Roy Blunt: “However, as noted a moment ago, the utility of the prior user defense is linked to its clarity surrounding its scope and…”

“However, as noted a moment ago, the utility of the prior user defense is linked to its clarity surrounding its scope and its limitations. Many innovative companies may be reticent to opt for the protection of prior user rights for fear that the defense may not stand against a charge of infringement by a later patent owner who sues for infringement. Many innovators may feel the need to rush to the patent office in order to assure their long term freedom to operate. I do not need to belabor my colleagues with the attendant benefit the publication of patents provides to global competitors who are not respectful of intellectual property rights. The reason for this detrimental reliance on patents for internal technology is that the utility and reliability of section 5 is dependent on the prior use being an ``internal commercial use''--a term for which there is no readily available judicial precedent. Should section 5 of H.R. 1249 become law, an innovator and his legal counsel need some reasonable assurance that an internal use will, in fact, be deemed to be a commercial use protectable under the law. These assurances are all the more important for U.S. companies in the biotechnology field with extraordinarily long lead times for commercialization of its products. Does my colleague from Vermont understand the concern I am raising?”