f
`
`CONCLUSION OF MORNING
`BUSINESS
`The PRESIDING OFFICER. Morning
`business is closed.
`
`S5402
`September 8, 2011
`CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE
`America. This transformation is not
`spent 12 years as a U.S. Attorney and
`I yield the floor and suggest the ab-
`without enormous dangers and chal-
`tried cases. I am well aware of how the
`sence of a quorum.
`(Mr.
`The PRESIDING OFFICER
`lenges, but consider how much worse it
`system works. The way the system
`BROWN of Ohio). The clerk will call the
`would have been if a pro-bin Laden
`works in America, you file lawsuits
`roll.
`movement were fueling this trans-
`and you are entitled to your day in
`The assistant legislative clerk pro-
`formation.
`court. But if you do not file your law-
`It is plain we need more of what we
`ceeded to call the roll.
`suit in time, within the statute of limi-
`Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I ask
`had post-9/11 now. I am not naive. I
`tations, you are out.
`unanimous consent that the order for
`know it cannot be conjured up or
`When a defendant raises a legal point
`the quorum call be rescinded.
`wished into existence. But if we are op-
`of order—a motion to dismiss—based
`The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without
`timistic, if we are inspired by the
`on the failure of the complaining party
`objection, it is so ordered.
`Americans who died here, if we truly
`to file their lawsuit timely, they are
`understand our shared history and the
`out. That happens every day to poor
`sacred place compromise and ration-
`people, widow ladies. And it does not
`ality hold at the very center of the for-
`make any difference what your excuse
`mation of our Nation and the structure
`is, why you think you have a good law-
`of our Constitution, then we can again
`suit, why you had this idea or that
`take up the mantle of shared sacrifice
`idea. Everyone is required to meet the
`and common purpose that we wore
`same deadlines.
`after 9/11 and apply some of those be-
`In Alabama they had a situation in
`haviors to the problems we now con-
`which a lady asked a probate judge
`front.
`when she had to file her appeal by, and
`The reality of our current political
`the judge said: You can file it on Mon-
`climate is that both sides are off in
`day. As it turned out, Monday was too
`their corners; the common enemy is
`late. They went to the Alabama Su-
`faded. Some see Wall Street as the
`preme Court, and who ruled: The pro-
`enemy many others see Washington,
`bate judge—who does not have to be a
`DC, as the enemy and to still others
`lawyer—does not have the power to
`any and all government is the enemy.
`amend the statute of
`limitations.
`I believe the greatest problem we
`Sorry, lady. You are out.
`face is the belief that we can no longer
`Nobody filed a bill in the Congress to
`confront and solve the problems and
`give her relief, or the thousands of oth-
`challenges that confront us; the fear
`ers like her every day. So Medco and
`that our best days may be behind us;
`WilmerHale seeking this kind of relief
`that, for the first time in history, we
`is a big deal. To whom much has been
`fear things will not be as good for our
`given, much is required. This is a big-
`kids as they are for us. It is a creeping
`time law firm, one of the biggest law
`pessimism that cuts against the can-do
`firms in America. Medco is one of the
`and will-do American spirit. And, along
`biggest pharmaceutical companies in
`with the divisiveness in our politics, it
`the country. And presumably the law
`is harming our ability to create the
`firm has insurance that they pay to in-
`great works our forbears accomplished:
`sure them if they make an error. So it
`building the Empire State building in
`appears that they are not willing to ac-
`the teeth of the Great Depression, con-
`cept the court’s ruling.
`structing the Interstate Highway Sys-
`tem and the Hoover Dam, the Erie
`One time an individual was asking
`Canal, and so much more.
`me: Oh, JEFF, you let this go. Give in
`While governmental action is not the
`and let this go. I sort of as a joke said
`whole answer to all that faces us, it is
`to the individual: Well, if WilmerHale
`equally true that we cannot confront
`will agree not to raise the statute of
`the multiple and complex challenges
`limitations against anybody who sues
`we now face with no government or a
`their clients if they file a lawsuit late,
`defanged government or a dysfunc-
`maybe I will reconsider. He thought I
`tional government.
`was serious. Of course WilmerHale is
`As we approach the 10th anniversary
`not going to do that. If some poor per-
`of 9/11, the focus on what happened that
`son files a lawsuit against someone
`day intensifies—what we lost, who we
`they are representing, and they file it
`lost, and how we reacted—it becomes
`one hour late, WilmerHale will file a
`acutely clear that we need to confront
`motion to dismiss it. And they will not
`our current challenges imbued with the
`ask why they filed it late. This is law.
`spirit of 9/11 and determine to make
`It has to be objective. It has to be fair.
`our government and our politics wor-
`You are not entitled to waltz into the
`thy of the sacrifice and loss we suffered
`U.S. Congress—well connected—and
`that day.
`start lobbying for special relief.
`To return to de Tocqueville, he also
`There is nothing more complicated
`remarked that:
`about that than this. So a couple of
`The greatness of America lies not in being
`things have been raised. Well, they sug-
`more enlightened than any other nation, but
`gest, we should not amend the House
`rather in her ability to repair her faults.
`patent bill, and that if we do, it some-
`So, like the ironworkers and oper-
`how will kill the legislation. That is
`ating engineers and trade workers who
`not so. Chairman LEAHY has said he
`miraculously appeared at the pile
`supports the amendment, but he
`hours after the towers came down with
`doesn’t want to vote for it because it
`blowtorches and hard hats in hand,
`would keep the bill from being passed
`let’s put on our gloves, pick up our
`somehow.
`hammers and get to work fixing what
`ails the body politic. It is the least we
`It would not keep it from being
`can do to honor those we lost.
`passed. Indeed, the bill that was
`
`
`LEAHY-SMITH AMERICA INVENTS LEAHY-SMITH AMERICA INVENTS
`ACT
`ACT
`The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under
`The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under
`the previous order, the Senate will re-
`the previous order, the Senate will re-
`sume consideration of H.R. 1249, which
`sume consideration of H.R. 1249, which
`the clerk will report by title.
`the clerk will report by title.
`The assistant legislative clerk read
`as follows:
`An Act (H.R. 1249) to amend title 35, United
`States Code, to provide for patent reform.
`AMENDMENT NO. 600
`Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I ask
`unanimous consent to call up my
`amendment No. 600, which is at the
`desk.
`The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
`clerk will report.
`The assistant legislative clerk read
`as follows:
`The Senator from Alabama [Mr. SESSIONS],
`for himself, Mr. MANCHIN, Mr. COBURN, and
`Mr. LEE, proposes an amendment numbered
`600.
`Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I ask
`unanimous consent that the reading of
`the amendment be dispensed with.
`The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without
`objection, it is so ordered.
`The amendment is as follows:
`AMENDMENT NO. 600
`(Purpose: To strike the provision relating to
`the calculation of the 60-day period for ap-
`plication of patent term extension)
`On page 149, line 20, strike all through page
`150, line 16.
`Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, the
`amendment that I have offered is a
`very important amendment. It is one
`that I believe is important to the in-
`tegrity of the U.S. legal system and to
`the integrity of the Senate. It is a mat-
`ter that I have been wrestling with and
`objecting to for over a decade. I
`thought the matter had been settled,
`frankly, but it has not because it has
`been driven by one of the most fero-
`cious lobbying efforts the Congress
`maybe has seen.
`The House patent bill as originally
`passed out of committee and taken to
`the floor of the House did not include a
`bailout for Medco, the WilmerHale law
`firm, or the insurance carrier for that
`firm, all of whom were in financial
`jeopardy as a result of a failure to file
`a patent appeal timely.
`I have practiced law hard in my life.
`I have been in court many times. I
`
`f
`
`VerDate Mar 15 2010 03:30 Sep 09, 2011 Jkt 099060 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 0624 Sfmt 0634 E:\CR\FM\G08SE6.008 S08SEPT1
`
`EnvisionIT Ex. 2008, IBM v. EnvisionIT, IPR2017-01247
`
`Page 1 of 3
`
`smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with SENATE
`
`

`

`S5410
`September 8, 2011
`CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE
`generated 2010 sales of $2.4 trillion. Retailers
`change was made to accommodate in-
`legislation. He
`has
`monumental
`have been inundated by spurious claims,
`dustry concerns that 4 years was short
`worked hard on this for many years,
`many of which, after prolonged and expen-
`enough, that bad actors would just
`and I wish to pay a personal tribute to
`sive examination, are subsequently found to
`wait out the program before bringing
`him.
`be less than meritorious.
`I also wish to recognize the efforts of
`their business method patent suits.
`Increasingly, retailers of all types are
`my colleague from Vermont, Senate
`The lying-in-wait strategy would be
`being sued by non-practicing entities for in-
`Judiciary Committee chairman PAT-
`possible under the Cantwell amend-
`fringing low-quality business method patents
`which touch all aspects of our business: mar-
`RICK LEAHY. Over the years, he and I
`ment because section 18 only allows
`keting, payments, and customer service to
`have worked tirelessly to bring about
`transitional review proceedings to be
`name a few aspects. A vast majority of these
`long overdue reform to our Nation’s
`initiated by those who are facing law-
`cases are brought in the Eastern District of
`patent system, and I personally appre-
`suits.
`Texas where the statistics are heavily
`On a 20-year patent, it is not hard to
`ciate PAT for his work on this matter.
`weighted against defendants forcing our
`I also wish to recognize the efforts of
`wait 4 years to file suit and therefore
`members to settle even the most meritless
`Senate Judiciary Committee ranking
`avoid scrutiny under a section 18 re-
`suits.
`member CHUCK GRASSLEY of Iowa, as
`Section 18 moves us closer to a unified pat-
`view. It would be much harder, how-
`ent system by putting business method pat-
`well as many other Senate colleagues
`ever, to employ such an invasive ma-
`ents on par with other patents in creating a
`who have been instrumental in this
`neuver on a program that lasts 8 years.
`post-grant, oppositional proceeding that is a
`Second, the Cantwell amendment
`legislative process.
`lower cost alternative to costly patent liti-
`The Constitution is the supreme law
`changes the definition of business
`gation. The proceeding is necessary to help
`of the land and the shortest operating
`method patents to eliminate the House
`ensure that the revenues go to creating jobs
`Constitution in the world. America’s
`clarification that section 18 goes be-
`and bringing innovations to our customers,
`Founders put only the most essential
`yond mere class 705 patents. Originally,
`not paying litigation costs in meritless pat-
`provisions in it, listing the most essen-
`class 705 was used as the template for
`ent infringement litigation.
`We appreciate the opportunity to support
`tial rights of individuals and the most
`the definition of business method pat-
`this important section and oppose any ef-
`essential powers the Federal Govern-
`ents in section 18. However, after the
`forts to strike or weaken the provision.
`ment should have. What do we think
`bill passed the Senate, it became clear
`Please do not hesitate to contact me with
`made it on to that short list? Raising
`that some offending business method
`any questions.
`and supporting the Army and main-
`patents are issued in other sections. So
`Best regards,
`taining the Navy? No question there.
`the House bill changes the definition
`Coining money? That one is no sur-
`only slightly so that it does not di-
`prise. But guess what else made the
`rectly track the class 705 language.
`y
`g
`g
`Finally, the Cantwell amendment
`list. Here is the language: The Found-
`Finally, the Cantwell
`amendment
`limits who can take advantage of sec-
`ers granted to Congress the power ‘‘To
`limits who can take advantage of sec-
`tion 18 by eliminating access to the
`promote the Progress of Science and
`tion 18 by eliminating access to the
`program by privies of those who are
`useful Arts, by securing for . . . Au-
`program by privies of those who are
`sued. Specifically, H.R. 1249 allows par-
`thors and Inventors the exclusive
`sued. Specifically, H.R. 1249 allows par-
`ties who have shared interests with a
`Right to their Respective Writing and
`ties who have shared interests with a
`sued party to bring a section 18 pro-
`Discoveries.’’
`sued party to bring a section 18 pro-
`In other words, the governance of
`ceeding. The Cantwell amendment
`ceeding. The Cantwell amendment
`patents and copyrights is one of the es-
`would eliminate that accommodation.
`would eliminate that accommodation.
`All of the House changes to section 18
`sential, specifically enumerated powers
`All of the House changes to section 18
`of the Senate bill are positive, and I be-
`given to the Federal Government by
`of the Senate bill are positive, and I be-
`lieve we should keep them. But to my
`our Nation’s Founders. In my view, it
`lieve we should keep them. B
`colleagues I would say this in closing:
`is also one of the most visionary, for-
`The changes Senator CANTWELL has
`ward-looking provisions in the entire
`U.S. Constitution.
`proposed do not get to the core of the
`Thomas Jefferson understood that
`bill, and the most profound effect they
`giving people an exclusive right to
`would have is to delay passage of the
`profit from their inventions would give
`bill by requiring it to be sent back to
`them ‘‘encouragement . . . to pursue
`the House, which is something, of
`ideas which may produce utility.’’ Yet
`course, we are all having to deal with
`Jefferson also recognized the impor-
`on all three of the amendments that
`tance of striking a balance when it
`are coming up.
`came to granting patents—a difficult
`I urge my colleagues to remember
`task. He said:
`that this bill and the 200,000 jobs it
`would create are too important to
`I know well the difficulty of drawing a line
`delay it even another day because of
`between the things which are worth to the
`public the embarrassment of an exclusive
`minor changes to the legislation. I urge
`patent and those which are not.
`my colleagues to vote against the
`As both an inventor and a statesman,
`amendment of my good friend MARIA
`he understood that granting a person
`CANTWELL and move the bill forward.
`an exclusive right to profit from their
`With that, I yield the floor.
`The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen-
`invention was not a decision that
`ator from Utah.
`should be taken lightly.
`Mr. HATCH. Madam President, I rise
`This bill is not perfect, but I am
`to express my continued support for
`pleased with the deliberative process
`the America Invents Act. We have been
`that led to its development, and I am
`working on patent reform legislation
`confident that Congress followed Jef-
`for several years now—in fact, almost
`ferson’s lead in striking a balanced ap-
`the whole time I have been in the Sen-
`proach to patent reform.
`There can be no doubt that patent re-
`ate—so it is satisfying to see the Sen-
`form is necessary, and it is long over-
`ate again voting on this bipartisan bill.
`It is important to note that this bill
`due. Every State in the country has a
`before us is the same one that was
`vested interest in an updated patent
`passed by the Republican-controlled
`system. When patents are developed
`House of Representatives in June. I
`commercially they create jobs, both
`commend House Judiciary chairman
`for the company marketing products
`LAMAR SMITH for his leadership on this
`and for their suppliers, distributors,
`
`DAVID FRENCH,
`Senior Vice President,
`Government Relations.
`Mr. SCHUMER. A patent holder
`whose patent is solid has nothing to
`fear from a section 18 review. Indeed, a
`good patent will come out of such a re-
`view strengthened and validated. The
`only people who have any cause to be
`concerned about section 18 are those
`who have patents that shouldn’t have
`been issued in the first place and who
`were hoping to make a lot of money
`suing legitimate businesses with these
`illegitimate patents. To them I say the
`scams should stop.
`In fact, 56 percent of business patent
`lawsuits come in to one court in the
`Eastern District of Texas. Why do they
`all go to one court? Not just because of
`coincidence. Why do people far and
`wide seek this? Because they know
`that court will give them favorable
`proceedings, and many of the busi-
`nesses that are sued illegitimately
`spend millions of dollars for discovery
`and everything else in a court they be-
`lieve they can’t get a fair trial in, so
`they settle. That shouldn’t happen, and
`that is what our amendment stops. It
`simply provides review before costly
`litigation goes on and on and on.
`Now, my good friend and colleague,
`Senator CANTWELL, has offered an
`amendment that would change the sec-
`tion 18 language and return to what the
`Senate originally passed last March.
`Essentially, Senator CANTWELL is ask-
`ing the Senate to return to the original
`Schumer-Kyl language. Of course, I
`don’t have an inherent problem with
`the original Schumer-Kyl language.
`
`However, while I might ordinarily be However, while I might ordinarily be
`
`inclined to push my own version of the inclined to push my own version of the
`amendment, I have to acknowledge
`amendment, I have to acknowledge
`that the House made some significant
`that the House made some significant
`improvements in section 18.
`improvements in section 18.
`First, H.R. 1249 extends the transi-
`tional review program of section 18
`from 4 to 8 years in duration. This
`
`VerDate Mar 15 2010 23:39 Sep 08, 2011 Jkt 099060 PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 0624 Sfmt 0634 E:\CR\FM\A08SE6.005 S08SEPT1
`
`EnvisionIT Ex. 2008, IBM v. EnvisionIT, IPR2017-01247
`
`Page 2 of 3
`
`smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with SENATE
`
`

`

`S5432
`September 8, 2011
`CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE
`refer specifically to banks or even to fi-
`bans tax patents, ending the troubling
`strued to target only those business
`method patents that are unique to the
`nancial transactions. Rather, because
`practice of persons seeking patents for
`financial services industry.’’ Mr. SHU-
`the patents apply to administration of
`tax avoidance strategies.
`Issuing such patents abuses the Tax
`STER’s interpretation is incorrect.
`a business transactions, such as finan-
`Nothing in the America Invents Act
`Code by granting what some could see
`cial transactions, they are eligible for
`limits use of section 18 to banks, insur-
`as a government imprimatur of ap-
`review under section. To meet this re-
`ance companies or other members of
`proval for dubious tax strategies, while
`quirement, the patent need not recite a
`the financial services industry. Section
`at the same time penalizing taxpayers
`specific financial product or service.
`18 does not restrict itself to being used
`Interestingly, Mr. SHUSTER’s own ac-
`seeking to use legitimate strategies.
`by petitioners whose primary business
`tions suggest that his interpretation
`The section makes it clear that patents
`is financial products or services. Rath-
`does not conform to the plain meaning
`can still be issued for software that
`er, it applies to patents that can apply
`of the statute. In addition to his state-
`helps taxpayers prepare their tax re-
`to financial products or services. Ac-
`ment, Mr. SHUSTER submitted an
`turns, but that provision is intended to
`cordingly, the fact that a patent is
`amendment to the Rules Committee
`be narrowly construed and is not in-
`being used by a company that is not a
`that would exempt particular types of
`tended to authorize patents for busi-
`financial services company does not
`business-method patents from review
`ness methods or financial management
`disqualify the patent from section 18
`under section 18. That amendment was
`software.
`review. Conversely, given the statutory
`The bill will put a halt to both new
`later withdrawn. Mr. SHUSTER’s subse-
`and regulatory limitations on the ac-
`and pending tax patent applications.
`quent statement in the RECORD appears
`tivities of financial services companies,
`Although it does not apply on its face
`to be an attempt to rewrite through
`if a patent is allegedly being used by a
`to the 130-plus tax patents already
`legislative history something that he
`financial services company, the patent
`granted, if someone tries to enforce one
`was unable to change by amendment.
`will qualify as a ‘‘covered business
`Moreover, the text of section 18 fur-
`of those patents in court by demanding
`method patent.’’
`ther demonstrates that section 18 is
`that a taxpayer provide a fee before
`‘‘financial
`The plain meaning of
`not limited to patents exclusively uti-
`using it to reduce their taxes, I hope a
`product or service’’ demonstrates that
`lized by the financial services industry.
`court will consider this bill’s language
`section 18 is not limited to the finan-
`As originally adopted in the Senate,
`As originally adopted in the Senate,
`and policy determination when decid-
`cial services industry. At its most
`subsection (a)(1)(B) only allowed a
`subsection (a)(1)(B) only allowed a
`ing whether such efforts are consistent
`basic, a financial product is an agree-
`party to file a section 18 petition if ei-
`party to file a section 18 petition if ei-
`with public policy.
`ment between two parties stipulating
`This legislation is an important step
`ther that party or its real parties in in-
`ther that party or its real parties in in-
`movements of money or other consider-
`forward and I urge my colleagues to
`terest had been sued or accused of in-
`terest had been sued or accused of in-
`ation now or in the future. Types of fi-
`support it.
`pp
`fringement. In the House, this was ex-
`fringement. In the House, this was ex-
`nancial products include, but are not
`Mr. SCHUMER. Madam President, I
`Mr. SCHUMER. Madam President, I
`panded to also cover cases where a
`panded to also cover cases where a
`limited to: extending credit, servicing
`would like to clarify the record on a
`would like to clarify the record on a
`‘‘privy’’ of the petitioner had been sued
`‘‘privy’’ of the petitioner had been sued
`loans, activities related to extending
`few points related to section 18 of the
`few points related to section 18 of the
`or accused of infringement. A ‘‘privy’’
`or accused of infringement. A ‘‘privy’’
`and accepting credit, leasing of per-
`America Invents Act. Section 18, of
`America Invents Act. Section 18, of
`is a party that has a direct relationship
`is a party that has a direct relationship
`sonal or real property, real estate serv-
`
`which Senator KYL and I were the au-which Senator KYL and I were the au-
`to the petitioner with respect to the al-
`to the petitioner with respect to the al-
`ices, appraisals of real or personal
`
`thors, relates to business method pat-thors, relates to business method pat-
`legedly infringing product or service.
`legedly infringing product or service.
`property, deposit-taking activities,
`
`ents. As the architect of this provision, ents. As the architect of this provision,
`In this case, it effectively means cus-
`In this case, it effectively means cus-
`selling, providing, issuing or accepting
`I would like to make crystal clear the
`
`I would like to make crystal clear thec
`tomers of the petitioner. With the addi-
`tomers of the petitioner. With the addi-
`stored value or payment instruments,
`intent of its language.
`intent of its language.
`tion of the word ‘‘privy,’’ a company
`tion of the word ‘‘privy,’’ a company
`check cashing, collection or proc-
`It is important that the record re-
`could seek a section 18 proceeding on
`could seek a section 18 proceeding on
`essing, financial data processing, ad-
`flect the urgency of this provision.
`the basis that customers of the peti-
`the basis that customers of the peti-
`ministration and processing of bene-
`Just today, while the Senate has been
`tioner had been sued for infringement.
`tioner had been sued for infringement.
`fits, financial fraud detection and pre-
`considering the America Invents Act,
`Thus, the addition of the ‘‘privy’’ lan-
`Thus, the addition of the ‘‘privy’’ lan-
`vention, financial advisory or manage-
`Data Treasury—the company which
`guage clearly demonstrates that sec-
`guage clearly demonstrates that sec-
`ment consulting services, issuing, sell-
`owns the notorious check imaging pat-
`tion 18 applies to patents that may be
`tion 18 applies to patents that may be
`ing and trading financial instruments
`ents and which has already collected
`used by entities other than the finan-
`used by entities other than the finan-
`and other securities, insurance prod-
`over half a billion dollars in settle-
`cial services industry.
`cial services industry.
`ucts and services, collecting, ana-
`ments—filed suit in the Eastern Dis-
`The fact that a multitude of indus-
`lyzing, maintaining or providing con-
`trict of Texas against 22 additional de-
`tries will be able to make use of sec-
`sumer report information or other ac-
`fendants, primarily community banks.
`tion is evident by the broad based sup-
`count information, asset management,
`These suits are over exactly the type of
`port for the provision, including the
`trust functions, annuities, securities
`patents that section 18 is designed to
`U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the Na-
`brokerage, private placement services,
`address, and the fact that they con-
`tional Retail Federation, among many
`investment transactions, and related
`tinue to be filed highlights the urgency
`others.
`support services. To be eligible for sec-
`Mr. KIRK. Madam President, I sup-
`of signing this bill into law and setting
`tion 18 review, the patent claims must
`port H.R. 1249, the Leahy-Smith Amer-
`up an administrative review program
`only be broad enough to cover a finan-
`ica Invents Act, because this long-over-
`at the PTO.
`I would like to elucidate the intent
`cial product or service.
`due patent reform will spur innovation,
`The definition of ‘‘covered business
`behind the definition of business meth-
`create jobs and strengthen our econ-
`method patent’’ also indicates that the
`od patents. Other Members have at-
`omy.
`patent must relate to ‘‘performing data
`In particular, I am proud that this
`tempted to suggest a narrow reading of
`processing or other operations used in
`legislation contains a provision I
`the definition, but these interpreta-
`the practice, administration, or man-
`worked to include in the Senate com-
`tions do not reflect the intent of Con-
`agement’’ of a financial product or
`panion, S.23, that would establish the
`gress or the drafters of section 18. For
`service. This language makes it clear
`US Patent and Trademark Office Om-
`example, in connection with the House
`that section 18 is intended to cover not
`budsman Program to assist small busi-
`vote on the America Invent Act, H.R.
`only patents claiming the financial
`nesses with their patent filing issues.
`1249, Congressman SHUSTER submitted
`product or service itself, but also pat-
`This Ombudsman Program will help
`a statement in the RECORD regarding
`ents claiming activities that are finan-
`small firms navigate the bureaucracy
`the definition of a ‘‘covered business
`cial in nature, incidental to a financial
`of the patent system. Small businesses
`method patent’’ in section 18. 157 Cong.
`activity or complementary to a finan-
`are the economic engine of our econ-
`Rec. H4497 (daily ed. June 23, 2011).
`cial activity. Any business that sells or
`In the statement, Mr. SHUSTER
`omy. According to the Small Business
`purchases goods or services ‘‘practices’’
`Administration, these companies em-
`states: ‘‘I would like to place in the
`or ‘‘administers’’ a financial service by
`ploy just over half of all private sector
`record my understanding that the defi-
`conducting such transactions. Even the
`employees and create over fifty percent
`nition of ‘covered business method pat-
`notorious ‘‘Ballard patents’’ do not
`of our nonfarm GDP. Illinois alone is
`ent’ . . . is intended to be narrowly con-
`
`VerDate Mar 15 2010 05:25 Sep 09, 2011 Jkt 099060 PO 00000 Frm 00038 Fmt 0624 Sfmt 0634 E:\CR\FM\G08SE6.054 S08SEPT1
`
`EnvisionIT Ex. 2008, IBM v. EnvisionIT, IPR2017-01247
`
`Page 3 of 3
`
`smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with SENATE
`
`