusion of a carve-out to the prior user rights defense provision so that it does not apply to patents owned by a university ``or a technology transfer organization whose primary purpose is to facilitate the commercialization of technologies developed by one or more such institutions of higher education.'' However, I have some concerns about how the carve out will work in practice and I would like to clarify its application.

It is my understanding that the term ``primary purpose'' in this exception is intended to be consistent with and have a similar scope as the ``primary functions'' language in the Bayh-Dole Act. In particular, if a nonprofit entity is entitled to receive assignment of inventions pursuant to section 207(c)(7) of title 35 because one of its primary functions is the management of inventions, presumably it falls under the primary purpose prong of the prior user rights exception. Is that the Senator's understanding of the provision?


Skip to top

Help us stay free for all your Fellow Americans

Just $5 from everyone reading this would do it.

Back to top