Difference between revisions of "Innovation Protection Act"
imported>Albert |
imported>Albert |
||
| Line 9: | Line 9: | ||
==Summary== | ==Summary== | ||
| − | The Innovation Protection Act would establish a United States Patent and Trademark Office Public Enterprise Fund in the Treasury to be used as a "revolving fund by the Director of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) without fiscal year limitation." It would replace the Patent and Trademark Office Appropriations Account, eliminate the Patent and Trademark Fee Reserve Fund established by the America Invents Act, and provide a permanent source of funding for the USPTO. The act would also require that all of the fees collected by the PTO remain available to the PTO until they are spent. | + | The Innovation Protection Act would establish a [[United States Patent and Trademark Office]] Public Enterprise Fund in the Treasury to be used as a "revolving fund by the Director of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) without fiscal year limitation." It would replace the Patent and Trademark Office Appropriations Account, eliminate the Patent and Trademark Fee Reserve Fund established by the America Invents Act, and provide a permanent source of funding for the USPTO. The act would also require that all of the fees collected by the PTO remain available to the PTO until they are spent. |
Under H.R. 1832, the USPTO would still be required to submit an annual budget to the President, an annual report and operation plan to Congress, and an annual spending plan to the Committee on Appropriations of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Appropriations of the Senate. The act allows the USPTO to keep and spend all of the fees it collects, even those in excess of current fiscal year projection. However, the USPTO retains its obligation to submit spending reports and budgets. | Under H.R. 1832, the USPTO would still be required to submit an annual budget to the President, an annual report and operation plan to Congress, and an annual spending plan to the Committee on Appropriations of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Appropriations of the Senate. The act allows the USPTO to keep and spend all of the fees it collects, even those in excess of current fiscal year projection. However, the USPTO retains its obligation to submit spending reports and budgets. | ||
Revision as of 17:15, 22 February 2016
Return to Patent Reform
H.R.1832: Innovation Protection Act (2015) (Congress)
The Innovation Protection Act was introduced on April 16, 2015, by Representative John Conyers, Jr. (D-MI) and referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary. On May 15, 2016, the bill was referred to the Subcommittee on Courts, Intellectual Property, and the Internet.
GovTrack predicts that the Innovation Protection Act has a 5% chance of being enacted. (GovTrack)
Summary
The Innovation Protection Act would establish a United States Patent and Trademark Office Public Enterprise Fund in the Treasury to be used as a "revolving fund by the Director of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) without fiscal year limitation." It would replace the Patent and Trademark Office Appropriations Account, eliminate the Patent and Trademark Fee Reserve Fund established by the America Invents Act, and provide a permanent source of funding for the USPTO. The act would also require that all of the fees collected by the PTO remain available to the PTO until they are spent.
Under H.R. 1832, the USPTO would still be required to submit an annual budget to the President, an annual report and operation plan to Congress, and an annual spending plan to the Committee on Appropriations of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Appropriations of the Senate. The act allows the USPTO to keep and spend all of the fees it collects, even those in excess of current fiscal year projection. However, the USPTO retains its obligation to submit spending reports and budgets.
H.R. 1832 is a reintroduction of H.R. 3349 (2013) [1], the Innovation Protection Act that Rep. Conyers proposed on 10/28/2013. H.R. 3349 was referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary and subsequently died in committee. The 2013 Innovation Protection Act had 16 cosponsors (10 Democrats and 6 Republicans).
H.R. 1832 currently has 22 cosponsors (18 Democrats and 4 Republicans). Govtrack gives the bill a 5% chance of being enacted.[2] The legislation is currently in the House Judiciary Committee.
Sheila Jackson Lee (D-TX18) is a cosponsor for the H.R. 1832, and was a cosponsor for H.R. 3349 (2013).[3]
