Baldwin (WI)

#4

(WITHDRAWN)  This amendment strikes the provisions of the bill that expand prior user rights.  It also directs the Assistant Secretary of Patents and Trademarks to conduct a study on whether prior user rights laws in other countries promote innovation, the creation of start-up companies, and technology transfer.

Conyers (MI)/Berman (CA)

#12

Manager's Amendment.  (REVISED)  The manager's amendment incorporates a number of revisions.  They include revisions to the sections on damages, willful infringement, prior user rights, post-grant review, venue, inequitable conduct, applicant disclosure information, inventor's oath requirements, among others.

Gohmert (TX)

#7

This amendment permits nonprofit organizations to file patent suits where they reside, and also allows the initial holder of a patent to file suit where he resides, is incorporated, or has a principal place of business.

Gohmert (TX)

#8

The amendment eliminates the requirement of a defendant having substantial evidence or witnesses before a request to transfer will be considered and substitutes a standard that substantial fairness would be accommodated.  The amendment also allows a court to consider the case loads and potential delays of other courts when considering a request to transfer a patent case.

Gohmert (TX)

#9

This amendment would add a venue transfer section to the bill and allows a court to consider the substantial fairness to the litigants as well as the case loads and potential delays of other courts when considering a request to transfer a patent case.

Gohmert (TX)

#10

This amendment would allow a patent suit to be filed in any district or division where the defendant committed a substantial portion of the acts of infringement.  It eliminates the jurisdictional requirement that a defendant have a regular and established physical facility that the defendant controls and that constitutes a substantial portion of the operations of the defendant.

Issa (CA)

#5

The bill eliminates provisions in the law permitting certain applicants to delay or prevent publication of their applications.  This amendment would strike that provision and permit applicants to delay publication until the later of (1) three months after a second PTO decision or (2) 18 months after the filing date. 

Issa (CA)

#6

Amends the section relating to United States Patent and Trademark Office regulatory authority by adding the requirement that Congress be provided 60 days to review regulations before they take effect. Congress may bar implementation of the regulation by enactment of a joint resolution of disapproval. 

Jackson-Lee (TX)

#14

(REVISED)  This amendment requires the Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office to conduct a study of patent damage awards in cases from at least 1990 to the present where such awards have been based on a reasonable royalty under Section 284 of Title 35 of the United States Code.  The Director the PTO would be required to submit the findings to Congress no later than one year after the Act's enactment. 

Latham (IA)

#1

The amendment increases to 15% (from 5%) of their budgets the amount in certain funding agreements relating to patents and nonprofit organizations to be used for scientific research, development, and education, and for other purposes, by organizations having budgets less than $40 million.

Lofgren (CA)

#13

(REVISED)  The amendment would replace the bill's venue provision.  The amendment adds a provision for foreign defendants with no U.S. presence, and expands the provision governing universities and related organizations.  The amendment eliminates the bill's current transfer provision and also permits transfer of some pending cases.

Pence (IN)

#3

Amends the provisions governing post-grant review proceedings to prohibit a post-grant review from being instituted based upon the best mode requirement of patent law.

Watt (NC)

#2

(WITHDRAWN)  This amendment removes language from the bill that requires the court to exclude from the analysis of damages the economic value attributable to the prior art, and other features or improvements that contribute economic value to the infringing product or process.

Waxman (CA)

#11

This amendment would strike the bill's provision regarding holding a patent unenforceable due to inequitable conduct and substitute language for pleading an inequitable conduct defense in a patent infringement case and language for a framework of remedies in instances where inequitable conduct is found.