The Congressional Record is a unique source of public documentation. It started in 1873, documenting nearly all the major and minor policies being discussed and debated.
“SECTION 37 OF THE AMERICA INVENTS ACT” mentioning the U.S. Dept. of Justice was published in the Extensions of Remarks section on pages E1940 on Oct. 26, 2011.
The publication is reproduced in full below:
SECTION 37 OF THE AMERICA INVENTS ACT
______
HON. JOHN CONYERS, JR.
of michigan
in the house of representatives
Wednesday, October 26, 2011
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, last month, the President signed into law the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act. I was a co-sponsor of a bipartisan amendment that added Section 37 to the House bill, which then passed the Senate and was enacted into law.
Section 37 is an important provision that clarified the procedure for filing patent term extension applications under the Hatch-Waxman Act. It codified a sensible decision by a federal district judge and was meant to end years of confusion about this issue that had threatened to stifle innovation.
Before the Senate voted on the House patent bill, an amendment was offered to strike Section 37. That amendment was fully debated and was defeated on a bipartisan basis. Last week, however, there was discussion of Section 37 on the floor of the Senate and it was suggested that Section 37 does not take effect for a year. But that is incorrect.
Section 37 explicitly says that it ``shall apply'' to applications and court cases that are pending on the date of enactment of the bill. To apply to pending applications and cases, Section 37 obviously had to be effective immediately. Section 37 says very clearly exactly what it applies to so the default effective date provision for the Act does not apply here.
During the entire debate over Section 37, not a single person suggested that Section 37 would not be effective immediately. In fact, everyone understood it would take effect right away and would govern currently pending applications and cases. The United States Patent and Trademark Office agreed with this interpretation. In fact, just last week, the Department of Justice explained in a court filing that this is the only possible interpretation of the law.
In the end, the amendment to strike Section 37 was defeated during Senate debate. It is too late now to re-write history. And it is clear that Section 37 explicitly says that it is to be effective immediately.
____________________
