[Congressional Record Volume 156, Number 167 (Thursday, December 16, 2010)]
[House]
[Pages H8536-H8539]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
AUTHORIZING PILOT PROGRAM FOR PATENT CASES
Ms. CHU. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and concur in the
Senate amendment to the bill (H.R. 628) to establish a pilot program in
certain United States district courts to encourage enhancement of
expertise in patent cases among district judges.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The text of the Senate amendment is as follows:
Senate amendment:
Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the
following:
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 1 or more issues arising
under any Act of Congress relating to patents or plant
variety protection are required to 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 1 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.
[[Page H8537]]
(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.--
(1) In general.--Not later than 6 months after the date of
the enactment of this Act, the Director of the Administrative
Office of the United States Courts shall designate not less
than 6 United States district courts, in at least 3 different
judicial circuits, in which the program established under
subsection (a) will be carried out.
(2) Criteria for designations.--
(A) In general.--The Director shall make designations under
paragraph (1) from--
(i) 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; or
(ii) the district courts that have adopted, or certified to
the Director the intention to adopt, local rules for patent
and plant variety protection cases.
(B) Selection of courts.--From amongst the district courts
that satisfy the criteria for designation under this
subsection, the Director shall select--
(i) 3 district courts that each have at least 10 district
judges authorized to be appointed by the President, whether
under section 133(a) of title 28, United States Code, or on a
temporary basis under any other provision of law, and at
least 3 judges of the court have made the request under
subsection (a)(1)(A); and
(ii) 3 district courts that each have fewer than 10
district judges authorized to be appointed by the President,
whether under section 133(a) of title 28, United States Code,
or on a temporary basis under any other provision of law, and
at least 2 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) Reports 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 reports.--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).
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Chu) and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Poe) each will
control 20 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from California.
General Leave
Ms. CHU. I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative
days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material
on the bill under consideration.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentlewoman from California?
There was no objection.
Ms. CHU. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, this bill seeks to create a pilot program that will
enhance district court expertise in patent cases.
Patent litigation is complex and highly technical. This makes
litigation expensive, time consuming, and unpredictable. Moreover, the
reversal rate of district court decisions is high, hovering around 50
percent. The bill before us today, H.R. 628, seeks to increase
efficiency and consistency in patent and plant variety protection
litigation and reduce the reversal rate.
The pilot program created by this bill would enable interested judges
in certain district courts to develop expertise in adjudicating patent
and plant variety protection cases. This will create a cadre of judges
who have advanced knowledge of patent and plant variety protection due
to more intensified experience in handling the cases, along with
special education and career development opportunities.
By providing judges with more training and experience in patent law,
this country will have fairer and more predictable decisions resulting
in a positive effect on the economy as a whole, as businesses will be
able to allocate more time to inventing and less time litigating.
The program would involve six of the Nation's 94 judicial districts
on a strictly voluntary basis. Note this is just a pilot program; and
unless Congress chooses to renew it, it will automatically expire after
10 years. The bill mandates reporting requirements to Congress that
will help guide our future efforts to further improve the patent
system. We will monitor the effects of this program closely.
{time} 1300
H.R. 628 has bipartisan support in the Judiciary Committee and broad
support from the patent bar and affected industry and trade groups. In
2006, a nearly identical bill, H.R. 5418, was reported by the Judiciary
Committee and passed the House under suspension. The legislation passed
the House again under suspension in the last Congress. This Congress,
back in March of 2009, this House passed H.R. 628. This amended version
before us today expands the number of districts that are eligible to be
chosen for this program.
I want to particularly note the efforts of my friends on both sides
of the aisle, Representative Issa and Representative Schiff, whose
tireless and substantial personal efforts shepherded this bill from
start to finish--and we are close to the finish line.
I urge my colleagues to once again join me in supporting this bill.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. POE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself as much time as I may
consume.
It is widely recognized that patent litigation is too expensive, too
time-consuming, and too unpredictable. H.R. 628 addresses these
concerns by authorizing a pilot program in certain United States
district courts to promote patent expertise among participating judges.
The need for such a program becomes apparent when one considers that
fewer than 1 percent of all the cases in United States district courts,
on average, are patent cases and that a district court judge typically
has a patent case proceed through trial once every 7 years.
Nevertheless, these cases account for 10 percent of complex cases, and
they require a disproportionate share of attention and judicial
resources.
Notwithstanding the investment of additional time and resources, the
rate of reversal on claim construction issues--the correct
interpretation of which is central to the proper resolution of these
cases--is unacceptably high. The premise underlying H.R. 628 is,
succinctly stated, practice makes perfect, or at least better. Judges
who focus more attention on patent cases will be expected to be better
prepared to make decisions that can withstand appellate scrutiny.
The bill that we have before us today is the product of extensive
oversight hearing that focused on proposals to improve patent
litigation, which was conducted by the Subcommittee on Courts, the
Internet, and Intellectual Property in October of 2005. This litigation
is similar to H.R. 34 from the 110th
[[Page H8538]]
Congress and H.R. 5418, a bill that passed the House unanimously during
the 109th Congress. More recently, the House passed H.R. 628 on March
17, 2009. The other body passed the legislation with amendments on
December 13. The new changes improve the measure by eliminating a $10
million authorization and by expanding the bill's application to
smaller judicial districts.
Mr. Speaker, H.R. 628 requires the director of the Administrative
Office of the Courts to select at least six district courts to
participate in a 10-year pilot program that begins no later than 6
months after the date of enactment. The bill specifies criteria the
director must employ in determining eligible district courts. It also
contains provisions to preserve the random assignment of cases and to
prevent the selected districts from becoming magnets for forum-shopping
litigants and lawyers.
The litigation additionally requires the director in consultation
with the director of the Federal Judicial Center and the chief judge of
each participating district to provide the committees on the Judiciary
of the House of Representatives and the Senate with periodic progress
reports. These reports will enable the Congress and the courts to
evaluate whether the pilot program is working and, if so, whether it
should be made permanent.
Mr. Speaker, the bill does not substantially amend the patent laws or
the judicial process, nor does it serve as a substitute for
comprehensive patent reform that is needed. Rather, H.R. 628 constructs
a foundation that future Congresses and the courts may use to assess
the merits of future related proposals.
Before closing, Mr. Speaker, I would like to take a moment to commend
the superb job that the bill's sponsors, Representatives Issa and
Schiff, did in seeking out and incorporating the advice of numerous
experts as they developed this bipartisan important legislation. Their
success and cooperation have resulted in a good bill that deserves the
support of Members of the House on both sides of the aisle. I urge
Members to support this bill.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. CHU. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the
gentleman from California (Mr. Schiff), the sponsor of the bill.
Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 628, and I want to
begin by acknowledging the leadership of my colleague Darrell Issa from
California in developing this bill. I joined with Mr. Issa to introduce
this important legislation back in the 109th Congress. It has not been
a short road to get here today to hopefully enact this bill, but we
would not have made it without his leadership.
I partnered with Mr. Issa on the bill because we share a deep
interest in improving the efficiency of the patent process, in reducing
litigation costs and inefficiencies in patent review, and also in
improving the quality of patents. This bill, in part, grew from a
hearing in the 109th Congress on improving Federal court adjudication
of patent cases in response to high rates of reversal. At this hearing,
a number of proposed options to address this issue were discussed.
Serious concerns were expressed about a number of proposals, including
those that would create new specialized courts and those that would
move all patent cases to existing specialized courts. These concerns
centered around the need to maintain generalist judges, to preserve
random case assignment, and to continue fostering the important legal
percolation that currently occurs among the various district courts.
Our proposal aims to avoid these pitfalls.
H.R. 628 establishes a mechanism to steer patent cases to judges that
have the desire and the aptitude to hear such cases while preserving
the principle of random assignment in order to prevent forum shopping
among the pilot districts. The legislation will also provide the
Congress and the courts with the opportunity to assess the program on a
periodic basis. Reports will examine whether the program succeeds in
developing greater expertise among participating district judges, the
extent to which the program contributes to improving judicial
efficiency in deciding these cases, and whether the program should be
extended, expanded, or made permanent. By providing our courts with the
resources they need to carefully consider patent cases, we will
ultimately save the taxpayer money.
While this legislation is an important step at addressing needed
patent reforms, I believe that Congress must continue to work on a more
comprehensive reform of our patent system, and I look forward to
continuing my work with my colleagues in order to address these issues.
Mr. POE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he wishes to
consume to the gentleman from California (Mr. Issa), who is a sponsor
of this bill.
Mr. ISSA. Mr. Speaker, it's been 8 years since this bill began being
kicked around as a pilot. Some people would be less happy to announce
it than I, but I would like to find them. Eight years ago when I began
the dialogue with my colleagues, then the subcommittee ranking member,
Mr. Berman, said, Tell me more about this problem. And I told him from
life experience of the problem of these very talented judges,
magistrates, and Federal judges who wanted to do a good job on patents,
but it was almost always their first patent, and they lacked a support
system to make it happen in both large and small districts. I told them
how the southern district of San Diego had found ways to try to improve
the system, gleaning some additional expertise from one or two judges
who preferred these cases over some others and who actually sought them
out. I also told some of my fellow colleagues about the horror stories
of a magistrate ascending to the bench, finding that what he got from
each of the other members were all their patent cases, and suddenly he
had a backlog of these, had to find out what a Markman hearing was, had
to start getting into technical issues, one on electronics, another on
biotech, another one on telecommunications.
So over the years, we have all been educated well beyond that initial
anecdotal example. Then Orrin Hatch, Chairman Hatch, was supportive.
Now Chairman Leahy is supportive. All along the way, my classmate Adam
Schiff has been supportive, along with both chairman, and ranking
member at times, Howard Berman. Chairman Conyers has continued to be
supportive and has helped me, along with Ranking Member Lamar Smith,
vote this out early on in this Congress.
{time} 1310
But I have a special thanks for Chairman Leahy who made sure this
bill was pulled out of the comprehensive patent reform bill because its
time truly had come to begin saying to judges throughout the country
that, in fact, we were going to help them help themselves be better at
this. Although it's called patent pilot, over the years it has been
expanded to the number of jurisdictions that it could be used in to
where it's become quite clear that this will be a challenge to be
expanded countrywide in whatever format the study shows is best.
I find that this Congress, in its lame duck session, has done a few
good things. No surprise that this is one that I think is particularly
good, particularly good because, as Congressman Schiff just said, we
are, in fact, dealing in the lame duck session with a problem that has
been pervasive since before Congressman Schiff and I became Members of
this body 10 full years ago.
So as I thank each of you for your passage of this bill, and with
full confidence that this will become a broader consensus throughout
the Federal system, I also join with my friend and colleague Adam
Schiff in saying that the next Congress, in the early days, we must
truly dedicate ourselves to comprehensive patent reform, to take each
of the major issues that have been difficult and have, Congress after
Congress, failed to become law, and find ways to resolve some or all of
them for the good of the American people who find themselves spending
2, 3 or 8 or $10 million on what can often be a frivolous suit.
Again, Mr. Poe, I thank you for yielding me the time. I ask all my
colleagues to vote for this small but important change in patent law.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 628, a bill to establish
a pilot program in certain United States district courts to encourage
enhancement of expertise in patent cases among district judges.
Congressman Adam Schiff and I have worked together on this legislation
since the last Congress, and I am grateful for the chance to move this
legislation forward today.
[[Page H8539]]
The high cost of patent litigation is widely publicized, and it is
not unusual for a patent suit to cost each party over $10,000,000.
Appeals from district courts to the Court of Appeals for the Federal
Circuit are frequent. This is caused, in part, by the general
perception within the patent community that most district court judges
are not sufficiently prepared to hear patent cases. I drafted this
legislation in an attempt to decrease the cost of litigation by
increasing the success of district court judges.
H.R. 628 establishes a pilot project within at least six district
courts. Under the pilot, judges decide whether or not to opt into
hearing patent cases. If a judge opts in, and a patent case is randomly
assigned to that judge, that judge keeps the case. If a case is
randomly assigned to a judge who has not opted into hearing patent
cases, that judge has the choice of keeping that case or sending it to
the group of judges who have opted in. To be a designated court, the
court must have at least 10 authorized judges with at least 3 opting
in, or certify that they have adopted local rules for patent and plant
variety protection cases.
The core intent of this pilot is to steer patent cases to judges that
have the desire and aptitude to hear patent cases, while preserving
random assignment as much as possible. The pilot will last no longer
than 10 years, and periodic studies will occur to determine the pilot
project's success.
I am happy to say that H.R. 628 is supported by software, hardware,
tech and electronics companies, pharmaceutical companies, biotech
companies, district court judges, the American Intellectual Property
Law Association, and the Intellectual Property Owners Association among
others.
This legislation is a good first step toward improving the legal
environment for the patent community in the United States. H.R. 628
should not, however, be taken as a replacement for broader patent
reform. We still need to address substantive issues within patent law,
and I look forward to working with my colleagues on that broader effort
as well.
I thank Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers and Ranking Member
Lamar Smith, as well Senators Hatch and Leahy. I also thank my staff
and the committee staff who worked so hard to make this possible.
I encourage all of my colleagues to support H.R. 628.
Ms. CHU. Mr. Speaker, I have no further speakers, and I reserve the
balance of my time.
Mr. POE of Texas. I yield myself as much time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, patent law is complicated. It is difficult. It is messy.
Now, that's why law schools have a special track for those that want to
be patent lawyers. They get their own certification, in many law
schools, because it is so complicated. And then when those cases go to
court, they need to be presented to a judge that has a lot of
experience in patent law. It is a difficult, complex legal issue in
almost every case. And those cases take, sometimes, years before they
are resolved in court, then on appeal, and the reversal rate is
extremely high.
This legislation, hopefully, corrects that problem in giving those
district judges that want to hear these cases that special expertise in
hearing a great number of these cases, becoming experts and
understanding the law, the complexities of the law and, hopefully,
getting a better and quicker result in the courtrooms of the United
States. I support this legislation.
I want to commend, once again, the two representatives from
California, Mr. Schiff and Mr. Issa, for their long endurance over
sponsoring this legislation.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Ms. CHU. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Weiner). The question is on the motion
offered by the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Chu) that the House
suspend the rules and concur in the Senate amendment to the bill, H.R.
628.
The question was taken.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. In the opinion of the Chair, two-thirds
being in the affirmative, the ayes have it.
Ms. CHU. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a
quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not
present.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX and the
Chair's prior announcement, further proceedings on this motion will be
postponed.
The point of no quorum is considered withdrawn.
____________________