Innovation Protection Act - Revision history

Ed at 21:06, 14 March 2017

2017-03-14T21:06:37Z

Julia at 19:07, 2 September 2016

2016-09-02T19:07:29Z

Julia at 18:18, 2 September 2016

2016-09-02T18:18:42Z

Julia at 21:39, 31 August 2016

2016-08-31T21:39:32Z

DylanDickens at 21:50, 21 June 2016

2016-06-21T21:50:11Z

MarcelaInteriano at 17:08, 9 June 2016

2016-06-09T17:08:45Z

RichardGoldman: Created page with "Return to Patent Reform '''H.R.1896: Demand Letter Transparency Act of 2015''' [https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/house-bill/1896 (Congress)] The bill was int..."

2016-06-01T21:24:37Z

Created page with "Return to Patent Reform '''H.R.1896: Demand Letter Transparency Act of 2015''' [https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/house-bill/1896 (Congress)] The bill was int..."

imported>Albert: /* Summary */

2016-02-22T21:15:14Z

Summary

imported>Albert at 20:57, 22 February 2016

2016-02-22T20:57:47Z

imported>Albert at 20:57, 22 February 2016

2016-02-22T20:57:37Z

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
 Return to [[Innovation Policy#Patent Reform|Patent Reform]]
-'''H.R.1896: Demand Letter Transparency Act of 2015''' [https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/house-bill/1896 (Congress)]
+'''H.R.1832: Innovation Protection Act''' [https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/house-bill/1832 (Congress)]
 The bill was introduced by Republican Senator Jared Polis from Colorado and assigned to the House Judiciary Committee. The full title of the bill is "To amend chapter 26 of title 35, United States Code, to require the disclosure of information related to patent ownership, and for other purposes."

@@ Line 38: / Line 38: @@
 Requires the USPTO to consider good faith mistakes in the determination of whether to void a patent.
-[[Category: Internal]]
+[[Category: Public]]
-[[Internal Classification::Legislation| ]]
+[[Public Classification::Legislation| ]]

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:18, 2 September 2016
Line 1:		Line 1:
−	~~[[Category: Internal]]~~
−	~~[[Internal Classification::Legislation]]~~
−
	Return to [[Innovation Policy#Patent Reform\|Patent Reform]]		Return to [[Innovation Policy#Patent Reform\|Patent Reform]]

Line 40:		Line 37:

	Requires the USPTO to consider good faith mistakes in the determination of whether to void a patent.		Requires the USPTO to consider good faith mistakes in the determination of whether to void a patent.
		+
		+	[[Category: Internal]]
		+	[[Internal Classification::Legislation\| ]]

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:39, 31 August 2016
Line 1:		Line 1:
		+	[[Category: Internal]]
		+	[[Internal Classification::Legislation]]
		+
	Return to [[Innovation Policy#Patent Reform\|Patent Reform]]		Return to [[Innovation Policy#Patent Reform\|Patent Reform]]

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:50, 21 June 2016
Line 37:		Line 37:

	Requires the USPTO to consider good faith mistakes in the determination of whether to void a patent.		Requires the USPTO to consider good faith mistakes in the determination of whether to void a patent.
−
−	~~[[category:internal]]~~

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:08, 9 June 2016
Line 1:		Line 1:
−	Return to [[Patent Reform]]	+	Return to [[Innovation Policy#Patent Reform\|Patent Reform]]

	'''H.R.1896: Demand Letter Transparency Act of 2015''' [https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/house-bill/1896 (Congress)]		'''H.R.1896: Demand Letter Transparency Act of 2015''' [https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/house-bill/1896 (Congress)]

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
 Return to [[Patent Reform]]
-'''H.R.1832: Innovation Protection Act (2015)''' [https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/house-bill/1832 (Congress)]
+'''H.R.1896: Demand Letter Transparency Act of 2015''' [https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/house-bill/1896 (Congress)]
-The Innovation Protection Act was introduced on April 16, 2015, by Representative John Conyers, Jr. (D-MI) and referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.  On May 15, 2016, the bill was referred to the Subcommittee on Courts, Intellectual Property, and the Internet.
+The bill was introduced by Republican Senator Jared Polis from Colorado and assigned to the House Judiciary Committee. The full title of the bill is "To amend chapter 26 of title 35, United States Code, to require the disclosure of information related to patent ownership, and for other purposes."
-GovTrack predicts that the Innovation Protection Act has a 5% chance of being enacted. [https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/114/hr1832 (GovTrack)]
+GovTrack predicts that the Demand Letter Transparency Act has a 0% chance of being enacted.The latest action on the bill was in May of 2015 when it was referred to the Subcommittee on Courts, Intellectual Property, and the Internet.
 ==Summary==
-The Innovation Protection Act would establish a [[United States Patent and Trademark Office]] Public Enterprise Fund in the Treasury to be used as a "revolving fund by the Director of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) without fiscal year limitation."  It would replace the Patent and Trademark Office Appropriations Account, eliminate the Patent and Trademark Fee Reserve Fund established by the America Invents Act, and provide a permanent source of funding for the USPTO.  The act would also require that all of the fees collected by the PTO remain available to the PTO until they are spent.
+Requires any entity that sends a specified number of demand letters during any 365-day period to submit to the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), with respect to each patent that was the subject in each letter, a disclosure identifying:
-Under H.R. 1832, the USPTO would still be required to submit an annual budget to the President, an annual report and operation plan to Congress, and an annual spending plan to the Committee on Appropriations of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Appropriations of the Senate. The act allows the USPTO to keep and spend all of the fees it collects, even those in excess of current fiscal year projection. However, the USPTO retains its obligation to submit spending reports and budgets.
+*the patent, including a confirmation that the entity that sent the letter is the owner of the patent and is the last recorded entity in USPTO records for purposes of assignment, grant, or conveyance;
-H.R. 1832 is a reintroduction of H.R. 3349 (2013) [https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/113/hr3349], the Innovation Protection Act that Rep. Conyers proposed on 10/28/2013. H.R. 3349 was referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary and subsequently died in committee. The 2013 Innovation Protection Act had 16 cosponsors (10 Democrats and 6 Republicans).
+The bill defines "demand letter" as any written communication directed to an unaffiliated third party stating or indicating that the intended recipient, or anyone affiliated with that recipient, is or may be infringing a patent, or may bear liability or owe compensation to another because of such patent. The act also authorizes a court, in a patent infringement or validity action brought by an entity that does not meet such USPTO disclosure requirements, to sanction such entity for an amount to be awarded to the adverse party to cover any costs incurred as a result of such violation.The act exempts from such disclosure requirements: (1) original or joint inventors, (2) institutions of higher education, and (3) technology transfer organizations facilitating the commercialization of technology developed by institutions of higher education. The act directs the USPTO to establish a publicly accessible and searchable database of the information obtained pursuant to such disclosures.
-H.R. 1832 currently has 22 cosponsors (18 Democrats and 4 Republicans). Govtrack gives the bill a 5% chance of being enacted.[https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/114/hr1832] The legislation is currently in the House Judiciary Committee.
+The act requires any demand letter sent to another entity to include specified information concerning:
-Sheila Jackson Lee (D-TX18) is a cosponsor for the H.R. 1832, and was a cosponsor for H.R. 3349 (2013).[https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/114/hr1832]
+*each claim of each patent allegedly infringed, including each accused instrumentality;

← Older revision		Revision as of 20:57, 22 February 2016
Line 10:		Line 10:

	The Innovation Protection Act would establish a United States Patent and Trademark Office Public Enterprise Fund in the Treasury to be used as a "revolving fund by the Director of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) without fiscal year limitation." It would replace the Patent and Trademark Office Appropriations Account, eliminate the Patent and Trademark Fee Reserve Fund established by the America Invents Act, and provide a permanent source of funding for the USPTO. The act would also require that all of the fees collected by the PTO remain available to the PTO until they are spent.		The Innovation Protection Act would establish a United States Patent and Trademark Office Public Enterprise Fund in the Treasury to be used as a "revolving fund by the Director of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) without fiscal year limitation." It would replace the Patent and Trademark Office Appropriations Account, eliminate the Patent and Trademark Fee Reserve Fund established by the America Invents Act, and provide a permanent source of funding for the USPTO. The act would also require that all of the fees collected by the PTO remain available to the PTO until they are spent.
−

	Under H.R. 1832, the USPTO would still be required to submit an annual budget to the President, an annual report and operation plan to Congress, and an annual spending plan to the Committee on Appropriations of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Appropriations of the Senate. The act allows the USPTO to keep and spend all of the fees it collects, even those in excess of current fiscal year projection. However, the USPTO retains its obligation to submit spending reports and budgets.		Under H.R. 1832, the USPTO would still be required to submit an annual budget to the President, an annual report and operation plan to Congress, and an annual spending plan to the Committee on Appropriations of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Appropriations of the Senate. The act allows the USPTO to keep and spend all of the fees it collects, even those in excess of current fiscal year projection. However, the USPTO retains its obligation to submit spending reports and budgets.