WASHINGTON June 13, 2011 - The Coalition for 21st Century Patent Reform, the Coalition for Patent Fairness, the Innovation Alliance along with a group of universities sent a joint letter to Congress Monday recommending that any patent reform legislation end the diversion of user fees from the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO).
In early March, the Senate passed the Patent Reform Act of 2011. The America Invents Act, a House companion to the Senate bill, is currently up for debate in the lower house. The bills would update many of the operations of the USPTO.
To bolster the operations of the PTO the bill would end the diversion of user fees from the USPTO budget into the general U.S. budget.
“Unlike most other federal agencies, the USPTO earns fees paid by inventors, companies, research institutions, and universities that can offset every taxpayer dollar appropriated for its operations,” the letter stated in part.
During the last 20 years, more than $875 million in user fees were redirected from the PTO for use by other agencies. A review by the Congressional Budget Office showed that by allowing the PTO to keep its entire user fees, direct funding by the federal government to the PTO would decrease by $725 million over the next 10 years.
The coalition fears that under the current budget climate the USPTO will lose more of the fees it collects, making it difficult for the agency to continue its operations at the current pace.
“We are very concerned that USPTO will continue to earn significantly more fees than the funds it is allocated. That will render the agency less and less able to cope with the demands of the modern U.S. economy, increase the backlog and patent pendency, and ultimately surrender America’s lead in innovation to other economies.”
The group calls the re-direction of user fees a “hidden tax on innovation”.
The letter goes on to say that, “the funding of the USPTO via user fees is part of the implicit bargain between our nation and innovators wherein inventors make details about their inventions publicly available for the common good in exchange for a limited but exclusive intellectual property right.”
A full copy of the letter can be found here.
- Advocates for Antitrust Enforcement Say Consumer Welfare Standard Only One Layer of Competition Law
- In Law More Than a Year, MOBILE Now Advocates Say Act Requires Further Implementation for 5G Deployment
- Broadband Roundup: Texas Reaches T-Mobile Settlement, Closing the ‘Homework Gap,’ Broadcast Ownership
- UTOPIA Fiber Announces Completion of Latest Round of Funding, a $48 Million Network Expansion
- Prakash Sangam: China’s Huawei Clones Are Greater Threat to National Security than Huawei
Signup for Broadband Breakfast
Intellectual Property4 months ago
In Congressional Oversight Hearing, Register of Copyrights Says Office Is Responding to Online Users
Broadband Data6 months ago
California Report: Income Most Significant Factor in Low Broadband Adoption
Privacy and Security3 months ago
Comparing Privacy Policies for Wearable Fitness Trackers: Apple, Fitbit, Xiaomi and Under Armour
Antitrust3 months ago
Addressing the Impact of Big Data Upon Antitrust is More Complicated Than a Big Tech Breakup
Expert Opinion5 months ago
Geoff Mulligan: A ‘Dumb’ Way to Build Smart Cities
Antitrust3 months ago
Broadband Roundup: Everyone (Almost) Gangs Up on Google, Muni Broadband Fact Sheet, SHLB Anchornet Conference
Broadband Roundup4 months ago
Cable Industry Touts Energy Efficiency, Next Century Highlights Open Access Fiber, Aspen Forum Set
Broadband's Impact5 months ago
Law Enforcement and Advocates of Facial Recognition Technologies Battle Misconceptions