United States: The US House Of Representatives Passes The Innovation Act, Which Makes Significant Changes To Patent Litigation

On December 5, 2013, the US House of Representatives passed Judiciary Chairman Bob Goodlatte's (R-VA) patent reform legislation, H.R. 3309, the "Innovation Act," by a vote of 325 to 91. The passed bill is significantly different from the September 23, 2013 discussion draft, previously introduced by Chairman Goodlatte. With the House set to wrap up legislative activity for the year on Friday, December 13, 2013, attention now shifts to the Senate. On Tuesday, December 17, 2013 the Senate Judiciary Committee will hold a hearing entitled, "Protecting Small Businesses and Promoting Innovation by Limiting Patent Troll Abuse," to discuss various aspects of patent reform, including the House passed bill. No material legislative developments are expected before the end of the year.

As passed, H.R. 3309 is designed to curb patent litigation abuse by Patent Assertion Entities ("PAEs"),1 as well as to make technical modifications to the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (Public Law No. 112-29, passed 9/16/2011). Most of the provisions contained in the original bill survived, although with some amendment. Specifically, the surviving provisions include:

  1. Raising the pleading requirements for patent complaints,
  2. Limiting discovery, with certain key exceptions, in patent cases to claim construction issues until the court has construed the patent claims,
  3. Requiring the losing party in a patent case to pay the costs and fees of the prevailing party, unless the conduct of the losing party was "reasonably justified in law and fact" or "special circumstances (such as economic hardship to a named inventor) make an award unjust," and
  4. Permitting the courts to join noticed parties in-interest where a losing party "alleging infringement" is unable to pay the fee and expense awards.

Other provisions in the passed House bill include:

  1. Requiring heightened disclosure in demand letters in order to meet the notice requirements for treble damage awards,
  2. Requiring a plaintiff in a patent case to disclose parties in-interest or who would benefit financially from the litigation, and
  3. Requiring courts to stay litigation against customers that use products that are accused of infringement when there is a concurrent litigation against the manufacturer of those products.

Importantly, several key elements of the original bill were removed from the passed version. Specifically, several of the amendments to the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act were deleted, including:

  1. The repeal of 35 U.S.C. § 145,
  2. The revision of 35 U.S.C. § 141(a) limiting appeals from the Patent Trial and Appeals Board solely to the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, and
  3. Revisions limiting the Covered Business Method Patent program to post-AIA patents, adopting the definitions of "'used in the practice, administration, or management of a financial product or service'" from SAP America, Inc. vs. Versata Dev. Group, Inc., and repealing the program's sunset provision. The key provisions of the passed bill are discussed in more detail below.

Heightened Pleading Standard

The provisions of the bill that may have the greatest impact on patent litigation involve the heightened pleading requirements for claims in a patent infringement action. The bill eliminates Form 18, which is a form complaint for patent cases in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure that requires plaintiffs to provide only basic information, including the patent being asserted and an allegation of infringement. The bill also amends 35 U.S.C. § 281A to require patent claims to be plead to include more detailed information, including identification of all the patents and each claim contained therein alleged to be infringed, a specific listing of all products alleged to infringe each claim, and allegations identifying each claim element and limitation within the allegedly infringing product. In addition, the complaint would be required to describe the party's "authority" to assert each patent, provide a "clear and concise" description of the plaintiff's principal business, list all the cases filed where the patents have been asserted, and indicate whether a standards setting body has specifically declared the patents to be essential and whether FRAND requirements have been imposed on the patent. The passed bill does permit the party to generally describe required information that is "not readily accessible" and to file complaints containing confidential information under seal. Importantly, the heightened pleading requirements do not apply to claims arising under 35 U.S.C. § 271(e)(2).

The heightened pleading requirements will place a greater burden on patent suit plaintiffs to perform a thorough pre-complaint investigation and draft a detailed complaint. They would also likely put increased focus on motions directed to the sufficiency of a patent complaint.

Awarding Costs and Fees to the Prevailing Party

The passed bill amends the attorney fee statute (35 U.S.C. § 285) to require courts to award "reasonable fees and other expenses" to the prevailing party in a patent case, unless the losing party's "position and conduct were reasonably justified in law and fact" or "special circumstances" would make the award unjust. Unlike the draft bill, the passed bill specifically indicates that "severe economic hardship to a named inventor" would be considered such a circumstance. Any party can also move the court to require another party to certify that it can pay a fees-and-expenses award. Further, if the losing party cannot pay such an award, then the court may make a party, joined under the revised joinder provisions in 35 U.S.C. 299(d) (discussed below), liable for the award. It is notable that the draft bill referred to an "interested party" but the bill, as passed, refers only to "a party." Regardless, the fee award is a stark departure from the American Rule (where each party generally bears responsibility for its owns fees and costs) and would be limited to patent cases.

The fee reversal provision is clearly designed to provide a strong disincentive to bringing frivolous patent lawsuits. Seemingly to provide further disincentive to bringing a suit at all, the bill provides that a party unilaterally offering a covenant not-to-sue will automatically be deemed a "non-prevailing party" and potentially subject to liability for an award of fees and expenses, unless the covenant was offered when the party could still "dismiss the action or claim without a court order under Rule 41."

Additional Joinder Provision

The passed bill amends 35 U.S.C. § 299(d) to require the court to grant a motion to join "interested parties" in cases where fees and expenses have been awarded against a losing patent plaintiff who is unable to pay the award, but only if the prevailing party can show that the losing party had "no substantial interest in the subject matter at issue other than asserting such patent claim in litigation." The court may deny the motion if the "interested party" was not subject to service of process, would cause the court to lose subject matter jurisdiction, or would create improper venue. The court must deny the motion if the "interested party" was not provided proper timely notice or has renounced all interest in the patents at issue.

The bill defines "interested parties" to include assignees, anyone with a right to enforce, anyone with a right to sublicense, and anyone with a direct financial interest in the asserted patents. The new joinder provisions appears to be directed toward combatting the alleged PAE tactic of using shell entities to bring patent suits. However, the passed provisions do provide potential escape routes for an entity behind a PAE to avoid liability for litigation fees.

Additional Disclosures in Patent Cases

The additional disclosure provisions passed in the bill are basically the same as those in the original bill. The provisions build upon the current practice of information on each patent lawsuit being disclosed to the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), where it becomes public record. The passed revisions to 35 U.S.C. § 290 maintain the disclosure requirement, but also require additional disclosures:

  1. Any assignees of the asserted patents;
  2. Any entities with the right to enforce or sublicense the asserted patents;
  3. Any entity with a financial interest in either the patent or the party asserting the patent; and
  4. The ultimate parent entity of any of the entities disclosed. These disclosures are made subject to an ongoing duty to disclose, where any changes of assignment, interest, or ownership must be updated with the USPTO within 90 days of the change.

Heightened Standards for Demand Letters

A new addition to the passed bill is an extensive amendment to 35 U.S.C. § 284, which attempts to limit the power of demand letters as evidence for notice where treble damages are sought. Under the provisions, a plaintiff may not rely on its demand letter as proof of pre-suit notice of infringement for willfulness purposes unless the notice letter "identifies with particularity":

  1. The asserted patent;
  2. The accused product or process,
  3. The "ultimate parent" of the plaintiff, and
  4. "Explains with particularity, to the extent possible following a reasonable investigation or inquiry, how the product or process infringes one or more claims of the patent." Separately, the bill also requires the USPTO to study the prevalence and effect of demand letters, particularly "bad faith" demand letters, on the marketplace.

Limiting Discovery in Patent Cases

The discovery process in patent cases can be lengthy and expensive. To address this, the draft bill added 35 U.S.C. § 299A, which limits discovery prior to claim construction. Under the proposed language, a court would generally be barred from permitting discovery prior to the claim construction ruling, unless the discovery was necessary for claim construction.

The passed bill retains 35 U.S.C. § 299A, but adds multiple exceptions which effectively undermine the provision. For instance, the court must permit discovery to proceed in cases where failure to resolve the case within a specified period "will necessarily affect the right of the party with respect to the patent" (specifically, matters arising under 35 U.S.C. § 271(e)), where a preliminary injunction is being sought, or where both parties consent to be excluded from the limitation. Limited discovery will also be permitted to resolve motions pending prior to claim construction, where "circumstances would make denial of discovery a manifest injustice."

The passed bill also requires the Judicial Conference of the United States to propose and implement "rules and procedures" to limit discovery in patent cases. Under the passed provisions, each party would be responsible for the costs of producing "core documentary evidence," including documents relating to:

  1. Conception, reduction to practice, patents, and patent applications;
  2. Technical operation of the accused product or process;
  3. Potentially invalidating prior art;
  4. Patent licenses entered into before or after the complaint was filed;
  5. Profits attributable to the claimed invention of the asserted patent before the complaint was filed; and
  6. Patent marking or other notice of the patent.

Notably, "core documentary evidence" does not include computer code unless specifically determined by the court upon motion for good cause. Changed from the proposed bill, the passed bill now offers "issues and proposals" for the Judicial Conference to consider. Also, the bill provides for a 4-year period during which the Judicial Conference "shall study the efficacy of the rules" and may make "initial modifications" to the designated categories of core documentary evidence" and "as otherwise necessary to prevent a manifest injustice."

Potential Stay of Actions Against Customers

The bill establishes a customer-suit exception, which addresses patent actions that allege infringement based on a customer's use of an infringing product made by a manufacturer that has also been accused of infringement. If both the manufacturer and customer consent in writing to a stay, and the customer agrees to be bound by any common "issues"2 that are "finally decided as to the covered manufacturer." The stay can be lifted on motion with a showing that the "action involving the covered manufacturer will not resolve a major issue in the suit against the covered customer" or the stay will "unreasonably prejudice the moving party. Importantly parties involved in cases arising under 35 U.S.C. § 271(e)(2) cannot seek a stay.

A new provision added to the passed bill protects the customer if the manufacturer enters a consent judgment with the plaintiff or fails to appeal a final decision. Under the provision, the court may, upon motion by the customer, determine that the consent judgment or unappealed decision will not be binding if it would "unreasonably prejudice" or "be manifestly unjust to the covered customer."

Protections for US Patent Licensees in the Event of Bankruptcy

Although significantly changed from the proposed bill's language, the passed bill addresses the issue of the impact of foreign bankruptcy on U.S. intellectual property rights of the debtor. Prior blanket language that applied section 365(n) to a debtor's licenses of intellectual property has been deleted. Instead, the new language addresses situations where the foreign representative repudiates a contract under which the debtor licensed intellectual property. In such cases, the licensee "shall be entitled to make the election and exercise the rights described in section 365(n)." Additional new language has been added which specifically address trademarks, including the added burden that the trustee "not be relieved of a contractual obligation to monitor and control the quality of a licensed product or service."

Increased Duties for Studies and Outreach

The passed bill adds new and additional obligations for the USPTO, the Government Accountability Office (GAO), and several other governmental agencies, using "existing resources" to undertake educational programs, increase outreach, and study the patent environment.

USPTO-specific unfunded mandates within the bill include:

  1. "Develop educational resources for small businesses to address concerns arising from patent infringement," with special consideration for minority-owned, veteran and disabled veteran-owned, and women-owned businesses;
  2. Expand the USPTO's ombudsman program to "provide education and awareness on abusive patent litigation practices;"
  3. Modify the USPTO's website to provide the public with information on patent cases in federal court;
  4. Conduct a study related to "patent transactions occurring in the secondary market," and make recommendations as to how to promote transparency and fairness in such markets;
  5. Conduct a study on "patents owned by the U.S. Government;"
  6. Assist the GAO in conducting a study on "patent examination at the [USPTO] and the technologies available to improve examination and improve patent quality;"
  7. Conduct a study on the prevalence and effects of demand letters on the marketplace; and
  8. Conduct a study "to examine the economic impact of sections 3, 4, and 5 of [the Innovation Act] and any amendments made by such sections" as they impact individuals and women, veteran, disabled-veteran, and minority-owned small businesses to "assert, secure, and vindicate the constitutionally guaranteed right to inventions and discoveries".

The GAO must undertake several specific and new unfunded mandates, including:

  1. A study on patent quality and access to the best information during patent examination; and
  2. A study on the volume and nature of litigation involving business method patents.

The Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts is required to conduct a study to explore developing a "Patent Small Claims Court" pilot program in certain judicial districts.

Technical Revisions to the AIA

The proposed bill contained multiple provisions focused on the AIA. As noted above, several of the major provisions, including most of those modifying the Transitional Program for Covered Business Method Patents, have been removed from the final passed version. Provisions that did ultimately pass with the bill include:

  1. A provision requiring the Patent Trial and Appeals Board to consider district court claim constructions in Inter Partes and Post-Grant Review Proceedings;
  2. Codifying the doctrine of double-patenting for first-inventor-to-file patents;
  3. Expanding the scope of prior art usable in "covered business method patent" proceedings;
  4. Clarification of patent term adjustment procedures in 35 U.S.C. § 154(b)(1);
  5. Extending the Patent Pilot Program;
  6. Various technical corrections to 35 U.S.C. §§ 102(b)(1)(A), 115(a), 119(e)(1), 120, 291(b), 316(a), and 326(a); and
  7. Amendment of 35 U.S.C. § 32 to extend the statute of limitations for attorney misconduct to 18 months.


Many provisions of the passed bill were intended to limit the perceived excesses of PAEs, but may affect all patent litigants and perhaps prevent or dissuade parties from pursuing legitimate claims. In an attempt to counteract the perceived draconian nature of some provisions, the bill also includes a significant number of exceptions and exclusions. As a result, critics argue that the passed provisions may be ineffective at meeting the objective of dissuading PAEs, while still providing additional disincentives to meritorious litigants.

The bill now passes to the Senate for further debate and vote. Chairman Goodlatte has been working closely with Senate Judiciary Chairman Patrick J. Leahy (D-VT) on a companion bill. That bill, S. 1720, the "Patent Transparency and Improvement Act of 2013," was introduced by Chairman Leahy on November 18, 2013 and has been referred to the Senate Committee on the Judiciary. With bipartisan interest in the issue of PAEs and patent litigation reform, it seems likely that Congress will address the issue before the end of the current session or shortly after the start of the next session.

We will continue to provide updates on the progress of these bills and other patent reform legislation that arises in Congress.


1 PAEs are also referred to as Non-Practicing Entities ("NPEs") or more colloquially as "Patent Trolls."

2 The original draft bill recited "judgment entered against the covered manufacturer." The new language appears to be broader and may provide res judicata protection for issues decided in the manufacturer's favor.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Events from this Firm
6 Dec 2017, Webinar, New York, United States

Join Dentons for a complimentary webinar focused on the ongoing challenge of integrating new technologies into existing information governance policies and risk management frameworks.

24 Jan 2018, Seminar, San Francisco, United States

Dentons will host our Fourth Annual Courageous Counsel Leadership Institute in January, centered on the theme "Cultivating Innovation."

In association with
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
Email Address
Company Name
Confirm Password
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Media & IT
 Real Estate
 Wealth Mgt
Asia Pacific
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
United States
Worldwide Updates
Check to state you have read and
agree to our Terms and Conditions

Terms & Conditions and Privacy Statement

Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd and as a user you are granted a non-exclusive, revocable license to access the Website under its terms and conditions of use. Your use of the Website constitutes your agreement to the following terms and conditions of use. Mondaq Ltd may terminate your use of the Website if you are in breach of these terms and conditions or if Mondaq Ltd decides to terminate your license of use for whatever reason.

Use of www.mondaq.com

You may use the Website but are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the content and articles available (the Content). You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these terms & conditions or with the prior written consent of Mondaq Ltd. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information about Mondaq.com’s content, users or contributors in order to offer them any services or products which compete directly or indirectly with Mondaq Ltd’s services and products.


Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the documents and related graphics published on this server for any purpose. All such documents and related graphics are provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers hereby disclaim all warranties and conditions with regard to this information, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use or performance of information available from this server.

The documents and related graphics published on this server could include technical inaccuracies or typographical errors. Changes are periodically added to the information herein. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers may make improvements and/or changes in the product(s) and/or the program(s) described herein at any time.


Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including what sort of information you are interested in, for three primary purposes:

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, newsletter alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our information providers who provide information free for your use.

Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) do not sell or provide your details to third parties other than information providers. The reason we provide our information providers with this information is so that they can measure the response their articles are receiving and provide you with information about their products and services.

If you do not want us to provide your name and email address you may opt out by clicking here .

If you do not wish to receive any future announcements of products and services offered by Mondaq by clicking here .

Information Collection and Use

We require site users to register with Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to view the free information on the site. We also collect information from our users at several different points on the websites: this is so that we can customise the sites according to individual usage, provide 'session-aware' functionality, and ensure that content is acquired and developed appropriately. This gives us an overall picture of our user profiles, which in turn shows to our Editorial Contributors the type of person they are reaching by posting articles on Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) – meaning more free content for registered users.

We are only able to provide the material on the Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) site free to site visitors because we can pass on information about the pages that users are viewing and the personal information users provide to us (e.g. email addresses) to reputable contributing firms such as law firms who author those pages. We do not sell or rent information to anyone else other than the authors of those pages, who may change from time to time. Should you wish us not to disclose your details to any of these parties, please tick the box above or tick the box marked "Opt out of Registration Information Disclosure" on the Your Profile page. We and our author organisations may only contact you via email or other means if you allow us to do so. Users can opt out of contact when they register on the site, or send an email to unsubscribe@mondaq.com with “no disclosure” in the subject heading

Mondaq News Alerts

In order to receive Mondaq News Alerts, users have to complete a separate registration form. This is a personalised service where users choose regions and topics of interest and we send it only to those users who have requested it. Users can stop receiving these Alerts by going to the Mondaq News Alerts page and deselecting all interest areas. In the same way users can amend their personal preferences to add or remove subject areas.


A cookie is a small text file written to a user’s hard drive that contains an identifying user number. The cookies do not contain any personal information about users. We use the cookie so users do not have to log in every time they use the service and the cookie will automatically expire if you do not visit the Mondaq website (or its affiliate sites) for 12 months. We also use the cookie to personalise a user's experience of the site (for example to show information specific to a user's region). As the Mondaq sites are fully personalised and cookies are essential to its core technology the site will function unpredictably with browsers that do not support cookies - or where cookies are disabled (in these circumstances we advise you to attempt to locate the information you require elsewhere on the web). However if you are concerned about the presence of a Mondaq cookie on your machine you can also choose to expire the cookie immediately (remove it) by selecting the 'Log Off' menu option as the last thing you do when you use the site.

Some of our business partners may use cookies on our site (for example, advertisers). However, we have no access to or control over these cookies and we are not aware of any at present that do so.

Log Files

We use IP addresses to analyse trends, administer the site, track movement, and gather broad demographic information for aggregate use. IP addresses are not linked to personally identifiable information.


This web site contains links to other sites. Please be aware that Mondaq (or its affiliate sites) are not responsible for the privacy practices of such other sites. We encourage our users to be aware when they leave our site and to read the privacy statements of these third party sites. This privacy statement applies solely to information collected by this Web site.

Surveys & Contests

From time-to-time our site requests information from users via surveys or contests. Participation in these surveys or contests is completely voluntary and the user therefore has a choice whether or not to disclose any information requested. Information requested may include contact information (such as name and delivery address), and demographic information (such as postcode, age level). Contact information will be used to notify the winners and award prizes. Survey information will be used for purposes of monitoring or improving the functionality of the site.


If a user elects to use our referral service for informing a friend about our site, we ask them for the friend’s name and email address. Mondaq stores this information and may contact the friend to invite them to register with Mondaq, but they will not be contacted more than once. The friend may contact Mondaq to request the removal of this information from our database.


From time to time Mondaq may send you emails promoting Mondaq services including new services. You may opt out of receiving such emails by clicking below.

*** If you do not wish to receive any future announcements of services offered by Mondaq you may opt out by clicking here .


This website takes every reasonable precaution to protect our users’ information. When users submit sensitive information via the website, your information is protected using firewalls and other security technology. If you have any questions about the security at our website, you can send an email to webmaster@mondaq.com.

Correcting/Updating Personal Information

If a user’s personally identifiable information changes (such as postcode), or if a user no longer desires our service, we will endeavour to provide a way to correct, update or remove that user’s personal data provided to us. This can usually be done at the “Your Profile” page or by sending an email to EditorialAdvisor@mondaq.com.

Notification of Changes

If we decide to change our Terms & Conditions or Privacy Policy, we will post those changes on our site so our users are always aware of what information we collect, how we use it, and under what circumstances, if any, we disclose it. If at any point we decide to use personally identifiable information in a manner different from that stated at the time it was collected, we will notify users by way of an email. Users will have a choice as to whether or not we use their information in this different manner. We will use information in accordance with the privacy policy under which the information was collected.

How to contact Mondaq

You can contact us with comments or queries at enquiries@mondaq.com.

If for some reason you believe Mondaq Ltd. has not adhered to these principles, please notify us by e-mail at problems@mondaq.com and we will use commercially reasonable efforts to determine and correct the problem promptly.