By Andrew Williams --
The House of Representatives earlier today passed H.R. 3309, the Innovation Act, by a 325 - 91 vote. Before voting on the bill, the House spent several hours debating and voting on a number of amendments. Other than a technical amendment introduced by Rep. Goodlatte (R-VA), the only other amendment approved by the House was introduced by Rep. Rohrabacher (R-CA), preserving 35 U.S.C. § 145, which allows a patent applicant to sue in district court to obtain a patent after a USPTO rejection. We will provide more detailed coverage of the House vote and the Innovation Act later today.
UPDATE: In addition to the two amendments referred to above, which were approved via recorded vote, the House also adopted two amendments to the bill via voice vote during debate. The first of these was introduced by Rep. Polis (D-CO), and included language requiring claimants to provide additional disclosure information in any pre-suit notification to be entitled to claim willful infringement. The second requires the Director to conduct a study regarding the economic impact of provisions of the Innovation Act on the ability of individuals and small businesses owned by women, veterans, and minorities to protect their "constitutionally guaranteed exclusive right" in their inventions, and was introduced by Rep. Jackson Lee (D-TX).
Andrew,
Sigh. A misguided bill in the extreme. Let's hope (even if faint) that the Senate doesn't pass this nonsensical bill.
Posted by: EG | December 05, 2013 at 01:29 PM
Sigh as well. Let us hope...Does anyone read the bills anymore before voting? Saw Dana Rohrabacher speak for thirty minutes on this bill and there is nothing in it that is worth voting "Aye" for.
Posted by: Donna Varesi | December 05, 2013 at 04:13 PM
EG: What is misguided about it? Could you include specifics? Many software engineers have been clamoring for this bill for a while. If it is flawed, you need to point out why!
Posted by: Moby Disk | December 05, 2013 at 05:03 PM
Dear Moby,
I won’t speak for EG, but he has articulated his thoughts about this bill in the comments to previous posts on the subject. However, one of the reasons that the bill appears misguided is that it professes to answer the perceived patent troll issue, but none of the provisions are tailored to address this problem. Instead, this bill impacts all patent enforcement efforts, and even impacts alleged infringers (the victims of the so-called trolls).
Andrew
Posted by: Andrew Williams | December 05, 2013 at 05:55 PM
Moby, since Kevin and Don are too polite to say it, I will: if you're asking the question, you must be new to this blog. Go back and read read earlier coverage of this bill on this blog and you'll understand why it's misguided.
Posted by: Goodlatte? Good grief! | December 05, 2013 at 06:39 PM
Dear Andrew,
Thanks, couldn't have responded better to MD. Your response has my endorsement.
Posted by: EG | December 06, 2013 at 07:48 AM