[Congressional Record Volume 159, Number 176 (Thursday, December 12, 2013)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E1866-E1867]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                             INNOVATION ACT

                                 `_____
                                 

                               speech of

                         HON. CHRIS VAN HOLLEN

                              of maryland

                    in the house of representatives

                       Thursday, December 5, 2013

       The House in Committee of the Whole House on the state of 
     the Union had under consideration the bill (H.R. 3309) to 
     amend title 35, United States Code, and the Leahy-Smith 
     America Invents Act to make improvements and technical 
     corrections, and for other purposes:

  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Innovation Act 
(H.R. 3309). While this legislation is not perfect, it represents an 
important step in our efforts to prevent patent assertion entities 
(PAE), commonly referred to as patent trolls, from extracting unfair 
and exorbitant settlements from innocent businesses through the threat 
of frivolous and expensive patent litigation.
  This legislation ensures that when alleging infringement in a 
lawsuit, a party must at least identify what patents and claims are 
being infringed upon, and provide specificity as to how they are being 
infringed. This will provide more clarity and integrity to patent 
infringement claims, shining a light on the disingenuous claims from 
patent trolls.
  Additionally, this legislation will help to protect the small 
businesses that have been accused of patent infringement for purchasing 
ubiquitous products and who are clearly not involved in the alleged 
infringement in a patent lawsuit. H.R. 3309 will allow for the action 
against the downstream customers to be stayed as the manufacturer of 
the product litigates the lawsuit. This is done so those with the 
knowledge of the production process, and not the innocent consumer, can 
argue the case--and it is only allowed if the customer agrees to be 
bound by the final judgment of the court.
  I do, however, continue to have reservations with several provisions 
in this bill. Primarily, I oppose the provision that allows in some 
cases for the shifting of court and legal fees from the prevailing 
parties. I believe this provision has the potential to discourage 
legitimate patent infringement lawsuits by inventors and owners of 
intellectual property that may not be deep pocketed. I am also worried 
about the precedent that this reform could set with respect to 
protecting access to the courts for all Americans. I voted for the 
substitute amendment proposed by Ranking Member Conyers

[[Page E1867]]

and Congressman Watt, which I believe strikes a more equitable balance 
than this legislation and which did not contain any fee shifting 
provisions. I look forward to continuing to work with our colleagues in 
the Senate to produce an ultimate agreement that stops patent trolls 
and continues to protect the pursuit of legitimate patent infringement 
claims.

                          ____________________