Metavid

Video archive of the US Congress

Senate Proceeding on Jun 13th, 2011 :: 0:59:30 to 1:07:55
Total video length: 5 hours 2 minutes Stream Tools: Stream Overview | Edit Time

Note: MetaVid video transcripts may contain inaccuracies, help us build a more perfect archive

Download OptionsEmbed Video

Views:189 Duration: 0:08:25 Discussion

Previous speech: Next speech:

Chuck Grassley

0:59:14 to 0:59:34( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: quorum the presiding officer: the senator from iowa. mr. grassley: i ask that the quorum call the presiding officer: without objection. mr. grassley: i want to address the issue of patent reform, a bill that the senate has already passed, and we

Chuck Grassley

0:59:30 to 1:07:55( Edit History Discussion )
Speech By: Chuck Grassley

Chuck Grassley

0:59:35 to 0:59:57( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: passed by an overwhelming margin. it is my understanding that the house of representatives is expecting to pass a reform bill that the house wants, and in the process the house wants the senate to agree very soon thereafter and do it

Chuck Grassley

0:59:58 to 1:00:19( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: without a formal conference. i want my colleagues to understand why i hope that the house-passed bill will contain a provision that was not in our senate bill but passed unanimously out of the house judiciary committee. the house committee report

Chuck Grassley

1:00:20 to 1:00:40( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: recognized that the -- quote -- "need to modernize our patent laws has found expression in the courts." but that -- and quote den -- "the courts are constrained in their decisions by the texts of statutes at issue." that's from our -- that's from

Chuck Grassley

1:00:41 to 1:01:04( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: the house committee report. the house judiciary committee amendment that passed unanimously resulted from a recent federal court case that had its genesis in the difficulty that the f.d.a., the food and drug administration and the patent office face when

Chuck Grassley

1:01:05 to 1:01:26( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: deciding how to calculate hatch-waxman deadlines. hatch-waxman law was a compromise between drug patent holders and generic manufacturers. under the waxman-hatch law, once a patent holder obtains a market approval, the mandate has 60

Chuck Grassley

1:01:27 to 1:01:47( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: days -- the patent holder has 60 days to request the patent office to restore the patent terms time lost because of the f.d.a.'s long deliberating process eating up valuable

Chuck Grassley

1:01:48 to 1:02:10( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: patent rights. the citation for the case that i'm talking about is 731 federal supplement second 470. the court case found -- quote -- "the f.d.a. treats submission to

Chuck Grassley

1:02:11 to 1:02:33( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: the f.d.a. received after its normal business hours differently than it creates communications from the agency after normal hours." when notice of f.d.a. approval is sent after normal business hours, the combination of the patent trade office's calendar

Chuck Grassley

1:02:34 to 1:02:56( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: day interpretation and its new counting method effectively deprives applicant of a portion of the 60-day filing period that congress expressly granted them and applicant could lose a substantial portion, if not all,

Chuck Grassley

1:02:57 to 1:03:18( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: of its time for filing a patent trademark extension application as a result of the mistakes that's beyond its control, an interpretation that imposes such drastic consequences when the government errors could not be what congress intended.

Chuck Grassley

1:03:19 to 1:03:41( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: that's the end of the judge's statement on why he ruled as he did in this particular case. congress did not intend those drastic consequences that happens as a result of a difference between whether or not you are making an

Chuck Grassley

1:03:42 to 1:04:02( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: application to or an application from an agency. in other words, there shouldn't be any difference. congress did not intend the consequences that can come from such a different application of the law. so the court clarified the law

Chuck Grassley

1:04:03 to 1:04:26( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: so when f.d.a. sends a notice of approval after normal business hours, the 60-day period requesting patent restoration begins the next business day. the house judiciary committee takes a court decision where common sense dictates to protect

Chuck Grassley

1:04:27 to 1:04:49( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: all patent holders against losing patent extension as a result of confused counting calculations. so i want to quote ranking member conyers of the house judiciary committee who sponsored the amendment and the committee chairman smith who supported mr. conyers.

Chuck Grassley

1:04:50 to 1:05:10( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: ranking member john conyers stated during markup, the amendment is needed to -- and i quote him -- "remove what amounts to a trap and would clarify the term business day, and so our attempt here is to make the congressional effort at patent reform more clear and

Chuck Grassley

1:05:11 to 1:05:31( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: more efficient." chairman lamar smith also advocated passage of this amendment during markup in the house judiciary committee, and i would quote him -- "i will recognize myself in support of the amendment. now the gentleman's amendment -- meaning the conyers amendment --

Chuck Grassley

1:05:32 to 1:05:52( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: clarifies the counting rules that are imposed on patent holders who must submit documents to the agency within statutory time limits. it has been established that the patent and trademark office has inconsistently applied these rules, which is not fair to various patent holders.

Chuck Grassley

1:05:53 to 1:06:14( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: the gentleman's amendment tracks the recent court case -- and that's a court case i have already cited. i want to start that sentence over. "the gentleman's amendment tracks the recent court case decided in favor of a patent holder that originally applied for an extension ten years ago. my understanding is that there

Chuck Grassley

1:06:15 to 1:06:36( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: are not scoring problems with this provision, and i support it." that's what chairman lamar smith of the house judiciary committee said. now, this is a commonsense amendment. it improves our patent system fairness through certainty and

Chuck Grassley

1:06:37 to 1:06:58( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: clarity, and i hope that -- that the house will leave that in their bill when it sends it over here to the senate. my interest in this amendment is because i opposed it two or three years ago when it was first brought up. because of the court decision, i'm convinced the different application of the 60-day rule

Chuck Grassley

1:06:59 to 1:07:20( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: is very, very unfair. as ranking member of the senate judiciary committee, i want the house judiciary committee to know that several republican and democrat senators have asked me to support the conyers legislation, the conyers language as well. i yield the floor.

Chuck Grassley

1:07:21 to 1:07:27( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: and i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk

Personal tools

MetaVid is a non-profit project of UC Santa Cruz and the Sunlight Foundation. Learn more About MetaVid

The C-SPAN logo and other servicemarks that may be found in video content are the property of their respective trademark holders. None of these trademark holders are affiliated with Metavid