Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 243 / Tuesday, December 18, 2012 / Notices 74831 

AIPLA endorsed the creation of a 

‘‘small’’ claims patent court that was 

described in Resolution 401.4, and in 

the same year the Secretary of 

Commerce formed an Advisory 

Commission on Patent Law Reform, 

which suggested further study of small 

claims procedures for patent cases in 

Federal courts. While a U.S. patent 

small claims proposal failed to advance 

further at that time, renewed discussion 

and consideration by bar associations, 

industry groups, practitioners, and 

members of the Federal judiciary, have 

now revived consideration and 

discussion of a patent small claims 

proceeding in the United States. 

On Thursday, May 10, 2012, a 

roundtable of intellectual property 

experts co-sponsored by the USPTO and 

the United States Copyright Office 

convened at The George Washington 

University Law School (GWU) to 

consider the possible introduction of 

small claims proceedings for patent and 

copyright claims in the United States. 

Conformity with the U.S. Constitution 

and a potential structural framework for 

small claims proceedings in the realm of 

patents and copyrights were among the 

topics explored. On October 1, 2012, in 

continuation of the discussion initiated 

at the GWU roundtable, the USPTO 

hosted a Patent Small Claims 

Proceeding Forum composed of experts 

to discuss the concept of a patent small 

claims proceeding. Now, the USPTO 

also seeks comments from the public 

regarding a patent small claims 

proceeding. 

Issues for Comment: Interested 

members of the public are invited to 

submit written comments on issues that 

they believe are relevant to a U.S. patent 

small claims proceeding. The topics and 

questions listed below are included to 

identify specific issues upon which the 

USPTO is interested in obtaining public 

opinion. The tenor of the following 

questions should not be taken as an 

indication that the USPTO has taken a 

position or is predisposed to any 

particular views. 

Comments on One or More of the 

Following Would Be Helpful 

1. Provide a general description of 

your understanding of the need or lack 

of a need for a patent small claims court 

or other streamlined proceedings. If you 

believe there is a need, please provide 

a description of which types of patent 

cases would benefit from such 

proceedings. If you believe that there is 

not a need for such a court or 

proceedings, please share why you hold 

such a view. 

2. Please share your views, along with 

any corresponding analysis and 

empirical data, as to what a preferred 

patent small claims proceeding should 

look like. In doing so, please comment 

on any of the following issues: 

(a) What the possible venues for a 

small claims proceeding should be, 

including whether patent small claims 

should be heard by Federal District 

Court judges or magistrates, whether 

patent small claims should be handled 

by an Article I court, such as the U.S. 

Court of Federal Claims, or whether 

patent small claims should be heard in 

another venue not specifically listed 

here; 

(b) What the preferred subject matter 

jurisdiction of the patent small claims 

proceeding should be, including which 

if any claims, counterclaims, and 

defenses should be permitted in a patent 

small claims proceeding; 

(c) Whether parties should agree to 

waive their right to a jury trial as a 

condition of participating in a small 

claims proceeding; 

(d) Whether there should be certain 

required pleadings or evidence to 

initiate a small claims proceeding; 

(e) Whether a filing fee should be 

required to initiate a small claims 

proceeding and what the nature of that 

fee should be; 

(f) Whether multiple parties should be 

able to file claims in a small claims 

proceeding and whether multiple 

defendants may be sued together; 

(g) What role attorneys should have in 

a small claims proceeding including 

whether corporations should be able to 

represent themselves; 

(h) What the preferred case 

management characteristics that would 

help to control the length and expense 

of a small claims proceeding should be; 

(i) What the preferred remedies in a 

small claims proceeding should be 

including whether or not an injunction 

should be an available remedy and any 

minimum threshold or maximum cap 

on damages that should be imposed; 

(j) Whether a small claims proceeding 

should include attorney’s fees or some 

form of a ‘‘loser pays’’ system; 

(k) Whether a small claims proceeding 

should include mediation and whether 

mediation should be mandatory or 

permissive; 

(l) What type of record should be 

created during a small claims 

proceeding including whether hearings 

should be transcribed and whether a 

written decision should be issued; 

(m) What weight should be given to a 

decision rendered in a small claims 

proceeding in terms of precedent, res 

judicata, and estoppel; 

(n) How should a decision in a small 

claims proceeding be enforced; 

(o) What the nature of appellate 

review should be including whether 

there should be a direct appeal to the 

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal 

Circuit or whether there should be 

intermediate review by a U.S. district 

court or some other venue; 

(p) What, if any, constitutional issues 

would be raised by the creation of 

Federal small claims proceedings 

including separation of powers, the 

right to a jury trial, and/or due process; 

(q) Whether the patent small claim 

proceedings should be self-supporting 

financially, including whether the 

winning and/or losing parties should be 

required to defray any administrative 

costs, and if so, how would this be 

accomplished; 

(r) Whether and how to evaluate 

patent small claims proceedings, 

including whether evaluations should 

be periodic and whether the patent 

small claims proceeding should be 

launched initially as a pilot program; 

and 

(s) Any other additional pertinent 

issues not identified above that the 

USPTO should consider. 

3. Please share any concerns you may 

have regarding any unintended negative 

consequences of a patent small claims 

proceeding along with any proposed 

safeguards that would reduce or 

eliminate the risk of any potential 

negative unintended consequences, to 

the extent any such concerns exist. 

The USPTO will make any comments 

it receives publicly available via the 

USPTO Internet Web site (address: 

http://www.uspto.gov). The USPTO will 

also make various background materials 

regarding small claims proceedings 

available via its Web site. 

Dated: December 13, 2012. 

David J. Kappos, 

Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual 

Property and Director of the United States 

Patent and Trademark Office. 

[FR Doc. 2012–30483 Filed 12–17–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–16–P 

BUREAU OF CONSUMER FINANCIAL 

PROTECTION 

[Docket No. CFPB–2012–0047] 

Fair Credit Reporting Act Disclosures 

AGENCY: Bureau of Consumer Financial 

Protection. 

ACTION: Notice regarding charges for 

certain disclosures under the Fair Credit 

Reporting Act. 

SUMMARY: The Bureau of Consumer 

Financial Protection (Bureau) 

announces that the ceiling on allowable 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with 
74832 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 243 / Tuesday, December 18, 2012 / Notices 

1This provision, originally Section 612(a), was 

added to the FCRA in September 1996 and became 

effective in September 1997. It was relabeled 

Section 612(f) by Section 211(a)(1) of the Fair and 

Accurate Credit Transactions Act of 2003 (FACT 

Act), Public Law 108–159, which was signed into 

law on December 4, 2003. 2Public Law 111–203, Title X, Section 1088. 

charges under Section 612(f) of the Fair 

Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) will 

remain unchanged at $11.50 for 2013. 

The Bureau is required to increase the 

$8.00 amount referred to in Section 

612(f)(1)(A)(i) of the FCRA on January 1 

of each year, based proportionally on 

changes in the Consumer Price Index for 

All Urban Consumers (CPI–U), with 

fractional changes rounded to the 

nearest fifty cents. The CPI–U increased 

42.74 percent between September 1997, 

the date the FCRA amendments took 

effect, and September 2012. This 

increase in the CPI–U, and the 

requirement that any increase be 

rounded to the nearest fifty cents, 

results in no change in the maximum 

allowable charge of $11.50. 

DATES: Effective January 1, 2013. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Office of Regulations, Bureau of 

Consumer Financial Protection, 202– 

435–7700. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section 

612(f)(1)(A) of the Fair Credit Reporting 

Act (the FCRA) provides that a 

consumer reporting agency may charge 

a consumer a reasonable amount for 

making a disclosure to the consumer 

pursuant to Section 609 of the FCRA.1

Section 612(f)(1)(A) of the FCRA 

provides that, where a consumer 

reporting agency is permitted to impose 

a reasonable charge on a consumer for 

making a disclosure to the consumer 

pursuant to Section 609 of the FCRA, 

the charge shall not exceed $8.00 and 

shall be indicated to the consumer 

before making the disclosure. Section 

612(f)(2) of the FCRA states that the 

Bureau shall increase the $8.00 

maximum amount on January 1 of each 

year, based proportionally on changes in 

the Consumer Price Index, with 

fractional changes rounded to the 

nearest fifty cents. 

In 2011, the responsibility for 

performing this task was transferred 

from the Federal Trade Commission to 

the Bureau pursuant to the Dodd-Frank 

Wall Street Reform and Consumer 

Protection Act of 2010.2 Like the 

Federal Trade Commission, the Bureau’s 

calculations are based on the CPI–U, 

which is the most general Consumer 

Price Index and covers all urban 

consumers and all items. 

Section 211(a)(2) of the FACT Act 

added a new Section 612(a) to the FCRA 

that gives consumers the right to request 

free annual disclosures once every 12 

months. The maximum allowable 

charge established by this notice does 

not apply to requests made under that 

provision. The charge does apply when 

a consumer who orders a file disclosure 

has already received a free annual 

disclosure and does not otherwise 

qualify for an additional free disclosure. 

The Bureau is using the $8.00 amount 

set forth in Section 612(f)(1)(A)(i) of the 

FCRA as the baseline for its calculation 

of the increase in the ceiling on 

reasonable charges for certain 

disclosures made under Section 609 of 

the FCRA. Since the effective date of the 

amended FCRA was September 30, 

1997, the Bureau calculated the 

proportional increase in the CPI–U from 

September 1997 to September 2012. The 

Bureau then determined what 

modification, if any, from the original 

base of $8.00 should be made effective 

for 2013, given the requirement that 

fractional changes be rounded to the 

nearest fifty cents. 

Between September 1997 and 

September 2012, the CPI–U increased by 

42.74 percent—from an index value of 

161.2 in September 1997 to a value of 

230.1 in September 2012. An increase of 

42.74 percent in the $8.00 base figure 

would lead to a new figure of $11.42. 

However, because the statute directs 

that the resulting figure be rounded to 

the nearest $0.50, the maximum 

allowable charge is $11.50. The Bureau 

therefore determines that the maximum 

allowable charge for the year 2013 will 

remain unchanged at $11.50. 

Dated: December 8, 2012. 

Richard Cordray, 

Director, Bureau of Consumer Financial 

Protection. 

[FR Doc. 2012–30373 Filed 12–17–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4810–AM–P 

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 

Office of the Secretary 

[Transmittal Nos. 12–65] 

36(b)(1) Arms Sales Notification 

AGENCY: Defense Security Cooperation 

Agency, Department of Defense. 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: The Department of Defense is 

publishing the unclassified text of a 

section 36(b)(1) arms sales notification. 

This is published to fulfill the 

requirements of section 155 of Public 

Law 104–164 dated July 21, 1996. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. 

B. English, DSCA/DBO/CFM, (703) 601– 

3740. 

The following is a copy of a letter to 

the Speaker of the House of 

Representatives, Transmittals 12–65 

with attached transmittal, policy 

justification, and Sensitivity of 

Technology. 

Dated: December 7, 2012. 

Aaron Siegel, 

Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison 

Officer, Department of Defense. 

BILLING CODE 5001–06–P 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with