Yet Another "Patent-Troll" Bill – Senator Leahy Introduces Patent Transparency and Improvements Act

by McDonnell Boehnen Hulbert & Berghoff LLP

Washington - Capitol #4There has been a flurry activity recently in both the House and Senate aimed at addressing the perceived patent-troll problem.  We have recently reported on the introduction of both the "Innovation Act," from Rep. Bob Goodlatte (R-Va), and the "Patent Litigation Integrity Act," from Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah).  The Goodlatte bill was marked-up today by the House Judiciary Committee in a session that lasted into the early evening (we will provide details on the amendments at a future date).  In addition, on the heels of a hearing by the U.S. House Energy & Commerce subcommittee on "The Impact of Patent Assertion Entities on Innovation and the Economy," Rep. Jared Polis (D-Co.) introduced the "Demand Letter Transparency Act."  According to a statement on Rep. Polis's website, this Act "strikes the right balance in protecting the rights of legitimate patent holders to enforce their patents while protecting consumers and businesses against non-legitimate abusers of the patent system."  Adding to this ever-increasing mass of proposed legislation, Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.), chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee, introduced S. 1720 (the "Patent Transparency and Improvements Act of 2013") on Monday, November 18, 2013.  Because this Act contains some provisions not found in any of the other pieces of legislation, and because of Sen. Leahy's influential position in Congress with regard to intellectual-property matters, an analysis of the provisions of this Act is warranted.

Transparency of Patent Ownership

As the title of the Act would suggest, one of the provisions of the bill is aimed at making the ownership of patents transparent.  Sen. Leahy has a couple of different ways to accomplish this.  First, any patentee that files an action in Federal Court would be required to disclose any and all persons that have a financial interest in the controversy or a party to the proceedings, or that have an interest that could be affected by the outcome of the proceedings.  The complication comes in the definition of "financial interest."  The proposed legislation refers to 28 U.S.C § 455(d), which is the section of the U.S. Code that addresses the disqualification of federal judges.  "Financial interest" is defined as "ownership of a legal or equitable interest, however small, or a relationship as director, advisor, or other active participant in the affairs of a party," providing any of the enumerated exceptions do not apply, such as passive ownership through a mutual or common investment fund.  As a result, a publically traded corporation brining a patent infringement lawsuit would be required to provide a list of every stockholder, no matter how many (or few) shares are actually owned.  Such a requirement would be incredibly onerous, and would serve as a significant barrier to patent litigation for such patent holders.

Another "solution" provided for in this bill is an assignment disclosure requirement at the U.S. Patent Office.  When "all substantial rights in an issued patent" have been assigned, the name of the assignee and the ultimate parent entity of the assignee would need to be recorded with the Office within three months.  However, the only hint as to what "all" substantial rights means in this context is whether the assignment "results in a change to the ultimate parent entity."  The penalty for not complying would be that a party asserting infringement "may not recover increased damages under section 284 or attorney fees under section 285 with respect to infringing activities taking place during any period of noncompliance," and the party may be responsible for the reasonable attorney fees incurred by an alleged infringer in discovering the "ultimate patent entities in the chain of title."  Nevertheless, in relation to other mandatory assignment recordation provisions that have been discussed, this one does not appear to be overly demanding.  If this provision passes, it would behoove any patent owner to confirm that all assignments had been properly recorded at the first signs of any potential infringing activity.  It would also be necessary to conduct the proper due diligence related to assignment recordation before taking any interest in a patent, because the ability to recover such fees for some period of time may already have been forfeited.

Customer Stay

In order to address the concern that "patent trolls" are preying on customers, not manufacturers, Sen. Leahy's bill contains a provision allowing for the stay of litigations where both a customer and manufacturer have been sued for patent infringement.  This section is not dissimilar to other proposed legislation.  The requirement for the grant of a motion for stay would include the consent in writing of both the manufacturer and the customer, that the manufacturer be a party to the action or a separate action involving the same patents and relating to the same product or process, that the customer must agree to be bound by the decision, and that the motion must be filed early in the case.  The Act also provides that the stay can be lifted by a motion showing that a major issue in the customer action will not be resolved by the manufacturer action, or if the stay would unreasonably prejudice the party seeking to lift the stay.  Finally, the estoppel effect of the stay could be waived if the manufacturer seeks or consents to a consent judgment or fails to prosecution to a final, non-appealable judgment at least one common issue that gave rise to the stay.

Bad-Faith Demand Letters

There has been a lot of activity in the past week or so directed to the impact of demand letters on the patent system.  This is interesting, because demand letters themselves do not necessarily fall within the scope of the patent statute.  Still, the prototypic activity of a putative "patent troll" is the sending of demand letters, and if the anecdotal evidence is to be believed, all of these letters have little to no information.  However, any attempt to solve this problem through legislation will certainly have unintended consequences, likely to detriment of legitimate patent holders.  Moreover, it is difficult to see how the First Amendment rights of patent holders can be protected in the attempt to curtail this practice.  Finally, it would appear that one potential out for the patent holder would be to pre-emptively file a complaint, which could then be included with, or substituted for, any demand letter.  Of course, Rule 11 would need to be satisfied.  Nevertheless, it would appear that to have the intended effect, "demand letter" legislation will need to go hand-in-hand with some form of heightened pleading standards.  The concern is that such legislation may introduce more problems than it solves, as we have highlighted in previous posts in this forum.

The Leahy bill addresses the demand letter issue by empowering the Federal Trade Commission to consider such conduct an "unfair or deceptive act or practice."  In order to be classified as such, the patent holder must "engage in the widespread sending of written communications" that "falsely threaten that administrative or judicial relief will be sought if compensation is not paid or the infringement issue is not otherwise resolved."  The demand letter would also be considered to be "unfair or deceptive" if it lacks a reasonable basis in fact or law, or if the content "is likely to materially mislead a reasonable recipient."  Of course, the success of this section will depend on the definitions of several key terms.  For example, just what does it mean to "falsely threaten"?  Will this apply anytime a lawsuit does not result?  Or will it be necessary to demonstrate that the patent holder never had any intention of filing suit (which may be difficult to prove without a "smoking gun").  Still, by giving the power to the FTC to combat this issue, it may solve some of the issues that were highlighted above for any attempt to directly legislate the issue.

AIA-Related Provisions

The Leahy bill also includes provisions that expand upon some of the changes brought about by the America Invents Act ("AIA").  For example, the bill provides for the use of claim construction rules in post-grant and inter partes reviews that are consistent with those used in federal court.  Currently, the Patent Trial and Appeals Board ("PTAB") uses the broadest reasonable interpretation standard, similar to that employed by the Office during the patent application examination process.  The problem is that these two different claim construction rules could result in two different oppositely-dispositive constructions based solely on while rule was applied.  There is general agreement that such a provision is necessary.  Another AIA-related provision is the codification of the double-patenting doctrine for first-inventor-to-file patents.  Finally, Leahy's bill includes some technical corrections to the AIA.

Other Miscellaneous Provisions

Leahy's Patent Transparency and Improvements Act of 2013 also contains several provisions that do not fall within these various categories.  First, the bill provides for small business education and outreach.  The only issue is that it must be funded from existing sources.  Next, there is a section of the bill that provides for the protection of intellectual-property licenses in bankruptcy.  Finally, the bill calls for several studies to be carried out by the Patent Office or other organizations.  For example, the bill requires the Patent Office Director to undertake a study "to develop legislative recommendations to ensure greater transparency and accountability in patent transactions occurring on the secondary market," "to examine the economic impact that the patent secondary market has on the United States," "to examine licensing and other oversight requirements that may be placed on the patent secondary market," and "to examine the requirements placed on other markets."  The bill would also require the Director to conduct a study on patents owned by the United States Government.  The GAO would be required to study patent examination at the Office and the technologies available to improve patent quality.  Finally, the Director of the Administrative Office of the United States Court would be charged with conducting a study to examine the idea of a patent small claims court.  These studies are clearly an attempt to get at the heart of a lot of the complaints that have been levied at the so-called patent trolls.

We will continue to monitor the legislative activity in Congress directed to patents and addressing perceived abusive patent litigation, and we will continue to report on any significant activity that occurs.


DISCLAIMER: Because of the generality of this update, the information provided herein may not be applicable in all situations and should not be acted upon without specific legal advice based on particular situations.

© McDonnell Boehnen Hulbert & Berghoff LLP | Attorney Advertising

Written by:

McDonnell Boehnen Hulbert & Berghoff LLP

McDonnell Boehnen Hulbert & Berghoff LLP on:

Readers' Choice 2017
Reporters on Deadline

"My best business intelligence, in one easy email…"

Your first step to building a free, personalized, morning email brief covering pertinent authors and topics on JD Supra:
Sign up using*

Already signed up? Log in here

*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.
Custom Email Digest
Privacy Policy (Updated: October 8, 2015):

JD Supra provides users with access to its legal industry publishing services (the "Service") through its website (the "Website") as well as through other sources. Our policies with regard to data collection and use of personal information of users of the Service, regardless of the manner in which users access the Service, and visitors to the Website are set forth in this statement ("Policy"). By using the Service, you signify your acceptance of this Policy.

Information Collection and Use by JD Supra

JD Supra collects users' names, companies, titles, e-mail address and industry. JD Supra also tracks the pages that users visit, logs IP addresses and aggregates non-personally identifiable user data and browser type. This data is gathered using cookies and other technologies.

The information and data collected is used to authenticate users and to send notifications relating to the Service, including email alerts to which users have subscribed; to manage the Service and Website, to improve the Service and to customize the user's experience. This information is also provided to the authors of the content to give them insight into their readership and help them to improve their content, so that it is most useful for our users.

JD Supra does not sell, rent or otherwise provide your details to third parties, other than to the authors of the content on JD Supra.

If you prefer not to enable cookies, you may change your browser settings to disable cookies; however, please note that rejecting cookies while visiting the Website may result in certain parts of the Website not operating correctly or as efficiently as if cookies were allowed.

Email Choice/Opt-out

Users who opt in to receive emails may choose to no longer receive e-mail updates and newsletters by selecting the "opt-out of future email" option in the email they receive from JD Supra or in their JD Supra account management screen.


JD Supra takes reasonable precautions to insure that user information is kept private. We restrict access to user information to those individuals who reasonably need access to perform their job functions, such as our third party email service, customer service personnel and technical staff. However, please note that no method of transmitting or storing data is completely secure and we cannot guarantee the security of user information. Unauthorized entry or use, hardware or software failure, and other factors may compromise the security of user information at any time.

If you have reason to believe that your interaction with us is no longer secure, you must immediately notify us of the problem by contacting us at In the unlikely event that we believe that the security of your user information in our possession or control may have been compromised, we may seek to notify you of that development and, if so, will endeavor to do so as promptly as practicable under the circumstances.

Sharing and Disclosure of Information JD Supra Collects

Except as otherwise described in this privacy statement, JD Supra will not disclose personal information to any third party unless we believe that disclosure is necessary to: (1) comply with applicable laws; (2) respond to governmental inquiries or requests; (3) comply with valid legal process; (4) protect the rights, privacy, safety or property of JD Supra, users of the Service, Website visitors or the public; (5) permit us to pursue available remedies or limit the damages that we may sustain; and (6) enforce our Terms & Conditions of Use.

In the event there is a change in the corporate structure of JD Supra such as, but not limited to, merger, consolidation, sale, liquidation or transfer of substantial assets, JD Supra may, in its sole discretion, transfer, sell or assign information collected on and through the Service to one or more affiliated or unaffiliated third parties.

Links to Other Websites

This Website and the Service may contain links to other websites. The operator of such other websites may collect information about you, including through cookies or other technologies. If you are using the Service through the Website and link to another site, you will leave the Website and this Policy will not apply to your use of and activity on those other sites. We encourage you to read the legal notices posted on those sites, including their privacy policies. We shall have no responsibility or liability for your visitation to, and the data collection and use practices of, such other sites. This Policy applies solely to the information collected in connection with your use of this Website and does not apply to any practices conducted offline or in connection with any other websites.

Changes in Our Privacy Policy

We reserve the right to change this Policy at any time. Please refer to the date at the top of this page to determine when this Policy was last revised. Any changes to our privacy policy will become effective upon posting of the revised policy on the Website. By continuing to use the Service or Website following such changes, you will be deemed to have agreed to such changes. If you do not agree with the terms of this Policy, as it may be amended from time to time, in whole or part, please do not continue using the Service or the Website.

Contacting JD Supra

If you have any questions about this privacy statement, the practices of this site, your dealings with this Web site, or if you would like to change any of the information you have provided to us, please contact us at:

- hide
*With LinkedIn, you don't need to create a separate login to manage your free JD Supra account, and we can make suggestions based on your needs and interests. We will not post anything on LinkedIn in your name. Or, sign up using your email address.