Orrin Hatch: “While taking no position on the need for changing the patent listing provisions of Hatch-Waxman, the AIPLA said that it…”

“While taking no position on the need for changing the patent listing provisions of Hatch-Waxman, the AIPLA said that it believes that: Providing a new civil action to delist patents is ill advised . . . Irrespective of the merits of allowing challenges to the listing on the basis of its accuracy, vesting courts with jurisdiction over patent issues in this circumstance where there is no case or controversy is inappropriate. The AIPLA also red flags the file-it-or-lose-it patent forfeiture provisions of the pending legislation by pointing out that these, and I quote, . . . would be limitations on pharmaceutical patents which could implicate certain nondiscriminatory obligations of the United States under the Agreement on the Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS). At a time when the Agreement is under challenge from many quarters following the Doha Ministerial Conference, certainly these provisions of S. 812 should be vetted with the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative for their consistency with TRIPS. I agree we should hear from United States Trade Representative on this matter. I also agree with the American Intellectual Property Law Association when it closed its letter with the following statement: ``If reform is needed, it should take other forms and directions.''”