Changes

Return to [[Innovation Policy#Patent Reform|Patent Reform]]

'''H.R.1832: Innovation Protection Act (2015)''' [https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/house-bill/1832 (Congress)]

The Innovation Protection Act bill was introduced on April 16, 2015, by Representative John Conyers, Jr. (D-MI) Republican Senator Jared Polis from Colorado and referred assigned to the House Judiciary Committee on . The full title of the Judiciary. On May 15bill is "To amend chapter 26 of title 35, 2016United States Code, to require the bill was referred disclosure of information related to the Subcommittee on Courts, Intellectual Propertypatent ownership, and the Internetfor other purposes."

GovTrack predicts that the Innovation Protection Demand Letter Transparency Act has a 50% chance of being enacted. [https://www.govtrackThe latest action on the bill was in May of 2015 when it was referred to the Subcommittee on Courts, Intellectual Property, and the Internet.us/congress/bills/114/hr1832 (GovTrack)]

The Innovation Protection Act would establish Requires any entity that sends a United States Patent and Trademark Office Public Enterprise Fund in the Treasury specified number of demand letters during any 365-day period to submit to be used as a "revolving fund by the Director of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) without fiscal year limitation." It would replace the Patent and Trademark Office Appropriations Account, eliminate with respect to each patent that was the Patent and Trademark Fee Reserve Fund established by the America Invents Actsubject in each letter, and provide a permanent source of funding for the USPTO. The act would also require that all of the fees collected by the PTO remain available to the PTO until they are spent.disclosure identifying:

Under H.R. 1832The bill defines "demand letter" as any written communication directed to an unaffiliated third party stating or indicating that the intended recipient, or anyone affiliated with that recipient, the USPTO would still is or may be required infringing a patent, or may bear liability or owe compensation to submit another because of such patent. The act also authorizes a court, in a patent infringement or validity action brought by an annual budget entity that does not meet such USPTO disclosure requirements, to the President, sanction such entity for an annual report and operation plan amount to Congress, and an annual spending plan be awarded to the Committee on Appropriations adverse party to cover any costs incurred as a result of the House such violation.The act exempts from such disclosure requirements: (1) original or joint inventors, (2) institutions of Representatives higher education, and (3) technology transfer organizations facilitating the Committee on Appropriations commercialization of the Senatetechnology developed by institutions of higher education. The act allows directs the USPTO to keep establish a publicly accessible and spend all of the fees it collects, even those in excess searchable database of current fiscal year projection. However, the USPTO retains its obligation information obtained pursuant to submit spending reports and budgetssuch disclosures.

H.R. 1832 is a reintroduction of H.R. 3349 (2013) [httpsThe act requires any demand letter sent to another entity to include specified information concerning://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/113/hr3349], the Innovation Protection Act that Rep. Conyers proposed on 10/28/2013. H.R. 3349 was referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary and subsequently died in committee. The 2013 Innovation Protection Act had 16 cosponsors (10 Democrats and 6 Republicans).

H.R. 1832 currently *each claim of each patent allegedly infringed, including each accused instrumentality;*each party alleging infringement;*the direct infringement for each claim alleged to have been infringed indirectly;*the principal business of the party alleging infringement;*each complaint filed that asserts or asserted any of the same patents, each case filed by such entity, and any ex parte or inter partes review for each patent;*whether the patent is subject to any licensing term or pricing commitments;*owners, co-owners, assignees, or exclusive licensees of the patent;*any person who has 22 cosponsors (18 Democrats a legal right to enforce the patent;*any person with a direct financial interest in the outcome of the action; and 4 Republicans)*how the recipient can access the USPTO demand letter database. Govtrack gives the bill *Permits a 5% chance recipient of being enacteda demand letter to file a petition with the USPTO if it believes that disclosure or patent letter information requirements have not been met.[https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/114/hr1832] The legislation Directs the USPTO, if it determines that a *requirement has not been met, to notify the patent owner that the patent will be voided unless a fee is currently in the House Judiciary Committeepaid.

Sheila Jackson Lee (D-TX18) is a cosponsor for Requires the USPTO to consider good faith mistakes in the H.R. 1832, and was determination of whether to void a cosponsor for H.R. 3349 (2013)patent. [[Category: Public]][[httpsPublic Classification:://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/114/hr1832Legislation| ]]