19 1 ments made or business commenced before the grant of 2 the reissue.”. (3) Section 262 of title 35. United States Code, is amended (A) by striking "use or sell" and inserting "use, or offer to sell, or sell", and (B) by inserting "within the United States, or import into the United States," after "invention". (4) Section 272 of title 35, United States Code, is amended by striking "not sold" and inserting "not offered for sale or sold". (5) Section 287 of title 35, United States Code, is amended (A) in subsection (a)— (i) by striking "making or selling" and inserting "making, offering for sale, or selling within the United States"; (ii) by inserting "or importing any patented article into the United States" after "under them,"; (B) in subsection (b)— (i) in paragraph (1)(C), by striking "use, or sale" and inserting "use, offer for sale, or sale"; 20 (ii) in paragraph (4)(A), by inserting "or offered for sale," after "or sold"; (iii) in paragraph (4)(A)(ii), by striking "use, or sale" and inserting "use, offer for sale, or sale"; (iv) in paragraph (4)(C), by striking "have been sold" and inserting "have been offered for sale or sold"; and (v) in paragraph (4)(C), by striking "United States before" and inserting "United States or imported into the United States, before". (6) Section 292(a) of title 35, United States Code, is amended (A) by striking "used, or sold by him" and inserting "used, offered for sale, or sold by such person within the United States, or imported into the United States"; and (B) by striking "made or sold" and inserting "made, offered for sale, sold or imported into the United States": (7) Section 295 of title 35, United States Code, is amended by striking "sale, or use" and inserting "sale, offer for sale, or use". 1 2 3 4. 21 (8) Section 307(b) of title 35, United States Code, is amended by striking "used anything" and inserting "used within the United States, or im ported into the United States, anything". 5 SEC. 10. EFFECTIVE DATES AND APPLICATION. 6 (a) IN GENERAL.-Subject to subsection (b), the 7 amendments made by this [subtitle] shall take effect on 8 the date that is one year after the date of entry into force 9 of the World Trade Organization Agreement as referred 10 to in section of the Uruguay Round Implementation (b) APPLICATION.— (1) IN GENERAL.-The amendments made in section 08 shall take effect on the date that is six months after the date of enactment of this Act and shall apply to all applications filed in the United States on or after the effective date. (2) EARLIEST FILING.-The term of a patent granted on a plant or utility application that is filed after the effective date and that contains a specific reference to an earlier filed application under the provisions of sections 120, 121, or 365(c) of title 35 shall be measured from the filing date of the earliest filed application, a reference to which is made in sec Mr. HUGHES. The Chair recognizes the distinguished ranking Republican, my partner in all matters, including intellectual property, Mr. Moorhead. Mr. MOORHEAD. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to commend you for your courage of wading into this GATT thicket. I have some concerns about the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade. In that regard, these hearings will be helpful. The intellectual and industrial parts of GATT are referred to as the trade-related aspect of the intellectual property rights, or TRIPS for short. I support retroactivity and the 20-year patent term which we will hear testimony on this morning. My problems with GATT stem from other provisions. For example, the $14 billion cost and the authority and voting procedure of the World Trade Organization, neither of which is the subject of this morning's hearings. Last week, I joined with my friend and colleague, Howard Berman, in writing a letter to you, Mr. Chairman, wherein we expressed our very strong support for inclusion of retroactivity in the GATT implementing legislation. I would just reiterate the point we made in our letter that: * * * In light of the rebuff of the U.S. efforts to extend GATT protections to audiovisual goods, to the serious detriment of our domestic industries, inclusion of retroactivity in the GATT implementing legislation is the least we can do to improve the posture of our industries abroad. I am pleased to note, Mr. Chairman, that both your bill, H.R. 4894, and Senator DeConcini's bill, S. 2368, contain retroactivity. I am also happy that both bills before us today contain causes of action against bootlegging activity which is a very serious problem for the record industry. A Federal antibootlegging statute will supplement the current patchwork of State laws on the issue and should go a long way toward preventing the import of bootleg sound recording. The TRIPS inclusion of GATT will be very instrumental. By signing GATT, we established patent and copyright protection in over 100 countries that was deemed unobtainable only a decade ago. Mr. Chairman, I am looking forward to the morning's testimony. Mr. HUGHES. I thank the gentleman. As you know, this is a joint hearing of the Senate Subcommittee on Patents, Copyrights and Trademarks, Committee on the Judiciary, and the Intellectual Property Subcommittee of the House Committee on the Judiciary Committee. Unfortunately, Senator DeConcini cannot be with us this morning. He will join us a little later. But he found out yesterday that because of a rescheduling problem in the Senate, he is now on the floor with the intelligence legislation. And so he will join us as soon as he completes that work on the floor. I would like to submit for the record a statement submitted by Senator DeConcini. Without objection, it will be received into the record. [The prepared statement of Mr. DeConcini follows:] |