In the 111 th Congress, legislation was introduced that would have established a "repair" exemption within the Patent Act. Although potentially of broad application, this legislation appears to have been motivated by intellectual property rights in the designs of automobile parts. The Senate has also recently provided its consent to ratify the Geneva Act to the Hague Agreement Concerning the International Registration of Industrial Designs, an international agreement that would allow U.S. designers to obtain intellectual property protection overseas more readily. Industrial Designs and Intellectual Property

Industrial designs that are well-received in the marketplace may attract competition. Under current intellectual property laws, industrial designs may potentially be protected through copyright, trade dress, and design patents. Congress has also established a specialized, or sui generis , intellectual property right for the protection of boat hull designs. Some observers believe that this "ragged quilt of protection" does not adequately protect designers, however. 2196 , titled the Design Piracy Prohibition Act, would have expanded the scope of coverage under the Vessel Hull Design Protection Act to also include "an article of apparel." H.R. Like H.R. 2196 , S. 3728 would have amended the Vessel Hull Design Protection Act in order to provide a three-year term of protection. S. 3728 was reported by the Senate Committee on the Judiciary (without written report) but did not result in enacted legislation. The USPTO has testified before Congress that a number of changes would need to be made to render U.S. design patent law compatible with the Geneva Act to the Hague Convention, including increasing the term of protection from 14 to 15 years and providing limited rights to patent applicants between the date their international applications are published and the date the patent is issued. Although the establishment of sui generis  regimes may reduce harmful free riding that results in reduced investment in innovation, experts have also expressed concerns about the expansion of intellectual property rights.
Under current intellectual property laws, industrial designs may potentially be protected through design patents, trade dress, and copyright. In addition, the Vessel Hull Design Protection Act established a specialized, or sui generis, intellectual property right for the protection of boat hull designs. Some experts argue that the present intellectual property regime does not adequately protect industrial designers.
In the 111th Congress, legislation was introduced that would have established proprietary rights in fashion designs. The Innovative Design Protection and Piracy Prevention Act, S. 3728, and H.R. 2196, the Design Piracy Prohibition Act, would have provided a three-year term of protection for fashion designs. Although S. 3728 was reported by the Senate Committee on the Judiciary (without written report), neither bill was enacted.
Also in the 111th Congress, two bills would have established a "repair" exemption within the Patent Act. Although potentially of broad application, H.R. 3059 and S. 1368, each titled the "Access to Repair Parts Act," appear to have been motivated by the enforcement of design patents that are said to restrict competition in the secondary market for automobile replacement parts.
The Senate has also recently provided its consent to ratify the Geneva Act to the Hague Agreement Concerning the International Registration of Industrial Designs, an international agreement that would allow U.S. designers more readily to obtain intellectual property protection overseas. Accession to this international agreement would require changes to the design patent statute, including expansion of the term of design patents from 14 to 15 years.
Recent, significant judicial developments concerning the scope of protection accorded to design patents have also occurred.
Supporters of sui generis regimes assert that they allow for protection of subject matter, like industrial designs, that at times fall outside traditional intellectual property paradigms. Proponents believe that these systems can prevent levels of free riding that ultimately discourage innovation. However, some observers are concerned that the proliferation of such systems may limit the ability of others to compete, ultimately diminishing consumer choice.