Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Intellectual Property Law Blogs -> The TechKnowledgy Blog

Intellectual Property Law

: The TechKnowledgy Blog

IP Rights Enforcement Bill Awaits President's Signature

By Tim Feathers

David Carney provides an excellent summary and background of the Pro-IP Act at his Tech Law Journal site, which I reproduce below with his permission. (The TLJ site is subscription only for current content - all becomes public after 30 days)

*         *         * 

The Senate amended and passed by unanimous consent S 3325 [LOC | WW], the "Prioritizing Resources and Organization for Intellectual Property (PRO-IP) Act of 2008" on September 26, 2008. The House passed this bill on September 28, 2008, by a vote of 381-41. See, Roll Call No. 664. The bill is ready for the signature of President Bush.

The Senate amendment, among other things, changed the title from "Enforcement of Intellectual Property Rights Act" to "PRO-IP Act". A similar bill, HR 4279 [LOC | WW], which is not the bill passed by the Congress, was also titled "PRO-IP Act".

This bill addresses remedies for infringement and counterfeiting, and the organization and funding of government efforts to enforce intellectual property rights (IPR).

Legislative History. Both the House and Senate worked on IPR enforcement bills in the 110th Congress. S 3325 is the Senate bill, while HR 4279 was the House bill.

Rep. John Conyers (D-MI) introduced HR 4279 on December 5, 2007. See, story titled "Representatives Introduce PRO IP Act" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 1,683, December 5, 2008.

On March 6, 2008, the House Judiciary Committee's (HJC) Subcommittee on Courts, the Internet and Intellecual Property amended and approved this bill. See, story titled "House Subcommittee Amends PRO-IP Act" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 1,727, March 5, 2008.

On April 30, 2008, the HJC amended and approved the bill. See, story titled "House Judiciary Committee Approves PRO IP Act" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 1,758, May 1, 2008.

On May 7, 2008, the House approved the bill by a vote of 410-11. See, Roll Call No. 300. See also, story titled "House Passes PRO IP Act" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 1,763, May 8, 2008.

The Senate, however, did not take up this House bill.

Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT) introduced S 3325 on July 24, 2008. On September 11, 2008, the Senate Judiciary Committee (SJC) amended and approved the bill. See, story titled "Senate Judiciary Committee Approves IP Enforcement Bill" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 1,824, September 12, 2008.

On September 26 the full Senate amended and approved the bill.

The House then approved the Senate bill, without further amendment, on Sunday, September 29, 2008, by a vote of 381-41. The voting was nonpartisan.

Rep. Rick Boucher (D-VA), who tends to advocate a weakening, rather than a strengthening of IP rights and enforcement, voted against the bill.

Some of the votes against the bill were cast by members from northern California, Oregon, Washington and Utah, including Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-CA), Rep. John Doolittle (R-CA), Rep. Mike Thompson (D-CA) Rep. Lynn Woolsey (D-CA), Rep. Mike Honda (D-CA), Barbara Lee (D-CA), Rep. Earl Blumenauer (D-OR), Rep. David Wu (D-OR), Rep. Brian Baird (D-WA), Rep. Jim McDermott (D-WA), Rep. Chris Cannon (R-UT), and Rep. Rob Bishop (R-UT).

Bill Summary. Previous versions had contained language that would have enabled the Department of Justice (DOJ) to bring civil actions for copyright infringement. Currently, the government can only bring criminal actions, pursuant to 17 U.S.C. § 506, or decline to take action. However, this language was removed from the bill by its amendment in the Senate on September 26.

Title I of the bill as passed addresses civil remedies. Section 101 contains a copyright registration harmless error exception. That is, it would amend 17 U.S.C. § 411 to provide that "A certificate of registration satisfies the requirements of this section and section 412, regardless of whether the certificate contains any inaccurate information, unless -- (A) the inaccurate information was included on the application for copyright registration with knowledge that it was inaccurate; and (B) the inaccuracy of the information, if known, would have caused the Register of Copyrights to refuse

Full post as published by The TechKnowledgy Blog on October 03, 2008 (boomark / email).