PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Became Public Law No: 110-313.
Congressional Research Service
Version 81 · Passed House without amendment · Jul 31, 2008
(This measure has not been amended since it was passed by the Senate on July 22, 2008. The summary of that version is repeated here.)
Transfers from the director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) to the Secretary of Commerce the authority to appoint administrative patent judges and administrative trademark judges. Requires the Secretary to consult with the director on such appointments. Names the PTO's deputy director as an additional member of the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board.
Authorizes the Secretary, in his or her discretion, to deem the appointment of an administrative patent judge or an administrative trademark judge who, before enactment, held office pursuant to an appointment by the director to take effect on the date on which the director initially appointed the administrative patent judge.
Makes it a defense to a challenge to the appointment of an administrative patent judge or an administrative trademark judge on the basis of the judge's having been originally appointed by the director that the administrative patent judge so appointed was acting as a de facto officer.
People & committees
Sen. Leahy, Patrick J. [D-VT] · D–VT
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Became Public Law No: 110-313.
Became Public Law No: 110-313.
Signed by President.
Signed by President.
Presented to President.
Presented to President.
Cleared for White House.
Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill Agreed to by voice vote. (text: CR 7/29/2008 H7233-7234)
Passed/agreed to in House: On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill Agreed to by voice vote.(text: CR 7/29/2008 H7233-7234)
Considered as unfinished business. (consideration: CR H7707)
At the conclusion of debate, the chair put the question on the motion to suspend the rules. Mr. King (IA) objected to the vote on the grounds that a quorum was not present. Further proceedings on the motion were postponed. The point of no quorum was withdrawn.
Considered under suspension of the rules. (consideration: CR H7233-7235)
DEBATE - The House proceeded with forty minutes of debate on S. 3295.
Mr. Cohen moved to suspend the rules and pass the bill.
Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
Message on Senate action sent to the House.
Received in the House.
Passed Senate without amendment by Unanimous Consent. (text: CR S7079)
Passed/agreed to in Senate: Passed Senate without amendment by Unanimous Consent.(text: CR S7079)
Senate Committee on the Judiciary discharged by Unanimous Consent. (consideration: CR S7079)
Senate Committee on the Judiciary discharged by Unanimous Consent.(consideration: CR S7079)
Read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary. (text of measure as introduced: CR S6976)
Introduced in Senate
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
Source last updated: Aug 10, 2026. 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 S.3295 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 S.3295 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 S.3295 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 S.3295 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.