New Year, New Congress, Same Patent Reform Legislation
Client Alert | 2 min read | 02.06.15
On February 5, 2015, House Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.) re-introduced the Innovation Act (H.R. 9). The Act is nearly identical to legislation that the House passed in 2013. According to its sponsors, the Innovation Act broadly seeks to curb the "abusive practices" of non-practicing entities, so-called "patent trolls." Specifically, the Act would:
- require parties claiming willful infringement to identify the parent entity in demand letters;
- impose heightened pleading standards, requiring patent holders to more clearly assert which patents and claims are at issue and the specific products that allegedly infringe;
- mandate fee shifting measures where the loser, unless "reasonably justified in law and fact," would pay the winning party's fees; and
- limit the scope and breadth of discovery before a court's construction of the patent claims at issue.
The bill also proposes a substantive shift in patent law, requiring the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office's Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) to construe patent claims during post-grant proceedings using the "ordinary skill in the art" standard used at the district court level. Currently, the PTAB applies the "broadest reasonable interpretation" standard to the review of patent claims—a standard the Federal Circuit affirmed earlier this week in its first American Invents Act appeal ruling in In Re Cuozzo.
This Innovation Act is co-sponsored by Representative Peter DeFazio (D-Ore.); Subcommittee on Courts, Intellectual Property, and the Internet Chairman Darrell Issa (R-Calif.); Subcommittee on Courts, Intellectual Property, and the Internet Ranking Member Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.); Science, Space and Technology Committee Chairman Lamar Smith (R-Texas); Representative Zoe Logren (D-Calif.); and Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Communications, and Technology Ranking Member Anna Eshoo (D-Calif.).
Supporters, particularly those in the technology sector, have said that the Innovation Act is an important step toward curbing abusive litigation by "patent trolls," who they say effectively tax innovation with no perceptible benefit. Other groups, including those representing small businesses, had mixed reactions to the bill. Notably, the Coalition of Small Business Innovators, a national, non-partisan coalition of organizations dedicated to stimulating sustained, private investment in small companies, praised the bill. BIO, which represents companies in the biotech industry, expressed concern that the Innovation Act may do more harm than good because it may discourage small companies from enforcing their intellectual property rights against patent infringers. The Innovation Alliance, for another example, has expressed skepticism about the broad scope and reach of the bill, especially in light of recent and rapid developments in patent law that seem to be diminishing the patent troll threat already.
Although the last iteration of the Innovation Act ultimately failed in the Senate, supporters of the current bill are more optimistic this time around with a new congress and the continued support from the White House.
Contacts
Insights
Client Alert | 5 min read | 12.12.25
Eleventh Circuit Hears Argument on False Claims Act Qui Tam Constitutionality
On the morning of December 12, 2025, the Eleventh Circuit heard argument in United States ex rel. Zafirov v. Florida Medical Associates, LLC, et al., No. 24-13581 (11th Cir. 2025). This case concerns the constitutionality of the False Claims Act (FCA) qui tam provisions and a groundbreaking September 2024 opinion in which the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida held that the FCA’s qui tam provisions were unconstitutional under Article II. See United States ex rel. Zafirov v. Fla. Med. Assocs., LLC, 751 F. Supp. 3d 1293 (M.D. Fla. 2024). That decision, penned by District Judge Kathryn Kimball Mizelle, was the first success story for a legal theory that has been gaining steam ever since Justices Thomas, Barrett, and Kavanaugh indicated they would be willing to consider arguments about the constitutionality of the qui tam provisions in U.S. ex rel. Polansky v. Exec. Health Res., 599 U.S. 419 (2023). In her opinion, Judge Mizelle held (1) qui tam relators are officers of the U.S. who must be appointed under the Appointments Clause; and (2) historical practice treating qui tam and similar relators as less than “officers” for constitutional purposes was not enough to save the qui tam provisions from the fundamental Article II infirmity the court identified. That ruling was appealed and, after full briefing, including by the government and a bevy of amici, the litigants stepped up to the plate this morning for oral argument.
Client Alert | 8 min read | 12.11.25
Director Squires Revamps the Workings of the U.S. Patent Office
Client Alert | 8 min read | 12.10.25
Creativity You Can Use: CJEU Clarifies Copyright for Applied Art
Client Alert | 4 min read | 12.10.25
Federal Court Strikes Down Interior Order Suspending Wind Energy Development


