The Innovation Act is Bad News for America’s Patent System

My office has prepared the following information to help educate the American people and my colleagues in Congress about H.R. 9:


The Innovation Act (H.R. 9) goes well beyond what is needed to address bad actions of a small number of patent holders, and instead raises costs for all legitimate patent holders to enforce their Constitutionally-given property rights in court. The perceived need for legislation to address abusive litigation practices already is being dealt with effectively by the Supreme Court, the U.S. Patent & Trademark Office, and the Federal Trade Commission. Any legislative action should be limited and focused on specific abusive behavior, not the overly broad approach on procedural aspects of enforcing patents as H.R. 9 does.

The Innovation Act’s Negative Impacts

  • H.R. 9 will chill investment in patent-intensive companies, depressing innovation and job creation.
  • H.R. 9 will make it more difficult, risky, and expensive for emerging companies to enforce their patents.
  • H.R. 9 will increase costs and risks for smaller companies trying to defend against patent litigation brought by larger, incumbent competitors.
  • H.R. 9 will make conditions hostile for small inventors and is opposed by small inventors, at least 144 major universities, and other organizations including Club for Growth, American Conservative Union, biotech & pharmaceutical advocates, Business & Industry Council, and venture capitalist & patent advocates.


Five Dangerous Provisions Included in The Innovation Act

  1. Mandatory fee-shifting (Loser Pays) requires courts to award attorneys’ fees and costs to the winning party, with a possible waiver of fee-shifting based on vague, subjective criteria.The prospect of substantially increased financial risk will discourage individual inventors and small business patent holders lacking extensive litigation resources from enforcing their patents. This increased risk will deter potential licensees and venture capitalists from investing in patents, reducing the number of research discoveries that advance the marketplace.
  2. Involuntary joinder pierces the corporate veil to apply Loser Pay to all “interested parties,” forcing investors to pay damages for actions of third parties over which they had no control. This threat will drastically reduce investment in inventors, patents, startup and technology companies, and patent licensing.
  3. Excessive Heightened Pleading Standards require patent holders to allege, beyond what every other party in any civil action is required, how each asserted claim under a given patent is found within each infringing process, product, or instrumentality.The Act’s rigorous requirements may effectively bar valid infringement claims as an unintended consequence.
  4. Discovery limitations require courts to delay a patent holder’s discovery requests until a hearing on the claims of the patent is completed. This delay deprives the patent holder from obtaining valuable information to form the case, will increase attorneys fees, and will prolong the litigation.
  5. Shrinking Post Grant Review (PGR) Estoppel incentivizes infringers to prolong litigation and bankrupt an individual inventor or small business patent holder. The bill strikes “or reasonably could have raised” from current law prohibiting petitioner from later arguing “any ground that the petitioner raised or reasonably could have raised during the post-grant review.” A petitioner could effectively slow walk the PGR process by filing a PGR under one ground while holding back other grounds until the first PGR is completed. If they do not get the result they want, they can file another PGR under the ground they held back or bring it up in court. This will prolong court costs and raise attorney fees.


Warning & Disclaimer: The pages, articles and comments on do not constitute legal advice, nor do they create any attorney-client relationship. The articles published express the personal opinion and views of the author as of the time of publication and should not be attributed to the author’s employer, clients or the sponsors of

Join the Discussion

8 comments so far.

  • [Avatar for Gene Quinn]
    Gene Quinn
    July 3, 2015 01:10 pm


    Your comment is amusing to the point of comedy. A paid-off puppet? I suppose all the Members of Congress who believe exactly opposite and have received generous contributions from the patent infringer lobby are only taking their positions because they believe in them wholeheartedly. LOL.

    Thanks for the laugh with such an obnoxiously ridiculous comment.


  • [Avatar for Sampson Simon]
    Sampson Simon
    July 3, 2015 06:34 am

    You sound like a paid-off puppet.

  • [Avatar for Night Writer]
    Night Writer
    April 28, 2015 03:08 pm

    Wow this a great summary of the problems. Thank you. I think the problem we have, though, is that no matter how many of these battles we win, the big corp keeps pushing another one on us.

  • [Avatar for Steve Taylor]
    Steve Taylor
    April 27, 2015 12:40 pm

    How can the rest of us assist your efforts to stop the death of the small inventor?
    stopHR9 at ipstrom dot com

  • [Avatar for Barry Leff]
    Barry Leff
    April 27, 2015 10:29 am

    Nice to see someone in Congress who gets it.

  • [Avatar for F. Callis]
    F. Callis
    April 27, 2015 09:58 am

    The summary is perfect. Good luck in helping protect our rights and thank you for standing up for startup America…

  • [Avatar for Anon2]
    April 27, 2015 09:19 am

    An excellent example of someone in congress who objectively understands the issues.

  • [Avatar for Warren Tuttle]
    Warren Tuttle
    April 27, 2015 07:37 am

    Wow…couldn’t have said it better.

Varsity Sponsors

IPWatchdog Events

Webinar – Sponsored by UnitedLex
May 2 @ 12:00 pm - 1:00 pm EDT
Webinar – Sponsored by Quartz IP
May 9 @ 12:00 pm - 1:00 pm EDT
Patent Litigation Masters™ 2024
May 13 @ 11:30 am - May 15 @ 2:00 pm EDT
Webinar – Sponsored by LexisNexis
May 16 @ 12:00 pm - 1:00 pm EDT
Webinar – Sponsored by Anaqua
June 6 @ 12:00 pm - 1:00 pm EDT

From IPWatchdog