I thank the distinguished Senator from Iowa for his words, and I join with the Senator from Iowa in opposing the amendment for two reasons. First, as just simply as a practical matter, the amendment would have the effect, if it passed, of killing the bill because it is not going to be accepted in the other body, and after 6 years or more of work on the patent bill, it is gone. But also, on just the merits of it, the provision this amendment strikes, section 37 of H.R. 1249, simply adopts the holding of a recent district court decision codifying existing law about how the Patent and Trademark Office should calculate 5 days for the purpose of considering a patent term extension. So those are the reasons I oppose the amendment to strike it. The underlying provision adopted by the House is a bipartisan amendment on the floor. It was offered by Mr. Conyers, and it has the support of Ms. Pelosi and Mr. Berman on the Democratic side and the support of Mr. Cantor, Mr. Paul, and Mrs. Bachmann on the Republican side. I have a very hard time thinking of a wider range of bipartisan support than that. The provision is simply about how they are calculating filing dates for patent extensions, although its critics have labeled it as something a lot more. A patent holder on a drug is entitled by statute to apply for an extension of its patent term to compensate for any delay the Food and Drug Administration approval process caused in actually bringing the drug to market.…
On the recordSeptember 8, 2011
Share
More from Patrick Leahy
Jun 2, 2025
People in the Trump administration who know nothing and care less about these programs are arbitrarily jeopardizing relations with a strategic partner in one of the most challenging regions of the world.
Dec 22, 2022
throughout my 48 years in the Senate, I worked to uphold the American tradition of a humane immigration policy and fought to advance comprehensive immigration reform. As an advocate for refugees and asylum seekers fleeing violence and…
Dec 15, 2022
a continuing resolution to March 10 is short-sighted and wholly unnecessary. It imperils our national security, and it ignores the real pain and consequences of inflation. Without funding from a full-year omnibus appropriations bill, the…





