Changes

In efforts to diminish the Patent Troll threat by the bill sponsors, the Innovation Act has heightened heightens pleading requirements for parties filing for patent infringement. Form 18, the form previously used to submit generalized patent infringement claims, has been eliminated by the Judicial Conference in wide-sweeping amendments. This amendment was expected to be implemented December of 2015 and was made in an effort to heighten patent claim requirements by the Judicial Conference. <ref name="patentlyo18" /> The Innovation Act also proposes Form 18's elimination by the Supreme Court to reduce patent litigation, especially litigation involving Patent Trolls or Non-Practicing Entities.<ref name="nationallawreview" /> The Supreme Court would be allowed to codify a new model for filing infringement complaints that would include notifying the accused parties of the claim and its content. <ref name ="govtracksummary" />

As part of the Fees and Other Expenses provisions, an interested party or parties may be required to cover attorney's fees and other expenses in the case that the nonprevailing party cannot. The purpose Sponsors of this provision is the bill hope to prevent Patent Trolls from claiming the inability to pay fees by shuffling accounts between all of their companiesby including this provision. <ref name="innovationactprovisions" /> A joinder of interested parties may be called upon only if the prevailing party proves that the nonprevailing party has simply claimed patent infringement and has no other substantial interest in the issue. Parties that have invented or invested in the disputed patents may be considered to have substantial interestcalled upon. Parties that commercially practice or perform R&D in the same field as the patented technology or disputed subject matter may also be considered required to have substantial interest by cover the actfees. <ref name="govtracksummary" />

The act establishes that a claim construction ruling must occur prior to discovery. <ref name="patentlyoIA" /> Discovery is a process that occurs pre-trial in a civil action, a conflict between two private parties, and is defined by the federal government as any party's right to obtain relevant information for the trial. A claim construction ruling is a critical step in ruling on the validity of a patent and whether infringement has occurred. Claim construction defines exactly what a patent includes and the extent to which a patent holder can protect the subject matter. <ref name="claimconstruction" /> The provisions also specify that claim construction previously agreed upon in another court must hold when a patent claim is reviewed by the USPTO. <ref name="patentlyoIA" />

Courts do not have to stay, or suspend, The act states that discovery pending preliminary motion if both parties consent, the patent holder is awarded a preliminary injunction, or the case is transferred, dismissed, severed, or a party drops out of the case. <ref name="govtracksummary" /> A preliminary injunction forces a party to stop the actions supposedly infringing the patent prior to the court's finally ruling. Severing a lawsuit means separating the lawsuit into several parts additional or deciding a case on an individual basis if there are multiple defendants. Drugs and biological products may also be subject to exemption.<ref name=non "govtracksummarycore" /> Additional documents may not be disclosed approved unless the party requesting them covers the costs of discovery and all parties consent to discovery. <ref name="patentlyoIA" /> By enabling courts to limit discovery, the act intends sponsors hope to reduce litigation costs and targets patent trolls intending to settle a case quickly and early on by making use of information revealed in discovery. <ref name="innovationactsummary" />

To protect small businesses and other entities, the act requires that the patent owner explain the reason for the lawsuit and how the infringement has occurred to the accused party or parties. <ref name="innovationactprovisions" /> A demand letter sent prior to the lawsuit cannot be used as evidence of willful infringement unless the demand letter specifies which patent is being infringed, what is infringing the patent, the parent company that owns the patent, and the grounds for lawsuit. The grounds for lawsuit consist of how the one or more claims in the patent are being violated. <ref name="patentlyoIA" /> The purpose of this provision is to ensure act states that evasive demand letters are no longer considered in the review process. Plaintiffs plaintiffs who disregard the requirements and continue to send vague demand letters would be forced to pay additional damages. <ref name= "sectionsummary" />

The act reverts to Congress' original intention of patent lawsuit venues by allowing requires that patent infringement suits to only be heard in judicial districts with reasonable connection to the conflict. <ref name="sectionsummary" />

A judicial district in which the following have occurred is considered to have reasonable connection ot to the dispute: <ref name="govtracksummary" />

To protect manufacturing investments and patent owners, the act would prohibit prohibits foreign courts from eliminating a company's US IP licenses in bankruptcy, in accordance with US law. <ref name="sectionsummary" /> On the other hand, the act pushes for plaintiffs to deal with manufacturers rather than instead of the retailers or end users selling products or using processes that infringe on a patenthave purchased the manufacturer's claimsproducts. <ref name="patentlyoIA" />Courts may stay customer suits and hear suits brought before manufacturers accused of infringing the same patent. <ref name="govtracksummary" />