Counterfeit Goods Seizure Act of 2019

Senators Tillis (R-NC), Coons (D-DE), Cassidy (R-LA) & Hirono (D-HI) have introduced the “Counterfeit Goods Seizure Act of 2019.”

Short and sweet — the two-page bill adds design patent infringement as justification for US Customs and Border Patrol to seize goods at the border.

The amended statute would read as follows.

Merchandise which is introduced or attempted to be introduced into the United States contrary to law shall be treated as follows:

(2)The merchandise may be seized and forfeited if— … (C) it is merchandise or packaging in which copyright, design patent, trademark, or trade name protection violations are involved (including, but not limited to, violations of section 1124, 1125, or 1127 of title 15, section 506 of title 17, section 271 or 289 of title 35,
or section 2318 or 2320 of title 18). . .

Copyright, trademark, and “trade name” violations are already listed in the statute; patents and trade secrets are not listed.  The basic idea here is that it is pretty easy for CPB to stack design patents atop their current system that looks at copyright and trademark.  The hope here is that a layman (e.g., CPB official) can quickly and easily determine design patent infringement at a relatively high level of accuracy.  This would be much more difficult for utility patents, and wouldn’t work for trade secrets without disclosing the secret to CPB.

IPO and INTA both released letters in support of the action.

Sen. Tillis is Chair of the Judiciary Committee’s Subcommittee on Intellectual Property and Sen. Coons is Ranking Member. Both have been active at pushing forward a pro-strong-IP-rights agenda. Sen. Hirono is also on the Subcommittee.

11 thoughts on “Counterfeit Goods Seizure Act of 2019

  1. 4

    Oh, so we aren’t allowed to highlight facts about a Senator’s miserable failings?

    C’mon, Dennis. Senator Rich Whitey doesn’t need you to protect him or his r@-cyst followers.

    And not only that, but he’s a climate change denier. And somehow the maximalist m0-uth-breathers expect us to believe that these entitled ne@-nderth@als “understand innovation and technology”?


    Seriously, Dennis, we all know you’re from Missouri. Stop pretending we live in a “both sides” universe. You know that’s not true because you have your face in the Repu-k-k-k-e p-g-s-ty every day of the week right there at home. Most of the highly educated people in this country have to drive a good ways to get a glimpse of the (LOL) “real America.”

    1. 4.1



      Yours ISMs are on display, and it is entirely Trump of you Malcolm to misconstrue why such blight “is not allowed.”

      How many times must you be asked to find an appropriate forum for you non-patent law rants?

      1. 4.1.1

        Meet Bildo.

        His number one purpose in life is to defend rich r@y-cist p-i-g-s from criticism on the Internets. Guess why he does that?

        Hint: it’s a very serious reason!

        Dennis, can you take a guess? I bet you don’t have to guess.


          You keep on spinning- and your spinning is not only a

          it only shows your Trump like tendency to see the world only as you feel.

  2. 3

    Re Dennis’s comment: “The hope here is that a layman (e.g., CPB official) can quickly and easily determine design patent infringement at a relatively high level of accuracy.” If such a layman can – as they do – quickly and easily determine trademark/trade dress/copyright infringement (which can and do include designs), then there will be no trouble with that layman determining design patent infringement. And, I find it interesting how other comments on this thread so quickly turn the conversation towards utility patents.

    1. 3.1

      I think the answer in all cases is that the ease of infringement determination will depend on the specific facts.

      Easy cases will be “caught”. Anything that’s not obvious to a teasonably smart ten year old should not be caught and these “laymen” shouldn’t be tasked with doing IP work that you wouldn’t trust to an intelligent child.

      Of course that would eliminate nearly all of the maximalist commenters here from the talent pool.

      1. 3.1.1

        Of course that would eliminate nearly all of the maximalist commenters here from the talent pool.

        I cannot see the basis for your assertion — other than your typical feelings being some type of “be all and end all.”

        Your comment appears to be a rather banal attempt to hijack a comment that has nothing at all to do with your denigration, and have you insert your feelings – with nothing more than your feelings.

        This comes across as nothing more than whining form you, Malcolm.


          I cannot see the basis for your assertion

          I don’t doubt it. Thanks for proving my point.

          If you want to provide additional evidence, maybe ask one of your maximalist cohorts a simple question like “What were the key facts in the seminal 9-0 case of Prometheus v. Mayo, whose holding will never be overturned”?

          Go ahead, Bildo. Make everybody’s day. You’re a very serious person! Just like the r@-cyst h0-m0-pho-bic tr@shpile Senator from North Carolina. LOL


            Whatever “point” you think is being proven is most definitely NOT the point being presently made with yet more expungements of your inappropriate posts being made.

            But hey, keep on pretending otherwise. And don’t forget to keep on trying to use this forum in an inappropriate way. After all, why stop after 14 and 3/4 years, eh?

  3. 2

    Excellent move Senators.

    Now please introduce that patent eligibility-restoring act / bill you’ve promised.

    American innovation continues to be wiped out left and right as time goes on.

    What’s the holdup?

    Is our Country going to enter another decade . . . being innovation hamstrung and crippled?

  4. 1

    I’m hoping these same senators quickly release an equally terse fix to 101. Sen. Tillis was aiming to release something after the July 2019 recess, and a fix cannot come fast enough.

Comments are closed.