United States: STRONGER Patents Act Of 2017 Likely Too Heavy Lift For Congress

Last Updated: August 7 2017
Article by NorCal IP

Authored by Monte Cooper and James Maune

It may be late July, but the impending Congressional recess has not lessened potential interest by lawmakers in patent reform. On June 21, 2017, Sen. Christopher Coons (D-Delaware) introduced Senate Bill 1390, entitled the Support Technology and Research for Our Nation's Growth and Economic Resilience (STRONGER) Patents Act of 2017. Sen. Tom Cotton (R- Arkansas), Sen. Richard Durbin (D- Illinois), and Sen. Mazie Hirono (D-Hawaii) cosponsored the bipartisan bill. The Bill's stated purpose is "to strengthen the position of the United States as the world's leading innovator by amending title 35, United States Code, to protect the property rights of the inventors that grow the country's economy." To accomplish this goal, the Senate Bill proposes to amend many of the patent law core concepts introduced by the America Invents Act of 2011 (AIA) and developed in the Courts in the past 20 years by, among other mechanisms, making patents more difficult to challenge in post-grant proceedings and overturning multiple Supreme Court decisions regarding injunctive relief and standards for induced infringement. The authors of the Bill, citing the fact that the U.S. Chamber of Congress in 2017 ranked the U.S. Patent System as being only the 10th strongest in the world after having ranked it first in every prior year, contend that unintended consequences of the AIA's reforms and recent rulings from the Supreme Court have weakened the value of patents to such a degree that further legislative action is warranted.

The STRONGER Patents Act incorporates many of the provisions from former Senate Bill 632 (STRONG Patent Act of 2015) and former H.R. 2045 TROL Act (Targeting Rogue and Opaque Letters Act of 2015). The STRONG Patent Act died in the Senate Judiciary Committee, and the TROL Act passed the Committee on Energy and Commerce (30-22) but was never taken up for a vote by the House of Representatives. Despite the bipartisan support, the STRONGER Patents Act is unlikely to become law in its current form anytime soon. However, the Senate Bill does represent a significant attempt to reform many issues in patent law that have produced criticism from certain industry sectors and members of the Bar and, hence, may offer insight into where future efforts at patent reform will be focused.

Amendments to Inter Partes Review and Post-Grant Review Proceedings1

Much of the focus of the STRONGER Patents Act consists of providing amendments in Sections 102 and 103 to both inter partes review (IPR)2 and post-grant review (PGR) proceedings at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) instituted by the AIA. Some of the highlights of these proposed amendments are as follows:

  • Claim Construction: The Bill changes the claim construction standard used in post-grant proceedings from the current standard of broadest reasonable interpretation to the "actual construction" standard applied in district court litigation, effectively overturning the 2016 Supreme Court decision in Cuzzo Speed Technologies v. Lee.3
  • Burden of Proof: The STRONGER Patents Act would elevate the burden of proof required to prove invalidity in post-grant review proceedings from the current "preponderance of the evidence" standard to the "clear and convincing" standard used in district court litigation.
  • Standing: The Bill requires that the Petitioner must be sued for infringement to have standing to petition for post-grant review of a patent. This would allegedly block the strategic filing of post-grant review proceedings in order to extort settlements, as was attempted by the Kyle Bass fund in a number of challenges to pharmaceutical patents. This change would also limit the ability of patent defense groups, such as Unified Patents and RPX Corp., from challenging a patent. Currently, anyone but the patent owner can request an IPR, CBM or PGR.
  • Limitation on Reviews: The proposed changes would limit the number of challenges on a patent in post-grant review proceedings to once per claim of the patent, regardless of who filed the previous petition.
  • Interlocutory Appeals From Institution Decision: The Bill would permit patent owners to immediately appeal the institution decision by the PTAB. However, the Bill would not allow Petitioners the right to appeal the PTAB's denial of institution.
  • Eliminating Repetitive Proceedings: The STRONGER Patents Act limits Petitioners to challenging the patent once, unless later charged with infringement of additional claims. If an inter partes or post-grant review is instituted, the Petitioner cannot bring challenges of the same type in district court.
  • Real Party In Interest: The proposed legislation provides that an entity proving financial support to challenge a patent is a real party in interest and would be estopped from future challenges of the patent. Failure to provide notice of all real parties in interest could result in termination of proceedings.
  • Priority of Federal Court Validity Determinations: The Bill would bar institution of a post-grant review if a district court or ITC reviews the validity of the patent prior to the PTAB.
  • Amendment of the Claims: The STRONGER Patents Act provides for "expedited" examination procedures for amending claims, instead of amending claims before the PTAB. This new examination of amendments would be ex parte, thereby preventing the Petitioner from challenging the proposed amendment. The Act further changes the standards used for claim amendments before the PTAB, entitling a patent owner to an amended claim unless the cumulative evidence before the Board shows the claim would be ineligible.

Section 104 of the Bill would also require that the administrative law judges (ALJs) who determine the ultimate validity of the challenged claims are different from the ALJs that decide whether to institute the review. Section 105 further bars ex parte reexamination of a patent if the request for reexamination is filed more than one year after the date on which the requester or a real party in interest or privy of the requester is served with a complaint alleging infringement of the patent.

Injunctive Relief and Induced Infringement

Section 108 proposes several significant changes to the standards for induced infringement and presumptions of injunctive relief that were introduced by Supreme Court rulings.

For instance, the STRONGER Patents Act would restore the presumption of injunctive relief when a patent is found valid and infringed, essentially overruling the Supreme Court's 2006 decision in eBay v. MercExchange LLC.4

The Act also would "eliminate the single-entity rule for defendants who have intentionally caused the infringement of the patent." In the Supreme Court's 2014 decision in Akamai Technologies v. Limelight Networks,5 the Court held that induced infringement can be found only when a single-entity performs every step of a patent. Additionally, the STRONGER Patents Act would eliminate the 2011 Supreme Court requirement, stated in GlobalTech Appliances v. SEB SA,6 for actual knowledge that the induced acts constitute infringement. Under the STRONGER Patents Act, proving infringement would only require proof that the alleged infringer intended to perform the acts that constitute infringement.

Section 108(3)(A) of the Bill would appear to expand the current territorial reach for patent infringement beyond the boundaries of the United States, thereby overturning the Supreme Court's 2007 decision in Microsoft Corp. v. AT&T Corp.7 Section 108(3)(A) of the Bill proposes adding to the current Patent Act the condition that "[w]hoever, without authority, supplies or causes to be supplied in or from the United States a design for a product embodying a patented invention in such manner as to actively induce the making of that product outside the United States in a manner that would infringe the patent if made in the United States, shall be liable as an infringer." This new act of infringement would apply even if another inventor independently invented the product with no knowledge of infringement.

Finally, in a nod to complaints from industries and members of the Bar about certain kinds of nonpracticing entity litigation tactics, the Act incorporates many of the provisions from the 2015 TROL Act that allegedly aim to curb abusive, patent-related demand letters by empowering the Federal Trade Commission and state attorneys general to bring suit against entities who engage in misleading and deceptive practices through the sending of patent infringement demand letters.


In a press release, Sen. Coons stated that the STRONGER Patents Act is intended to address "the problem of repetitive, harassing petitions in the administrative reviews at the USPTO, reducing duplication between these reviews and district court, and providing a new approach to amending patent claims during them. Additionally, the STRONGER Patents Act proposes to restore the presumption of injunctive relief upon a finding that a patent is valid and infringed and addresses other cases in which courts have recently weakened patent rights."8

It is unclear if the current version of the STRONGER Patents Act will fare any better than previous efforts to strengthen the value of patents. While organizations that favor strong patent rights, such as the Medical Device Manufacturers Association (MDMA),9 the Biotechnology Innovation Organization,10 and the Innovation Alliance,11 support the Bill, it is clearly in contrast to many of the patent reforms proposed in the 2015 Innovation Act by Representative Bob Goodlatte (R-Virginia). While the Bill is currently in the Senate Judiciary Committee for discussion, at least one organization predicts this bill of having as little as a 4% chance of being enacted.12 We will keep you apprised of further developments both with this Bill and any others that Congress introduces aimed at patent reform.


1 Sen. Coon's Two-Page Summary of STRONGER Patents Act, (Jun. 23, 2017), www.coons.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/STRONGER%20Patents%20Act%20of%202017%20Section-By-Section.pdf

2 For the sake of brevity, "post-grant" review proceedings encompass all of inter partes review (IPR), covered business method reviews (CBMs), and post-grant review proceedings (PGRs). When post-grant review is noted in title case as "PGR," it refers to only the procedures in 35 U.S. Code § 321.

3 136 S. Ct. 2131 (2016).

4 547 U.S. 388 (2006).

5 134 S. Ct. 2111 (2014).

6 563 U.S. 754 (2011).

7 550 U.S. 437 (2007).

8 Sen. Coon's introduces STRONGER Patents Act, (Jun. 23, 2017), www.coons.senate.gov/newsroom/press-releases/senators-coons-cotton-durbin-hirono-introduce-bipartisan-bill-to-protect-us-patent-holders-inventors

9 John Eggerton, STRONGER Patents Act Introduced in Senate, Broadcasting & Cable, (June 21, 2017), www.broadcastingcable.com/news/washington/stronger-patents-act-introduced-senate/166692

10 George Goodno, Biotechnology Innovation Organization, BIO Statement of Support for the Introduction of the STRONGER Patents Act of 2017, (June 23, 2017) www.bio.org/press-release/bio-statement-support-introduction-stronger-patents-act-2017

11 Kat Maramba, Innovation Alliance Statement on Introduction of the Bipartisan STRONGER Patents Act of 2017, (June 21, 2017), http://innovationalliance.net/

12 S. 1390 — 115th Congress: STRONGER Patents Act of 2017." www.GovTrack.us. 2017. June 23, 2017 www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/115/s1390>

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
21 Sep 2018, Conference, Florida, United States

Employment partner, Michael Weil will be participating in The Intellectual Property Law Institute’s 2018 Conference.

26 Sep 2018, Conference, New York, United States

Employment Partner, Mandy Perry and Chair of Orrick's Global Employment Law Practice, Mike Delikat will be participating in the Global Business Protections 2018: International Restrictive Covenants and Confidential Information Conference.

26 Sep 2018, Seminar, Tokyo, Japan

Orrick’s Global Japan Practice is hosting a series of “Orrick Library” seminars to explore legal issues in various fields in Japan as well as the United States, Asia and Europe

Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
Wilson Elser Moskowitz Edelman & Dicker LLP
In association with
Related Topics
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
Wilson Elser Moskowitz Edelman & Dicker LLP
Related Articles
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
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.


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.


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