As originally planned, the Plenipotentiary Conference was expected to produce draft definitive The Conference decided Forty-five nations participated in the Preparatory Committee meeting of June 23-July 11 and Given the large number of countries involved, the divergence of views, the novelty of many of the The United States has undertaken to act as host for these important additional INTELSAT meetings. For FY 1970 an appropriation of $1,845,000 was requested; $1,800,000 was approved. The unbudgeted Absorption of the costs of U.S. hostship of the Third Preparatory Committee meeting and the resumed appropriation required for Contributions to Provisional International Organizations, and the portion for U.S. hostship costs have increased steeply as the figures below show. The combined effect is that funds available to finance the participation of official U.S. Delegations in international conferences have decreased by forty percent from 1962 to 1969. Available for U.S. Delegations to FY 1962 $ 1,943,000 FY 1969 $1,800,000 329,000 682,000 82,000 207,000 1,532,000 911,000 For FY 1970, with a regular appropriation of $1,800,000, the requirement for Contributions to Provisional International Organizations has increased to $735,000. U.S. hostship costs, including those for the Third Preparatory Committee Meeting and the resumed INTELSAT Plenipotentiary Conference will total $357,000. Thus, in the absence of the requested supplemental amount to meet these additional INTELSAT hostship costs, there would remain in the regular appropriation only $708,000 to finance U.S. Delegations to international conferences during the fiscal year. This amount is less than fifty percent of the amount for this purpose in 1962. A decrease of that magnitude would cripple U.S. participation It would be seriously disadvantageous to leave the U.S. chair vacant at the large number of international meetings which such a decrease in funds for this purpose in the work of many multilateral organizations. would require. Approval of the requested supplemental appropriation amount of $225,000 for these INTELSAT meetings will approximately maintain the FY 1969 level of U.S. Delegation conference participation, and will require continued stringent economies in the management of this activity. 2. Diplomatic Conference to Negotiate a Patent Cooperation Treaty $175,000 S.J. Res. 90, 91st Congress, or similar legislation when enacted into law would enable the Secretary of State and the Secretary of Commerce to take all necessary steps to organize and hold a Diplomatic Conference to Negotiate a Patent Cooperation Treaty in Washington, D.C. in Fiscal Year 1970. This legislation would also authorize to be appropriated to the Department of State a sum not to exceed $175,000 for the purpose of defraying the expenses incurred on behalf of the United States as host government of such a conference. The proposed Patent Cooperation Treaty is the result of a United States initiative in September 1966 in the Executive Committee of the Convention of Paris for the Protection of Industrial Property. This Committee unanimously approved a resolution asking the Secretariat for that Convention, the United International Bureaux for the Protection of Intellectual Property (BIRPI), to undertake a study of practicable means to simplify the patenting of any given invention in a number of countries Today patenting in each country is a wholly independent affair and the national laws of most countries as a rule do not take account of the fact that protection for the same invention may be sought in other countries. It is estimated that more than 50% of the 700,000 patent applications filed worldwide are duplicates of other applications Consequently, there is much duplication of effort and a considerable waste of time, talent and money, both for the patent applicant and the national patent offices. Obtaining foreign patent rights is important to U.S. patent holders and more patent applications are filed abroad by U.S. nationals than by the nationals of any other country. Foreign patents help protect markets for U.S. exports. U.S. firms which manufacture in foreign countries also have a strong interest in effective patent systems to protect their products and processes in these countries. And finally, the increasing number of U.S. firms which license their technology overseas also require patent protection abroad. Preliminary estimates of payments to U.S. firms from abroad for the use of their intangible property--largely but not exclusively patent protected--according to the latest available figures, were running at an annual rate of about $967 million in 1968. If the full economic benefits of the patent system for American inventors and businessmen In carrying out the 1966 resolution of the Executive Committee of the Paris Convention, the Various meetings of experts were called by BIRPI during the latter half of 1967 and the first half of 1968 to consider the 1967 draft Treaty. In developing the United States position for these meetings the Patent Office and the Department of State carefully considered the views of representative bar and industry groups, with whom we have been meeting on a continuing basis. As a consequence, we proposed several important revisions which were accepted and incorporated in a second draft of the Treaty prepared by BIRPI and released publicly in July 1968. proposals by the United States were incorporated in the current draft of the Treaty which was issued in July of this year. Additional It would appear that on the basis of the deliberations at the international meetings held this spring a general consensus has been reached. While there are some matters still to be worked out, it is the general view of the countries most concerned that we have reached the stage where a Diplomatic Conference to Negotiate the Patent Cooperation Treaty should be held during the first half of 1970. It seems most appropriate for the United States, which took the initiative for this project and which stands to benefit substantially by it, to offer to serve as host for the Diplomatic Conference. There has been widespread support for the basic principles of such a Treaty from many important industry and bar groups. These include the Chamber of Commerce of the United States, the Pharmaceutical Manufacturers Association, the National Association of Manufacturers, the American Bar Association's Section of Patent, Trademark and Copyright Law, the American Patent Law Association, the American Group of the International Patent and Trademark Association, the Boston Patent Law Association, and the Electronic Industries Association. |