United States: A Summary Of 2015's Proposed Patent Reform Legislation

This year's debate on federal patent reform has begun in earnest. Last Friday, the White House expressed its support for the leading Senate bill, the Protecting American Talent and Entrepreneurship (PATENT) Act (S. 1137), and the Senate Judiciary Committee held its first hearing on the PATENT Act earlier today.

Aside from the PATENT Act, there are several other proposed bills in both the House of Representatives and the Senate directed at curbing perceived litigation abuse by non-practicing entities. Below, we provide a summary of the competing legislation, with special attention to the two leading bills: the Innovation Act and the PATENT Act.

1. THE INNOVATION ACT (H.R. 9)

  • Introduced: February 5, 2015, by Representative Bob Goodlatte (R-VA), chairman of the House Judiciary Committee. The bill had 19 co-sponsors at introduction, and now has 22 co-sponsors in total (11 Democrats and 11 Republicans). The Innovation Act is the same bill that the House passed as H.R. 3309 with broad bipartisan approval in the last Congress.
  • Key provisions: The Innovation Act includes a comprehensive set of amendments to the patent statute and the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (AIA). o Fee-shifting. The bill establishes a rebuttable presumption in favor of fee-shifting in patent litigation. It mandates an award of attorneys' fees to the prevailing party, unless the court finds that the losing party's position and conduct were "reasonably justified in law and fact" or "special circumstances" make fee-shifting unjust. If a patent assertion entity is unable to pay a fee award, the bill allows a prevailing defendant to join and recover fees from third parties that hold a right to enforce or sublicense the patent, or have a direct financial interest in the patent.
    • Pleading requirements. The bill requires a patent infringement complaint to specify the claims that are allegedly infringed, the name and model number of the accused products, and detailed grounds for the alleged infringement. It also requires the complaint to describe the plaintiff's principal business and any prior litigation concerning the patent.
    • Discovery limits. The bill limits discovery to the information necessary for claim construction until after a court issues its claim construction ruling. The bill provides courts with the discretion to relax this limitation under appropriate circumstances, such as resolving a motion that raises issues requiring additional discovery.
    • Demand letters. The bill precludes a plaintiff from relying on pre-suit demand letters to establish willful infringement if the letters do not specify the asserted patent, the accused product, the plaintiff's ultimate parent entity, and the grounds for the alleged infringement.
    • Patent-owner transparency. The bill requires a plaintiff to disclose to the court, the defendants, and the Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) any entity having rights to enforce the patent or a financial interest in the patent, and the plaintiff's ultimate parent entity.
    • Stay of customer suits. Where the same patent has been asserted against a manufacturer and its customer, the bill requires a court to grant a stay of the customer suit if the manufacturer and the customer consent to the stay, and the customer agrees to be bound by any final decision on common issues in the manufacturer suit.
    • Claim construction in post-grant and inter partes reviews. Currently, in post-grant and inter partes reviews under the AIA, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) applies the "broadest reasonable interpretation" when construing patent claims. The bill requires the PTAB to apply the narrower claim construction standard followed by district courts instead.
  • Commentary: The Innovation Act is the same bill that the House passed by an overwhelming margin in December 2013. While the bill passed with relatively little press in 2013, this year the bill has attracted more attention and lobbying from both proponents and critics. Proponents favor the extent to which the Innovation Act aggressively targets "patent trolls" and seeks to curtail a broad range of abusive litigation practices. Critics argue that the bill's sweeping provisions will harm legitimate businesses that rely on the ability to enforce their patents, such as biotechnology companies and universities.

    Much debate has focused on the bill's fee-shifting provision. Congress's inability to agree on fee-shifting was largely responsible for stalling, and ultimately ending, the efforts to enact federal patent reform last year. (See our previous alerts here and here.) Shortly before last year's legislation was tabled, the Supreme Court relaxed the standard and burden of proof for fee-shifting in patent cases in Octane Fitness, LLC v. ICON Health & Fitness, Inc., 134 S. Ct. 1749 (2014). (Our alert on Octane Fitness may be found here.) The Innovation Act seeks to lower the bar further by creating a presumption in favor of fee-shifting.

  • Status: The Innovation Act is currently in the House Judiciary Committee, which held hearings on April 14, 2015.
  • Available at: https://www.congress.gov/114/bills/hr9/BILLS-114hr9ih.pdf

2. THE PROTECTING AMERICAN TALENT AND ENTREPRENEURSHIP (PATENT) ACT OF 2015 (S. 1137)

  • Introduced: April 29, 2015, by Senator Chuck Grassley (R-IA) of the Senate Judiciary Committee. It was co-sponsored at introduction by Senators Patrick Leahy (D-VT), John Cornyn (R-TX), Charles Schumer (D-NY), Mike Lee (R-UT), Orrin Hatch (R-UT), and Amy Klobuchar (D-MN).
  • Key provisions: The PATENT Act includes many provisions similar to those in the Innovation Act, but takes a different approach on some key issues. Most notably, the PATENT Act does not create any presumption or default rule in favor of fee-shifting. It requires less disclosure in patent complaints than the Innovation Act, but does more to address the problem of abusive demand letters.
    • Fee-shifting. The PATENT Act requires an award of attorneys' fees to the prevailing party if the court finds that the losing party's position was "not objectively reasonable in law or fact" or the losing party's conduct was "not objectively reasonable." If a patent assertion entity is unable to pay a fee award, the bill allows recovery of fees from third parties with a "substantial financial interest" in the patent. The bill exempts universities from this fee-recovery provision.
    • Pleading requirements. Like the Innovation Act, the PATENT Act requires a patent infringement complaint to specify the claims that are allegedly infringed, the name and model number of the accused products, and detailed grounds for the alleged infringement. Unlike the Innovation Act, the PATENT Act does not require that the complaint describe the plaintiff's principal business or any prior litigation concerning the patent.
    • Discovery limits. The bill requires that a court stay discovery pending resolution of a motion to dismiss, a motion to transfer, or a motion to sever accused infringers, if the motion is filed before the first responsive pleading.
    • Demand letters. The bill precludes a plaintiff from relying on pre-suit demand letters for purposes of establishing willful infringement, if the letters do not identify the asserted patent, the accused product, the grounds for the alleged infringement, the entities having the right to enforce the patent, and the basis for any proposed compensation. The bill also authorizes the Federal Trade Commission to impose civil penalties against a party that engages in the "widespread sending" of abusive demand letters.
    • Patent-owner transparency. Like the Innovation Act, the bill requires a plaintiff to disclose to the court, the defendant(s), and the PTO any entity having rights to enforce the patent or a financial interest in the patent, and the plaintiff's ultimate parent entity.
    • Stay of customer suits. Where the same patent has been asserted against a manufacturer and its customer, the bill requires a court to grant a stay of the customer suit if the customer agrees not to separately litigate any issues adjudicated in the manufacturer suit and to be bound by issue preclusion with respect to those issues.
  • Commentary: The PATENT Act takes a more moderate approach on fee-shifting than the Innovation Act. Proponents of the PATENT Act favor its approach of not imposing any presumption or default rule requiring fee-shifting, as well as the exemption of universities from its fee-recovery provision. Critics argue that the PATENT Act's "not objectively reasonable" standard will impose too high a bar on fee-shifting and therefore fail to deter NPEs from bringing abusive litigation. In practice, the PATENT Act's standard may not differ meaningfully from the current standard for fee-shifting as set forth by the Supreme Court in Octane Fitness.

    The White House issued a statement on May 1, 2015, supporting the PATENT Act: "The administration applauds the introduction of balanced, bipartisan legislation in the Senate that would strengthen and modernize our nation's patent laws."

  • Status: The PATENT Act is currently in the Senate Judiciary Committee, which held its initial hearing on the bill today (May 7, 2015). During today's hearing, several committee members took note of concerns that the current bill does not address potential abuses of the inter partes review and post-grant review processes, and indicated that they will consider amendments to the bill on this issue.
  • Available at: http://www.judiciary.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/PATENT%20Act.pdf

3. THE TARGETING ROGUE AND OPAQUE LETTERS (TROL) ACT OF 2015 (H.R. 2045)

  • Introduced: April 28, 2015, by Representative Michael Burgess (R-TX) of the House Energy and Commerce Committee. It was co-sponsored at introduction by Representatives Marcy Kaptur (D-OH), Leonard Lance (R-NJ), Gregg Harper (R-MS), Markwayne Mullin (R-OK), and Adam Kinzinger (R-IL).
  • Key provisions: The TROL Act makes it an unfair or deceptive act or practice under the Federal Trade Commission Act to engage in a "pattern or practice" of sending bad-faith demand letters asserting patent infringement. The bill authorizes the Federal Trade Commission and state attorneys general to bring enforcement actions and obtain civil penalties for violations. It expressly preempts state laws relating to patent demand letters.
  • Commentary: The TROL Act focuses on one specific area of perceived abuse by NPEs—the sending of bad-faith demand letters. The primary debate regarding the bill is whether it goes far enough to combat this problem. Critics argue that the bill's "pattern or practice" and "bad faith" requirements will make it too difficult for the FTC to prove violations, and that many states have already enacted legislation to address this problem.
  • Status: The TROL Act was referred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce on April 28, 2015. The Committee approved the bill by a 30-to-22 vote on April 29, 2015.
  • Available at: http://docs.house.gov/meetings/IF/IF17/20150416/103325/BILLS-114DiscussionDraftih-U1.pdf

4. THE DEMAND LETTER TRANSPARENCY ACT OF 2015 (H.R. 1896)

  • Introduced: April 20, 2015, by Representative Jared Polis (D-CO) of the House Judiciary Committee. It was co-sponsored at introduction by Representatives Tom Marino (R-PA) and Theodore Deutch (D-FL).
  • Key provisions: The bill requires that a patent demand letter include detailed disclosures satisfying a list of 18 specific requirements. The bill authorizes courts to impose monetary sanctions against a patent holder for failing to meet these requirements. The bill also requires an entity that sends 20 or more demand letters in a year to submit disclosures to the PTO for its use in establishing a publicly accessible and searchable demand letter database.
  • Commentary: The bill has not been the subject of significant public debate, but it has garnered support from interest groups favoring open technology and representing technology entrepreneurs and startups.
  • Status: The bill was referred to the House Judiciary Committee on April 20, 2015.
  • Available at: https://www.congress.gov/114/bills/hr1896/BILLS-114hr1896ih.pdf

5. THE INNOVATION PROTECTION ACT (H.R. 1832)

  • Introduced: April 16, 2015, by Representative John Conyers, Jr. (D-MI), of the House Judiciary Committee. It was co-sponsored at introduction by Representatives James Sensenbrenner, Jr. (R-WI), Jerrold Nadler (D-NY), Trent Franks (R-AZ), Zoe Lofgren (D-CA), Doug Collins (R-GA), Theodore Deutch (D-FL), Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA), and Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY).
  • Key provisions: The bill seeks to provide for the "permanent funding" of the PTO. It requires that all fees collected by the PTO remain available to the PTO until expended.
  • Commentary: The bill effectively seeks to eliminate the problem of fee diversion, whereby Congress currently diverts some of the fees collected by the PTO each year for purposes unrelated to the PTO's activities. Eliminating fee diversion has been a goal of patent reform proposals since before the AIA was enacted. (See our previous alert here.)
  • Status: The bill was referred to the House Judiciary Committee on April 16, 2015.
  • Available at: https://www.congress.gov/114/bills/hr1832/BILLS-114hr1832ih.pdf

6. THE SUPPORT TECHNOLOGY AND RESEARCH FOR OUR NATION'S GROWTH (STRONG) PATENTS ACT OF 2015 (S. 632)

  • Introduced: March 3, 2015, by Senator Christopher Coons (D-DE) of the Senate Judiciary Committee. It was co-sponsored at introduction by Senators Richard Durbin (D-IL) and Mazie Hirono (D-HI).
  • Key provisions:
    • The bill modifies the rules for inter partes review and post-grant review to make invalidating patents more difficult in several ways.
      • The bill requires the PTAB to apply the narrower claim construction standard used in district courts, rather than the "broadest reasonable interpretation" standard that the PTAB currently uses.
      • The bill adds a presumption of validity for previously issued claims challenged in inter partes review and post-grant review proceedings, and requires "clear and convincing" evidence to invalidate a previously issued claim in such proceedings.
      • The bill provides that a party may not file a petition seeking to institute an inter partes review or a post-grant review unless the party has been sued for infringement or has been "charged with infringement" such that it would have standing to bring a declaratory judgment action in federal court.
    • The bill reduces the burden of proof for willful infringement from the existing "clear and convincing evidence" standard to a "preponderance of the evidence" standard.
    • The bill adds a "divided infringement" provision eliminating any requirement that the "steps of the patented process be practiced by a single entity" for purposes of induced or contributory infringement of a process patent. This amendment seeks to overturn the Supreme Court's ruling on divided infringement in Limelight Networks, Inc. v. Akamai Technologies, Inc., 134 S. Ct. 2111 (2014).
  • Commentary: The STRONG Patents Act has been called "pro-patentee" patent reform, and its proponents include biotechnology companies and universities seeking stronger protection for their patent rights. Since the enactment of the AIA, the use of inter partes review has been broadly embraced both by accused infringers to challenge patent validity and, more recently, by hedge funds to profit from taking "short" investment positions in biotechnology and pharmaceutical companies and attacking their key patents. The STRONG Patents Act seeks to raise the bar for invalidating patents in inter partes review and restrict the availability of the procedure.
  • Status: The bill was referred to the Senate Judiciary Committee on March 3, 2015.
  • Available at: https://www.congress.gov/114/bills/s632/BILLS-114s632is.pdf

Because of the generality of this update, the information provided herein may not be applicable in all situations and should not be acted upon without specific legal advice based on particular situations.

© Morrison & Foerster LLP. All rights reserved

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.

Authors
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP
Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP
 
In association with
Related Topics
 
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP
Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP
Related Articles
 
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Tools
Print
Font Size:
Translation
Channels
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
Password
Confirm Password
Position
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Accounting
 Anti-trust
 Commercial
 Compliance
 Consumer
 Criminal
 Employment
 Energy
 Environment
 Family
 Finance
 Government
 Healthcare
 Immigration
 Insolvency
 Insurance
 International
 IP
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Litigation
 Media & IT
 Privacy
 Real Estate
 Strategy
 Tax
 Technology
 Transport
 Wealth Mgt
Regions
Africa
Asia
Asia Pacific
Australasia
Canada
Caribbean
Europe
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
U.K.
United States
Worldwide Updates
Registration (you must scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions

Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of www.mondaq.com

To Use Mondaq.com you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

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 or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.

Disclaimer

The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq 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 of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.

General

Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions