Press Releases

House Judiciary Committee Ranking Member John Conyers, Jr.’ Opening Statement at Markup of H.R. 9, the Innovation Act

Washington, DC, June 11, 2015

Today, during a full House Judiciary Committee markup of H.R. 9, the “Innovation Act,” Ranking Member John Conyers, Jr. (D-MI) delivered the following opening statement:

“Abusive patent litigation is a problem that requires a targeted approach.

“Unfortunately, H.R. 9, the so-called ‘Innovation Act’ is overly broad and could potentially weaken every single patent in America.  It is not the solution we should be supporting.

“The bill favors big businesses over small inventors and start-ups.  It will make it too difficult and too risky for small inventors to enforce their rights in court.

"Some of its most harmful provisions include:

•   Presumptive Fee Shifting – Small inventors may be afraid to bring infringement suits because the risk of having to pay the other side’s court costs may outweigh the benefits from winning.

• Expanded Joinder - Universities’ research endeavors and venture capital for start-ups could dry up out of fear that they will be joined in a case and become liable for paying attorneys’ fees.

•   Burdensome Heightened Pleading Standards – Plaintiffs will be required to plead facts beyond what is required in other civil cases, which they may not know before conducting discovery.

•  Discovery Limitations – Most discovery will be delayed, limiting access to information that may be necessary to win an infringement suit.

“The bill does not address fee diversion and demand letters.

  • The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office is required to turn over all of the user fees it collects to be made available for appropriations.  The USPTO has lost an estimated $1 billion due to user fees being diverted.  Congress must end fee diversion so that the USPTO has the resources it needs to improve patent quality and prevent issuing weak quality patents which bad actors use to bring frivolous litigation. H.R. 9 does not even consider stopping fee diversion.
  • H.R. 9 does not truly address the use of deceptive demand letters, which is widely agreed to be one of the most significant reasons why we are considering this legislation.

“Many of the problems the bill attempts to solve are already being addressed by the administrative process, the courts, and by others.

•  The Supreme Court lowered the standard for fee shifting last year and federal district courts have awarded fees in far more cases since then;

• Beginning December 1st, federal court rules will require a more detailed, but reasonable, pleading standard;

• Federal district courts are instituting local rules and guidelines to improve case management to limit abusive discovery;

• The Federal Trade Commission and state Attorneys General are working to curtail the use of vague and deceptive demand letters; and

• The USPTO is working on a variety of measures to increase patent quality and address abusive patent litigation.

“Rather than upending the patent litigation system, we should be working with stakeholders to target the roots of the problem.

“H.R. 9 will have unintended consequences that will harm legitimate patent holders.  It will discourage innovation by making it more difficult for small inventors and startups to protect their patents.  And it will not effectively prevent abusive patent litigation.

“For these reasons, I oppose this bill.”