[Congressional Record Volume 152, Number 124 (Thursday, September 28, 2006)]
[House]
[Pages H7851-H7853]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
ESTABLISHING A PILOT PROGRAM IN CERTAIN DISTRICT COURTS
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass
the bill (H.R. 5418) to establish a pilot program in certain United
States district courts to encourage enhancement of expertise in patent
cases among district judges, as amended.
The Clerk read as follows:
H.R. 5418
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. PILOT PROGRAM IN CERTAIN DISTRICT COURTS.
(a) Establishment.--
(1) In general.--There is established a program, in each of
the United States district courts designated under subsection
(b), under which--
(A) those district judges of that district court who
request to hear cases under which one or more issues arising
under any Act of Congress relating to patents or plant
variety protection must be decided, are designated by the
chief judge of the court to hear those cases;
(B) cases described in subparagraph (A) are randomly
assigned to the judges of the district court, regardless of
whether the judges are designated under subparagraph (A);
(C) a judge not designated under subparagraph (A) to whom a
case is assigned under subparagraph (B) may decline to accept
the case; and
(D) a case declined under subparagraph (C) is randomly
reassigned to one of those judges of the court designated
under subparagraph (A).
(2) Senior judges.--Senior judges of a district court may
be designated under paragraph (1)(A) if at least 1 judge of
the court in regular active service is also so designated.
(3) Right to transfer cases preserved.--This section shall
not be construed to limit the ability of a judge to request
the reassignment of or otherwise transfer a case to which the
judge is assigned under this section, in accordance with
otherwise applicable rules of the court.
(b) Designation.--The Director of the Administrative Office
of the United States Courts shall, not later than 6 months
after the date of the enactment of this Act, designate not
less than 5 United States district courts, in at least 3
different judicial circuits, in which the program established
under subsection (a) will be carried out. The Director shall
make such designation from among the 15 district courts in
which the largest number of patent and plant variety
protection cases were filed in the most recent calendar year
that has ended, except that the Director may only designate a
court in which--
(1) at least 10 district judges are authorized to be
appointed by the President, whether under section 133(a) of
title 28, United States Code, or on a temporary basis under
other provisions of law; and
(2) at least 3 judges of the court have made the request
under subsection (a)(1)(A).
(c) Duration.--The program established under subsection (a)
shall terminate 10 years after the end of the 6-month period
described in subsection (b).
(d) Applicability.--The program established under
subsection (a) shall apply in a district court designated
under subsection (b) only to cases commenced on or after the
date of such designation.
(e) Reporting to Congress.--
(1) In general.--At the times specified in paragraph (2),
the Director of the Administrative Office of the United
States Courts, in consultation with the chief judge of each
of the district courts designated under subsection (b) and
the Director of the Federal Judicial Center, shall submit to
the Committee on the Judiciary of the House of
Representatives and the Committee on the Judiciary of the
Senate a report on the pilot program established under
subsection (a). The report shall include--
(A) an analysis of the extent to which the program has
succeeded in developing expertise in patent and plant variety
protection cases among the district judges of the district
courts so designated;
(B) an analysis of the extent to which the program has
improved the efficiency of the courts involved by reason of
such expertise;
(C) with respect to patent cases handled by the judges
designated pursuant to subsection (a)(1)(A) and judges not so
designated, a comparison between the 2 groups of judges with
respect to--
(i) the rate of reversal by the Court of Appeals for the
Federal Circuit, of such cases on the issues of claim
construction and substantive patent law; and
(ii) the period of time elapsed from the date on which a
case is filed to the date on which trial begins or summary
judgment is entered;
(D) a discussion of any evidence indicating that litigants
select certain of the judicial districts designated under
subsection (b) in an attempt to ensure a given outcome; and
(E) an analysis of whether the pilot program should be
extended to other district courts, or should be made
permanent and apply to all district courts.
(2) Timetable for reports.--The times referred to in
paragraph (1) are--
(A) not later than the date that is 5 years and 3 months
after the end of the 6-month period described in subsection
(b); and
(B) not later than 5 years after the date described in
subparagraph (A).
(3) Periodic reporting.--The Director of the Administrative
Office of the United States Courts, in consultation with the
chief judge of each of the district courts designated under
subsection (b) and the Director of the Federal Judicial
Center, shall keep the committees referred to in paragraph
(1) informed, on a periodic basis while the pilot program is
in effect, with respect to the matters referred to in
subparagraphs (A) through (E) of paragraph (1).
(f) Authorization for Training and Clerkships.--In addition
to any other funds made available to carry out this section,
there is authorized to be appropriated not less than
$5,000,000 in each fiscal year for--
(1) educational and professional development of those
district judges designated under subsection (a)(1)(A) in
matters relating to patents and plant variety protection; and
(2) compensation of law clerks with expertise in technical
matters arising in patent and plant variety protection cases,
to be appointed by the courts designated under subsection (b)
to assist those courts in such cases.
Amounts made available pursuant to this subsection shall
remain available until expended.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from
Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr.
Conyers) each will control 20 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Wisconsin.
{time} 1930
General Leave
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all
Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend
their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 5418, currently
under consideration.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Wisconsin?
There was no objection.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 5418 to establish a pilot
program in certain U.S. district courts to encourage enhancements of
expertise in patent cases among district judges. It is widely
recognized that patent litigation has become too expensive, too time
consuming, and too unpredictable. This addresses those concerns by
authorizing a pilot program to improve the expertise of Federal
district judges responsible for hearing patent cases.
The need for such a program is apparent. Patent cases account for
nearly 10 percent of complex cases and consume significant judicial
resources. Despite the investment of the additional resources by
district judges to these cases, the rate of reversal on claim
construction issues remains excessive.
One sitting Federal judge characterized the manner that the judiciary
employs to resolve these cases as marked by ``institutional
ineptitude.'' I would say, parenthetically, that that is a remarkable
admission by a Federal judge.
The premise underlying H.R. 5418 can be stated in three words:
practice makes perfect. Judges who are able to focus more attention on
patent cases are more likely to avoid error and thus reduce the
likelihood of reversal.
The bill requires the director of the Administrative Office of the
Courts to select five district courts to participate in a 10-year pilot
program to enhance judicial patent expertise. The bill specifies
criteria that the director must employ in determining eligible
districts and then preserves the continued random assignment of cases
to prevent the pilot districts from becoming magnets for forum-shopping
litigants.
Finally, the legislation will require the director to provide both
the House
[[Page H7852]]
and Senate Judiciary Committees with periodic reports to help assess
the program's efficiency and effectiveness.
Mr. Speaker, the bill does not purport to comprehensively address all
of the ill associated with patent litigation, nor does it seek to
substantively amend the patient laws or the judicial process. However,
the program established by this bill will enhance judicial expertise in
this crucial area while providing Congress important information to
further improve the administration of patent claims.
Mr. Speaker, I commend the two gentlemen from California, Mr. Schiff
and Mr. Issa, for introducing this bill. I urge Members to support this
important legislation.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman
from California (Mr. Schiff) control time on our side.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Michigan?
There was no objection.
Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 5418, legislation that I
introduced with my colleague, Representative Issa, in order to
establish a pilot program in the Federal district courts to encourage
the enhancement of expertise in patent cases among district judges.
I want to thank my colleague from California for his leadership and
tenacity on this issue that has brought us to this place. I also want
to thank the chairman and ranking member of the Judiciary Committee and
the Chair and ranking member of the Subcommittee on the Courts, the
Internet and Intellectual Property for working to bring the bill to the
floor today.
Mr. Speaker, I join with my colleague, Mr. Issa, in introducing this
legislation because I believe it is a worthy proposal that is narrowly
drafted and will provide us with valuable and important insight on the
operation of patent litigation in the Federal court system.
This patent pilot program, created under the bill, is designed to
enhance expertise in patent cases among district judges, provides
district courts with resources and training to reduce error rates in
patent cases, and helps reduce the high cost and lost time associated
with patent litigation.
The legislation has received an impressive display of broad-based
support from a wide-ranging spectrum of interested parties, including
the technology industry, the pharmaceutical industry, the consumer
electronics industry, biotech, intellectual property owners and other
IP organizations, as well as a U.S. district chief judge.
Several months ago, the Judiciary Subcommittee on the Courts,
Internet and Intellectual Property held a hearing on improving Federal
court adjudication of patent cases. At this hearing a number of
proposed solutions were discussed, serious concerns were expressed with
other proposals that would have called for the creation of a new
specialized court as well as proposals that would move all patent cases
to an existing specialized court.
These concerns centered around the need to maintain generalist
judges, random case assignment, and to maintain the important legal
percolation that occurs currently among the various district courts.
Our approach avoids these pitfalls and is a worthwhile program that
Congress should establish on a test basis. It also bears mentioning
that we have consulted very closely with the Administrative Office of
the U.S. Courts, the representative of the Federal judiciary.
Indeed, these discussions led to a number of important improvements
to the legislation that are reflected in the final product. We are also
pleased that companion legislation has been introduced in the other
body by Senators Hatch and Feinstein.
In closing, I would like to stress that while this legislation is an
important first step to addressing needed patent reforms, I believe
that Congress must continue to work to address a number of issues
surrounding patent litigation that require broad-based reforms to our
patent system.
Mr. Speaker, I look forward to continuing my work with my colleagues
on the Judiciary Committee and in Congress to address these issues
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume
to the author of the bill, the gentleman from California (Mr. Issa).
Mr. ISSA. Mr. Speaker, I will be brief, not because this is not a
great piece of legislation. I am very proud of the work we have done on
a bipartisan basis in our committee, but because the fact is, this is a
piece of legislation whose time has come.
This bill was voted unanimously out of the Judiciary Subcommittee and
brought to the floor on suspension because in fact all of the details
necessary to make a good piece of legislation were worked out with the
community that will need it, use it, and benefit from it.
That includes members of the Federal bench, the AO, the
Administrative Office of the judicial branch. It also includes both
branches here in the Capitol and members from the administration. I
believe this is an example of bipartisan work at its finest.
I thank my coauthor on this, Mr. Schiff, for working tirelessly on
this, and for his good words. I would particularly like to thank the
chairman, Mr. Sensenbrenner, and Mr. Conyers for taking the work we did
in subcommittee as sufficient and bringing it quickly to the floor.
Last but not least, I very much want to thank the staff of the
subcommittee and the chairman and ranking member of the subcommittee,
who encouraged us all along the way, held the necessary hearings, and
have told us to do this and then do more.
Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Speaker, I want to acknowledge the superb work done
by my colleague, who really was the driving force behind this
legislation.
Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 5418, a bill ``[t]o Establish a
Pilot Program in Certain United States District Courts to Encourage
Enhancement of Expertise in Patent Cases Among District Judges,''
deserves the support of the Members of the House.
For the past 2 years, the Subcommittee on Courts, the Internet and
Intellectual Property has conducted a thorough review of problems
associated with the issuance of patents and the adjudication of patent
claims.
H.R. 5418 focuses on one aspect of patent litigation--the recognition
that judges are too often inexperienced in dealing with technical areas
of the law and that they rarely have the opportunity to have a patent
case go all the way through trial.
Patent cases equal only 1 percent of cases filed in U.S. District
Courts but are responsible for nearly 10 percent of complex cases. On
average, an individual federal judge has only 1 patent case go all the
way through trial every 7 years, which means trial-level judges may
have no more than 3 or 4 such cases over their entire judicial career.
These statistics suggest judges could benefit from the development of
greater expertise and that they might develop this ability by handling
these cases, which are so vital to American companies.
Mr. Speaker, the bill before us is designed to enable designated
federal judges to have the opportunity to enhance their expertise in
handling these cases and to measure the effects, if any, on patent
litigation.
Introduced by Representatives Darrell Issa and Adam Schiff, the bill
followed an October 2005 Subcommittee oversight hearing on proposals to
structurally reform the patent litigation system.
This bipartisan measure was approved by the Subcommittee on July 27,
2006 and approved by the full Judiciary Committee on September 13,
2006.
As amended, the bill will require the Director of the Administrative
Office of the Courts to select 5 districts to participate in a 10-year
pilot project.
It will also require the Director, on a periodic basis, to prepare
and report to Congress on aspects of the project and to make a
recommendation on whether the program should be extended, expanded, or
made permanent.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this bipartisan bill.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) that the House suspend the
rules and pass the bill, H.R. 5418, as amended.
The question was taken; and (two-thirds having voted in favor
thereof) the rules were suspended and the bill, as amended, was passed.
[[Page H7853]]
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________