(A) generate tens of millions of jobs for in-
dividuals in the United States; and 
(B) account for more than 1⁄3 of the gross 
domestic product of the United States. 
(7) The National Security Commission on Arti-
ficial Intelligence has emphasized that— 
(A) the People’s Republic of China is 
leveraging and exploiting intellectual property 
as a critical tool within its national strategies 
for emerging technologies; and 
(B) the United States has failed to simi-
larly recognize the importance of intellectual 
property in securing its own national security, 
economic interests, and technological competi-
tiveness. 
(8) In the highly competitive global economy, 
the United States needs reliable and effective patent 
protections to safeguard national security interests 
and maintain its position as the most innovative 
country in the world. 
(9) Congress last enacted comprehensive re-
forms of the patent system in 2011. 
(10) Unintended consequences of the com-
prehensive 2011 reform of patent laws have become 
evident during the decade preceding the date of en-
VerDate Sep 11 2014 
22:26 Jul 27, 2023
Jkt 039200
PO 00000
Frm 00003
Fmt 6652
Sfmt 6201
E:\BILLS\H4370.IH
H4370
pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with $$_JOB
actment of this Act, including the strategic filing of 
post-grant review proceedings to depress stock prices 
and extort settlements, the filing of repetitive peti-
tions for inter partes and post-grant reviews that 
have the effect of harassing patent owners, and the 
unnecessary duplication of work by the district 
courts of the United States and the Patent Trial 
and Appeal Board, all of which drive down invest-
ment in innovation and frustrate the purpose of 
those patent reform laws. 
(11) Efforts by Congress to reform the patent 
system without careful scrutiny create a serious risk 
of making it more costly and difficult for innovators 
to protect their patents from infringement, there-
by— 
(A) disincentivizing United States compa-
nies from innovating; and 
(B) weakening the economy of the United 
States. 
SEC. 3. PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD. 
Section 6 of title 35, United States Code, is amend-
ed— 
(1) by redesignating subsections (b), (c), and 
(d) as subsections (c), (d), and (e), respectively; 
VerDate Sep 11 2014 
22:26 Jul 27, 2023
Jkt 039200
PO 00000
Frm 00004
Fmt 6652
Sfmt 6201
E:\BILLS\H4370.IH
H4370
pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with $$_JOB
(2) by inserting after subsection (a) the fol-
lowing: 
‘‘(b) CODE OF CONDUCT.— 
‘‘(1) IN
GENERAL.—The Director shall pre-
scribe regulations establishing a code of conduct for 
the members of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. 
‘‘(2) CONSIDERATIONS.—In prescribing regula-
tions under paragraph (1), the Director shall con-
sider the Code of Conduct for United States Judges 
and how the provisions of that Code of Conduct may 
apply to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board.’’; 
(3) by striking subsection (d), as so redesig-
nated, and inserting the following: 
‘‘(d) 3-MEMBER PANELS.— 
‘‘(1) IN
GENERAL.—Each appeal, derivation 
proceeding, post-grant review, and inter partes re-
view shall be heard by at least 3 members of the 
Patent Trial and Appeal Board, who shall be des-
ignated by the Director. The Patent Trial and Ap-
peal Board may grant rehearings. 
‘‘(2) CHANGES TO CONSTITUTION OF PANEL.— 
After the constitution of a panel of the Patent Trial 
and Appeal Board under this subsection has been 
made public, any changes to the constitution of that 
panel, including changes that were made before the 
VerDate Sep 11 2014 
22:26 Jul 27, 2023
Jkt 039200
PO 00000
Frm 00005
Fmt 6652
Sfmt 6201
E:\BILLS\H4370.IH
H4370
pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with $$_JOB
constitution of the panel was made public, shall be 
noted in the record. 
‘‘(3) NO DIRECTION OR INFLUENCE.—An offi-
cer who has supervisory authority or disciplinary au-
thority with respect to an administrative patent 
judge of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (or a 
delegate of such an officer), and who is not a mem-
ber of a panel described in this subsection, shall re-
frain from communications with the panel that di-
rect or otherwise influence any merits decision of the 
panel. 
‘‘(4) INELIGIBILITY
TO
HEAR
REVIEW.—A 
member of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board who 
participates in the decision to institute an inter 
partes review or a post-grant review of a patent shall 
be ineligible to hear the review.’’; and 
(4) in subsection (e), as so redesignated— 
(A) in the first sentence— 
(i) by striking ‘‘this subsection’’ and 
inserting ‘‘the date of enactment of the 
Promoting and Respecting Economically 
Vital American Innovation Leadership 
Act’’; 
VerDate Sep 11 2014 
22:26 Jul 27, 2023
Jkt 039200
PO 00000
Frm 00006
Fmt 6652
Sfmt 6201
E:\BILLS\H4370.IH
H4370
pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with $$_JOB
(ii) by striking ‘‘by the Director’’ and 
inserting ‘‘by the Director or the Sec-
retary’’; and 
(iii) by inserting ‘‘or the Secretary, as 
applicable,’’ after ‘‘on which the Director’’; 
and 
(B) in the second sentence— 
(i) by inserting after ‘‘by the Direc-
tor’’ the following: ‘‘, or, before the date of 
enactment of the Promoting and Respect-
ing Economically Vital American Innova-
tion Leadership Act, having performed du-
ties no longer performed by administrative 
patent judges,’’; and 
(ii) by striking ‘‘that the administra-
tive patent judge so appointed’’ and insert-
ing ‘‘that the applicable administrative pat-
ent judge’’. 
SEC. 4. INTER PARTES REVIEW. 
(a) STANDING AND REAL PARTIES IN INTEREST.— 
Section 311 of title 35, United States Code, is amended 
by adding at the end the following: 
‘‘(d) PERSONS THAT MAY PETITION.— 
‘‘(1) DEFINITION.—In this subsection, the term 
‘charged with infringement’ means a real and sub-
VerDate Sep 11 2014 
22:26 Jul 27, 2023
Jkt 039200
PO 00000
Frm 00007
Fmt 6652
Sfmt 6201
E:\BILLS\H4370.IH
H4370
pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with $$_JOB
stantial controversy regarding infringement of a pat-
ent exists such that the person would have standing 
to bring a declaratory judgment action in Federal 
court. 
‘‘(2) NECESSARY CONDITIONS.—A person may 
not file with the Office a petition to institute an 
inter partes review of a patent unless the person, or 
a real party in interest or a privy of the person, has 
been— 
‘‘(A) sued for infringement of the patent; 
or 
‘‘(B) charged with infringement of the pat-
ent. 
‘‘(e) REAL PARTY IN INTEREST.—For purposes of 
this chapter, a person that, directly or through an affiliate, 
subsidiary, or proxy, makes a financial contribution to the 
preparation for, or conduct during, an inter partes review 
on behalf of a petitioner shall be considered a real party 
in interest of that petitioner.’’. 
(b) INSTITUTION DECISION REHEARING TIMING.— 
Section 314 of title 35, United States Code, is amended 
by adding at the end the following: 
‘‘(e) REHEARING.—Not later than 45 days after the 
date on which a request for rehearing from a determina-
tion by the Director under subsection (b) is filed, the Di-
VerDate Sep 11 2014 
22:26 Jul 27, 2023
Jkt 039200
PO 00000
Frm 00008
Fmt 6652
Sfmt 6201
E:\BILLS\H4370.IH
H4370
pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with $$_JOB
rector shall finally decide any request for reconsideration, 
rehearing, or review with respect to the determination, ex-
cept that the Director may, for good cause shown, extend 
that 45-day period by not more than 30 days.’’. 
(c) ELIMINATING REPETITIVE PROCEEDINGS.— 
(1) IN
GENERAL.—Section 315 of title 35, 
United States Code, is amended— 
(A) in subsection (b), by amending the sec-
ond sentence to read as follows: ‘‘The time limi-
tation set forth in the preceding sentence shall 
not bar a request for joinder under subsection 
(d), but shall establish a rebuttable presump-
tion against joinder for the requesting person.’’; 
(B) by redesignating subsections (c), (d), 
and (e) as subsections (d), (e), and (f), respec-
tively; 
(C) by inserting after subsection (b) the 
following: 
‘‘(c) SINGLE FORUM.— 
‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—If an inter partes review is 
instituted challenging the validity of a patent, the 
petitioner, a real party in interest, or a privy of the 
petitioner may not file or maintain, in a civil action 
arising in whole or in part under section 1338 of 
title 28, or in a proceeding before the International 
VerDate Sep 11 2014 
22:26 Jul 27, 2023
Jkt 039200
PO 00000
Frm 00009
Fmt 6652
Sfmt 6201
E:\BILLS\H4370.IH
H4370
pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with $$_JOB
Trade Commission under section 337 of the Tariff 
Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1337), a claim, a counter-
claim, or an affirmative defense challenging the va-
lidity of any claim of the patent on any ground de-
scribed in section 311(b). 
‘‘(2) CONSIDERATIONS.—In determining wheth-
er to institute a proceeding under this chapter, sub-
ject to the provisions of subsections (a)(1) and (g), 
the Director may not reject a petition requesting an 
inter partes review on the basis of the petitioner, a 
real party in interest, or a privy of the petitioner fil-
ing or maintaining a claim, a counterclaim, or an af-
firmative defense challenging the validity of the ap-
plicable patent in any civil action arising in whole or 
in part under section 1338 of title 28, or in a pro-
ceeding before the International Trade Commission 
under section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 
U.S.C. 1337).’’; 
(D) by amending subsection (d), as so re-
designated, to read as follows: 
‘‘(d) JOINDER.— 
‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—If the Director institutes 
an inter partes review, the Director, in the discretion 
of the Director, may join as a party to that inter 
partes review any person that properly files a re-
VerDate Sep 11 2014 
22:26 Jul 27, 2023
Jkt 039200
PO 00000
Frm 00010
Fmt 6652
Sfmt 6201
E:\BILLS\H4370.IH
H4370
pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with $$_JOB
quest to join the inter partes review and a petition 
under section 311 that the Director, after receiving 
a preliminary response under section 313 or the ex-
piration of the time for filing such a response, deter-
mines warrants the institution of an inter partes re-
view under section 314. 
‘‘(2) 
TIME-BARRED
PERSON.—Pursuant 
to 
paragraph (1), the Director, in the discretion of the 
Director, may join as a party to an inter partes re-
view a person that did not satisfy the time limitation 
under subsection (b) that rebuts the presumption 
against joinder, except that any such person shall 
not be permitted to serve as the lead petitioner and 
shall not be permitted to maintain the inter partes 
review unless a petitioner that satisfied the time lim-
itation under subsection (b) remains in the inter 
partes review.’’; 
(E) by amending subsection (e), as so re-
designated, to read as follows: 
‘‘(e) MULTIPLE PROCEEDINGS.— 
‘‘(1) IN
GENERAL.—Notwithstanding sections 
135(a), 251, and 252, and chapter 30, after a peti-
tion to institute an inter partes review is filed, if an-
other proceeding or matter involving the patent is 
before the Office— 
VerDate Sep 11 2014 
22:26 Jul 27, 2023
Jkt 039200
PO 00000
Frm 00011
Fmt 6652
Sfmt 6201
E:\BILLS\H4370.IH
H4370
pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with $$_JOB
‘‘(A) the parties shall notify the Director 
of that other proceeding or matter— 
‘‘(i) not later than 30 days after the 
date of entry of the notice of filing date ac-
corded to the petition; or 
‘‘(ii) if the other proceeding or matter 
is filed after the date on which the petition 
to institute an inter partes review is filed, 
not later than 30 days after the date on 
which the other proceeding or matter is 
filed; and 
‘‘(B) the Director shall issue a decision de-
termining the manner in which the inter partes 
review or other proceeding or matter may pro-
ceed, including providing for stay, transfer, con-
solidation, or termination of any such matter or 
proceeding. 
‘‘(2) CONSIDERATIONS.—In determining wheth-
er to institute a proceeding under this chapter, the 
Director shall, unless the Director determines that 
the petitioner has demonstrated exceptional cir-
cumstances, reject any petition that presents prior 
art or an argument that is the same or substantially 
the same as prior art or an argument that previously 
was presented to the Office.’’; 
VerDate Sep 11 2014 
22:26 Jul 27, 2023
Jkt 039200
PO 00000
Frm 00012
Fmt 6652
Sfmt 6201
E:\BILLS\H4370.IH
H4370
pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with $$_JOB
(F) by amending subsection (f), as so re-
designated, to read as follows: 
‘‘(f) ESTOPPEL.— 
‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—A petitioner that has pre-
viously requested an inter partes review of a claim 
in a patent under this chapter, or a real party in in-
terest or a privy of such a petitioner, may not re-
quest or maintain another proceeding before the Of-
fice with respect to that patent on any ground that 
the petitioner raised or reasonably could have raised 
in the petition requesting or during the prior inter 
partes review, unless— 
‘‘(A) after the filing of the initial petition, 
the petitioner, or a real party in interest or a 
privy of the petitioner, is charged with infringe-
ment of additional claims of the patent; 
‘‘(B) a subsequent petition requests an 
inter partes review of only the additional claims 
of the patent that the petitioner, or a real party 
in interest or a privy of the petitioner, is later 
charged with infringing; and 
‘‘(C) that subsequent petition is accom-
panied by a request for joinder to the prior 
inter partes review, which overcomes the rebut-
table presumption against joinder set forth in 
VerDate Sep 11 2014 
22:26 Jul 27, 2023
Jkt 039200
PO 00000
Frm 00013
Fmt 6652
Sfmt 6201
E:\BILLS\H4370.IH
H4370
pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with $$_JOB
subsection (b), and which the Director shall 
grant if the Director authorizes an inter partes 
review to be instituted on the subsequent peti-
tion under section 314. 
‘‘(2) JOINED PARTY.—Any person joined as a 
party to an inter partes review, and any real party 
in interest or any privy of such person, shall be es-
topped under this subsection and subsections (c)(1) 
and (e)(2) to the same extent as if that person, real 
party in interest, or privy had been the first peti-
tioner in that inter partes review.’’; and 
(G) by adding at the end the following: 
‘‘(g) FEDERAL COURT AND INTERNATIONAL TRADE 
COMMISSION
VALIDITY
DETERMINATIONS.—An inter 
partes review of a patent claim may not be instituted or 
maintained if, in a civil action arising in whole or in part 
under section 1338 of title 28, or in a proceeding before 
the International Trade Commission under section 337 of 
the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1337), in which the 
petitioner, a real party in interest, or a privy of the peti-
tioner is a party, the court, or the International Trade 
Commission, as applicable, has entered a final judgment 
that decides a challenge to the validity of the patent claim 
with respect to any ground described in section 311(b).’’. 
VerDate Sep 11 2014 
22:26 Jul 27, 2023
Jkt 039200
PO 00000
Frm 00014
Fmt 6652
Sfmt 6201
E:\BILLS\H4370.IH
H4370
pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with $$_JOB
(2) TECHNICAL
AND
CONFORMING
AMEND-
MENTS.—Section 316(a) of title 35, United States 
Code, is amended— 
(A) in paragraph (11), by striking ‘‘section 
315(c)’’ and inserting ‘‘section 315(d)’’; and 
(B) in paragraph (12), by striking ‘‘section 
315(c)’’ and inserting ‘‘section 315(d)’’. 
(d) CONDUCT OF INTER PARTES REVIEW.—Section 
316 of title 35, United States Code, is amended— 
(1) in subsection (a)— 
(A) by amending paragraph (5) to read as 
follows: 
‘‘(5) setting forth standards and procedures for 
discovery of relevant evidence, including that such 
discovery shall be limited to— 
‘‘(A) the deposition of witnesses submitting 
affidavits or declarations; 
‘‘(B) evidence identifying the real parties 
in interest of the petitioner; and 
‘‘(C) what is otherwise necessary in the in-
terest of justice;’’; 
(B) by amending paragraph (9) to read as 
follows: 
‘‘(9) setting forth standards and procedures 
for— 
VerDate Sep 11 2014 
22:26 Jul 27, 2023
Jkt 039200
PO 00000
Frm 00015
Fmt 6652
Sfmt 6201
E:\BILLS\H4370.IH
H4370
pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with $$_JOB
‘‘(14) setting forth the standards for dem-
onstrating exceptional circumstances under sections 
303(e)(1) and 315(e)(2).’’; 
(2) by amending subsection (e) to read as fol-
lows: 
‘‘(e) EVIDENTIARY STANDARDS.— 
‘‘(1) PRESUMPTION
OF
VALIDITY.—The pre-
sumption of validity under section 282(a) shall apply 
to previously issued claims of a patent that is chal-
lenged in an inter partes review under this chapter. 
‘‘(2) BURDEN OF PROOF.—In an inter partes 
review under this chapter— 
‘‘(A) the petitioner shall have the burden 
of proving a proposition of unpatentability of a 
previously issued claim of a patent by clear and 
convincing evidence; and 
‘‘(B) the petitioner shall have the burden 
of persuasion, by a preponderance of the evi-
dence, with respect to a proposition of 
unpatentability for any substitute claim pro-
posed by the patent owner.’’; and 
(3) by adding at the end the following: 
‘‘(f) CLAIM CONSTRUCTION.—For the purposes of 
this chapter— 
VerDate Sep 11 2014 
22:26 Jul 27, 2023
Jkt 039200
PO 00000
Frm 00017
Fmt 6652
Sfmt 6201
E:\BILLS\H4370.IH
H4370
pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with $$_JOB
‘‘(1) each challenged claim of a patent, and 
each substitute claim proposed in a motion to 
amend, shall be construed as the claim would be 
construed under section 282(b) in an action to inval-
idate a patent, including by construing each such 
claim in accordance with— 
‘‘(A) the ordinary and customary meaning 
of the claim as understood by a person having 
ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed 
invention pertains; and 
‘‘(B) the prosecution history pertaining to 
the patent; and 
‘‘(2) if a court has previously construed a chal-
lenged claim of a patent or a challenged claim term 
in a civil action to which the patent owner was a 
party, the Office shall consider that claim construc-
tion.’’. 
(e) SETTLEMENT.—Section 317(a) of title 35, United 
States Code, is amended by striking the second sentence. 
(f) TIMING TO ISSUE TRIAL CERTIFICATE AND DE-
CISIONS ON REHEARING.—Section 318 of title 35, United 
States Code, is amended— 
(1) in subsection (b), by inserting ‘‘, not later 
than 60 days after the date on which the parties to 
the inter partes review have informed the Director 
VerDate Sep 11 2014 
22:26 Jul 27, 2023
Jkt 039200
PO 00000
Frm 00018
Fmt 6652
Sfmt 6201
E:\BILLS\H4370.IH
H4370
pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with $$_JOB
that the time for appeal has expired or any appeal 
has terminated,’’ after ‘‘the Director shall’’; and 
(2) by adding at the end the following: 
‘‘(e) REHEARING.—Not later than 90 days after the 
date on which a request for rehearing of a final written 
decision issued by the Patent and Trial Appeal Board 
under subsection (a) is filed, the Board or the Director 
shall finally decide any request for reconsideration, rehear-
ing, or review that is submitted with respect to the deci-
sion, except that the Director may, for good cause shown, 
extend that 90-day period by not more than 60 days. 
‘‘(f) REVIEW BY DIRECTOR.— 
‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—The Director may grant re-
hearing, reconsideration, or review of a decision by 
the Patent Trial and Appeal Board issued under this 
chapter. 
‘‘(2) REQUIREMENTS.—Any reconsideration, re-
hearing, or review by the Director, as described in 
paragraph (1), shall be issued in a separate written 
opinion that— 
‘‘(A) is made part of the public record; and 
‘‘(B) sets forth the reasons for the recon-
sideration, rehearing, or review of the applicable 
decision by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. 
VerDate Sep 11 2014 
22:26 Jul 27, 2023
Jkt 039200
PO 00000
Frm 00019
Fmt 6652
Sfmt 6201
E:\BILLS\H4370.IH
H4370
pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with $$_JOB
‘‘(g) RULE OF CONSTRUCTION.—For the purposes of 
an appeal permitted under section 141, any decision on 
rehearing, reconsideration, or review of a final written de-
cision of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board under sub-
section (a) of this section that is issued by the Director 
shall be deemed to be a final written decision of the Patent 
Trial and Appeal Board.’’. 
(g) TIMING TO ISSUE DECISIONS ON REMAND.—Sec-
tion 319 of title 35, United States Code, is amended— 
(1) by striking ‘‘A party’’ and inserting the fol-
lowing: 
‘‘(a) IN GENERAL.—A party’’; and 
(2) by adding at the end the following: 
‘‘(b) TIMING
ON REMAND AFTER APPEAL.—Not 
later than 120 days after the date on which a mandate 
issues from the court remanding to the Patent Trial and 
Appeal Board after an appeal under subsection (a), the 
Board or the Director shall finally decide any issue on re-
mand, except that the Director may, for good cause 
shown, extend that 120-day period by not more than 60 
days.’’. 
SEC. 5. POST-GRANT REVIEW. 
(a) REAL PARTIES IN INTEREST.—Section 321 of 
title 35, United States Code, is amended by adding at the 
end the following: 
VerDate Sep 11 2014 
22:26 Jul 27, 2023
Jkt 039200
PO 00000
Frm 00020
Fmt 6652
Sfmt 6201
E:\BILLS\H4370.IH
H4370
pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with $$_JOB
‘‘(d) REAL PARTY IN INTEREST.—For purposes of 
this chapter, a person that, directly or through an affiliate, 
subsidiary, or proxy, makes a financial contribution to the 
preparation for, or conduct during, a post-grant review on 
behalf of a petitioner shall be considered a real party in 
interest of that petitioner.’’. 
(b) TIMING TO ISSUE DECISIONS ON REHEARING.— 
Section 324 of title 35, United States Code, is amended 
by adding at the end the following: 
‘‘(f) REHEARING.—Not later than 45 days after the 
date on which a request for rehearing from a determina-
tion by the Director under subsection (c) is filed, the Di-
rector shall finally decide any request for reconsideration, 
rehearing, or review with respect to the determination, ex-
cept that the Director may, for good cause shown, extend 
that 45-day period by not more than 30 days.’’. 
(c) ELIMINATING REPETITIVE PROCEEDINGS.—Sec-
tion 325 of title 35, United States Code, is amended— 
(1) by redesignating subsections (c) through (f) 
as subsections (d) through (g), respectively; 
(2) by inserting after subsection (b) the fol-
lowing: 
‘‘(c) SINGLE FORUM.— 
‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—If a post-grant review is in-
stituted challenging the validity of a patent, the peti-
VerDate Sep 11 2014 
22:26 Jul 27, 2023
Jkt 039200
PO 00000
Frm 00021
Fmt 6652
Sfmt 6201
E:\BILLS\H4370.IH
H4370
pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with $$_JOB
tioner, a real party in interest, or a privy of the peti-
tioner may not file or maintain, in a civil action aris-
ing in whole or in part under section 1338 of title 
28, or in a proceeding before the International 
Trade Commission under section 337 of the Tariff 
Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1337), a claim, a counter-
claim, or an affirmative defense challenging the va-
lidity of any claim of the patent. 
‘‘(2) CONSIDERATIONS.—In determining wheth-
er to institute a proceeding under this chapter, sub-
ject to the provisions of subsections (a)(1) and (h), 
the Director may not reject a petition requesting a 
post-grant review on the basis of the petitioner, a 
real party in interest, or a privy of the petitioner fil-
ing or maintaining a claim, a counterclaim, or an af-
firmative defense challenging the validity of the pat-
ent in any civil action arising in whole or in part 
under section 1338 of title 28, or in a proceeding be-
fore the International Trade Commission under sec-
tion 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 
1337).’’; 
(3) by amending subsection (e), as so redesig-
nated, to read as follows: 
‘‘(e) MULTIPLE PROCEEDINGS.— 
VerDate Sep 11 2014 
22:26 Jul 27, 2023
Jkt 039200
PO 00000
Frm 00022
Fmt 6652
Sfmt 6201
E:\BILLS\H4370.IH
H4370
pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with $$_JOB
in interest or a privy of the petitioner, is later 
charged with infringing; and 
‘‘(C) that subsequent petition is accom-
panied by a request for joinder to the prior 
post-grant review, which the Director shall 
grant if the Director authorizes a post-grant re-
view to be instituted on the subsequent petition 
under section 324. 
‘‘(2) JOINED PARTY.—Any person joined as a 
party to a post-grant review, and any real party in 
interest or any privy of such person, shall be es-
topped under this subsection and subsections (c)(1) 
and (e)(2) to the same extent as if that person, real 
party in interest, or privy had been the first peti-
tioner in that post-grant review.’’; and 
(5) by adding at the end the following: 
‘‘(h) FEDERAL COURT AND INTERNATIONAL TRADE 
COMMISSION VALIDITY DETERMINATIONS.—A post-grant 
review of a patent claim may not be instituted or main-
tained if, in a civil action arising in whole or in part under 
section 1338 of title 28, or in a proceeding before the 
International Trade Commission under section 337 of the 
Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1337), in which the peti-
tioner, a real party in interest, or a privy of the petitioner 
is a party, the court, or the International Trade Commis-
VerDate Sep 11 2014 
22:26 Jul 27, 2023
Jkt 039200
PO 00000
Frm 00025
Fmt 6652
Sfmt 6201
E:\BILLS\H4370.IH
H4370
pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with $$_JOB
sion, as applicable, has entered a final judgment that de-
cides a challenge to the validity of the patent claim.’’. 
(d) CONDUCT
OF POST-GRANT REVIEW.—Section 
326 of title 35, United States Code, is amended— 
(1) in subsection (a)— 
(A) by amending paragraph (5) to read as 
follows: 
‘‘(5) setting forth standards and procedures for 
discovery of relevant evidence, including that such 
discovery shall be limited to— 
‘‘(A) the deposition of witnesses submitting 
affidavits or declarations; 
‘‘(B) evidence identifying the real parties 
in interest of the petitioner; and 
‘‘(C) what is otherwise necessary in the in-
terest of justice;’’; 
(B) by amending paragraph (9) to read as 
follows: 
‘‘(9) setting forth standards and procedures 
for— 
‘‘(A) allowing the patent owner to move to 
amend the patent under subsection (d) to can-
cel a challenged claim or propose a reasonable 
number of substitute claims; 
VerDate Sep 11 2014 
22:26 Jul 27, 2023
Jkt 039200
PO 00000
Frm 00026
Fmt 6652
Sfmt 6201
E:\BILLS\H4370.IH
H4370
pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with $$_JOB
‘‘(B) allowing the Patent Trial and Appeal 
Board to provide guidance on substitute claims 
proposed by the patent owner; 
‘‘(C) allowing the patent owner to further 
revise proposed substitute claims after the 
issuance of guidance described in subparagraph 
(B); and 
‘‘(D) ensuring that any information sub-
mitted by the patent owner in support of any 
amendment entered under subsection (d), and 
any guidance issued by the Patent Trial and 
Appeal Board, is made available to the public 
as part of the prosecution history of the pat-
ent;’’; 
(C) in paragraph (11), by striking ‘‘section 
325(c)’’ and inserting ‘‘section 325(d)’’; 
(D) in paragraph (12), by striking the pe-
riod at the end and inserting ‘‘; and’’; and 
(E) by adding at the end the following: 
‘‘(13) setting forth the standards for dem-
onstrating exceptional circumstances under section 
325(e)(2).’’; 
(2) by amending subsection (e) to read as fol-
lows: 
‘‘(e) EVIDENTIARY STANDARDS.— 
VerDate Sep 11 2014 
22:26 Jul 27, 2023
Jkt 039200
PO 00000
Frm 00027
Fmt 6652
Sfmt 6201
E:\BILLS\H4370.IH
H4370
pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with $$_JOB
‘‘(1) PRESUMPTION
OF
VALIDITY.—The pre-
sumption of validity under section 282(a) shall apply 
to previously issued claims of a patent that is chal-
lenged in a post-grant review under this chapter. 
‘‘(2) BURDEN OF PROOF.—In a post-grant re-
view under this chapter— 
‘‘(A) the petitioner shall have the burden 
of proving a proposition of unpatentability of a 
previously issued claim of a patent by clear and 
convincing evidence; and 
‘‘(B) the petitioner shall have the burden 
of persuasion, by a preponderance of the evi-
dence, with respect to a proposition of 
unpatentability for any substitute claim pro-
posed by the patent owner.’’; and 
(3) by adding at the end the following: 
‘‘(f) CLAIM CONSTRUCTION.—For the purposes of 
this chapter— 
‘‘(1) each challenged claim of a patent, and 
each substitute claim proposed in a motion to 
amend, shall be construed as the claim would be 
construed under section 282(b) in an action to inval-
idate a patent, including by construing each such 
claim in accordance with— 
VerDate Sep 11 2014 
22:26 Jul 27, 2023
Jkt 039200
PO 00000
Frm 00028
Fmt 6652
Sfmt 6201
E:\BILLS\H4370.IH
H4370
pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with $$_JOB
‘‘(A) the ordinary and customary meaning 
of the claim as understood by a person having 
ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed 
invention pertains; and 
‘‘(B) the prosecution history pertaining to 
the patent; and 
‘‘(2) if a court has previously construed a chal-
lenged claim of a patent or a challenged claim term 
in a civil action to which the patent owner was a 
party, the Office shall consider that claim construc-
tion.’’. 
(e) SETTLEMENT.—Section 327(a) of title 35, United 
States Code, is amended by striking the second sentence. 
(f) TIMING TO ISSUE TRIAL CERTIFICATES AND DE-
CISIONS ON REHEARING.—Section 328 of title 35, United 
States Code, is amended— 
(1) in subsection (b), by inserting ‘‘, not later 
than 60 days after the date on which the parties to 
the post-grant review have informed the Director 
that the time for appeal has expired or any appeal 
has terminated,’’ after ‘‘the Director shall’’; and 
(2) by adding at the end the following: 
‘‘(e) REHEARING.—Not later than 90 days after the 
date on which a request for rehearing of a final written 
decision issued by the Patent and Trial Appeal Board 
VerDate Sep 11 2014 
22:26 Jul 27, 2023
Jkt 039200
PO 00000
Frm 00029
Fmt 6652
Sfmt 6201
E:\BILLS\H4370.IH
H4370
pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with $$_JOB
under subsection (a) is filed, the Board or the Director 
shall finally decide any request for reconsideration, rehear-
ing, or review that is submitted with respect to the deci-
sion, except that the Director may, for good cause shown, 
extend that 90-day period by not more than 60 days. 
‘‘(f) REVIEW BY DIRECTOR.— 
‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—The Director may grant re-
hearing, reconsideration, or review of a decision by 
the Patent Trial and Appeal Board issued under this 
chapter. 
‘‘(2) REQUIREMENTS.—Any reconsideration, re-
hearing, or review by the Director, as described in 
paragraph (1), shall be issued in a separate written 
opinion that— 
‘‘(A) is made part of the public record; and 
‘‘(B) sets forth the reasons for the recon-
sideration, rehearing, or review of the decision 
by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. 
‘‘(g) RULE OF CONSTRUCTION.—For the purposes of 
an appeal permitted under section 141, any decision on 
rehearing, reconsideration, or review of a final written de-
cision of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board under sub-
section (a) of this section that is issued by the Director 
shall be deemed to be a final written decision of the Patent 
Trial and Appeal Board.’’. 
VerDate Sep 11 2014 
22:26 Jul 27, 2023
Jkt 039200
PO 00000
Frm 00030
Fmt 6652
Sfmt 6201
E:\BILLS\H4370.IH
H4370
pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with $$_JOB