In a letter dated January 16, 2008 from GSK to Senators Patrick Leahy (Chairman), Arlen Specter, and Orrin Hatch:

GlaxoSmithKline ("GSK") provides comments on the draft Senate Judiciary Report on the Patent Reform Bill (S. 1145). In particular, GSK notes that while the Report refers to the recent effort of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office ("PTO") to engage in ''regulatory changes through rulemaking, the 106-page document does not mention the critical fact that U.S. District Judge James C. Cacheris of the Eastern District of Virginia has preliminarily enjoined the enforcement of those regulations (the "Final Rules'') as likely contrary to law. Tafas and SmithKline Beecham, et al. liS. Dudas and PTO, 511 F. Supp. 2d 652 (E.D. Va. 2007)

GSK notes that S.1145, as reported out of the Committee and described in the Report, does not include a grant of general substantive rule making authority to the PTO. GSK applauds the Senate Judiciary Committee for continuing to withhold substantive rulemaking authority from the PTO. A grant of substantive rulemaking authority, which was included in the House version of the Patent Reform Bill (H.R. 1908), would remove the very structure of the patent system from national political debate. For this reason, GSK urges the full Senate to continue to omit this House provision from any final Patent Reform Bill.

One must admire the brass of telling Congress that the federal government will face lawsuits until hell freezes over if they give the evil PTO putty heads free rein.

The Final Rules act as a real example of what the PTO would do with such a delegation of substantive rulemaking authority. The Final Rules potentially expose the federal government to large liabilities in just compensation for regulatory takings of valuable intellectual property, because they pose an unconstitutional, arbitrary, capricious, and retroactive regulatory taking of patent and patent application property rights. Patents and patent applications are constitutionally protected private property... By imposing arbitrary restrictions on the ability to prosecute patent applications, the Final Rules greatly diminish the value of pending and future patent applications by depriving the patent applicant of the ability to claim fully and completely its inventions, resulting in an unconstitutional taking. This would eliminate substantial innovation in the United States and affect the basic economic framework of this country. If Congress authorizes the type of rulemaking that would have condoned the Final Rules, the U.S. government will be exposed to enormous financial liability when industries affected by the Final Rules file claims seeking just compensation for the loss of patent rights.

The above photo is of Mr. Garnier. My compliment, sir, and to you as well, Ms. Knowles.