The Senate Judiciary Committee's hearing on legislation to overhaul the U.S. patent system started Wednesday with terse words from Chairman Patrick Leahy, who chastised the Bush administration for not complying with a request for input on controversial issues in Leahy's bill.

Patent and Trademark Office Director Jon Dudas refused to comment on the proposed creation of a right to interlocutory appeal in claim construction cases, which is a request for reconsideration of a trial court ruling before the trial has ended. He also would not speak about a provision in the measure, S. 1145, to eliminate judicial "venue-shopping" for favorable courts by litigants.

Questions about both topics are better suited for the Justice Department to answer, Dudas told the Vermont Democrat. He said department officials plan to meet with lawmakers about concerns with those elements in Leahy's bill and the House companion measure, H.R.1908.

When pressed by Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., Dudas said, "You have to consider everyone involved in terms of venue."

"It is important to balance the alleged infringer and claims of the patent holder, particularly since the patent holder might be a small inventor," he said.

In his opening remarks, Leahy said, "As we move ever closer toward the finish line to enact legislation that will create the landscape necessary that American innovators need to flourish, we are focusing our debate on the specifics." The details "may seem dry," he added, but they are "important to getting our work done and done right."

During a second panel, industry representatives discussed various aspects of the bill. Witnesses were from large and small tech firms, as well as the biotechnology and financial sectors.

Mary Doyle, general counsel for the handheld device manufacturer Palm, said Leahy's measure "will greatly enhance the ability of Palm and other companies like ours to innovate and compete globally." She specifically lauded the bill's discouragement of forum-shopping and the proposed "second window" for challenges to an already issued patent.

But Bruce Bernstein, patent counsel for wireless firm InterDigital, called for "incremental and narrowly targeted reforms." His firm is small but has "enormous inventive capacity" that can only be expressed if portions of the bill are axed, he said.

He found fault with the proposal for apportionment of damages, which "substitutes highly subjective jury findings for market-oriented valuation of inventions." The legislation has "open-ended and duplicative" post-grant review language that would "drive the final nail in the coffin for many innovators," he said.

The current patent system is working and Congress must resist making changes that could have grave, unintended consequences, added Kathryn Biberstein, the general counsel of a small firm called Alkermes, which is a member of the Biotechnology Industry Association.

Coburn said the fight is becoming a battle between potential "winners and losers." The question is "how to strike the right balance to protect IP that doesn't dumb down our ability to innovate," he said. "I have some trouble with this bill because I don't think we've struck that balance."