PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · May 18, 2010
Patent and Trademark Office Funding Stabilization Act of 2010 - Authorizes the Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office (Director) to set or adjust patent and trademark fees in order to recover costs, including administrative costs, for patent and trademark processing, activities, services, and materials.
Reduces such fees for micro and small entities.
Terminates the Director's authority to establish and adjust fees upon the expiration of the 10-year period beginning on the date of enactment of this Act.
Makes, as of October 1, 2011, funds for the United States Patent and Trademark Office available until expended.
Establishes in the Treasury the United States Patent and Trademark Office Public Enterprise Fund.
Revises patent service fees.
Establishes a 15% patent fee surcharge through September 30, 2011.
People & committees
Rep. Conyers, John, Jr. [D-MI-14] · D–MI
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
Sponsor introductory remarks on measure. (CR E867-868)
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
No related bills are listed in this snapshot. This does not establish whether the proposal has appeared in earlier Congresses.
Source last updated: Aug 14, 2025. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.
Analyze H.R.5322 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.
Examine H.R.5322 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.
Examine H.R.5322 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.
Examine H.R.5322 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.