H. R. 1249 
One Hundred Twelfth Congress 
of the 
United States of America 
AT THE FIRST SESSION 
Begun and held at the City of Washington on Wednesday, 
the fifth day of January, two thousand and eleven 
An Act 
To amend title 35, United States Code, to provide for patent reform. 
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
the United States of America in Congress assembled, 
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS. 
(a) SHORT TITLE.—This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Leahy-Smith 
America Invents Act’’. 
(b) TABLE OF CONTENTS.—The table of contents for this Act 
is as follows: 
Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents. 
Sec. 2. Definitions. 
Sec. 3. First inventor to file. 
Sec. 4. Inventor’s oath or declaration. 
Sec. 5. Defense to infringement based on prior commercial use. 
Sec. 6. Post-grant review proceedings. 
Sec. 7. Patent Trial and Appeal Board. 
Sec. 8. Preissuance submissions by third parties. 
Sec. 9. Venue. 
Sec. 10. Fee setting authority. 
Sec. 11. Fees for patent services. 
Sec. 12. Supplemental examination. 
Sec. 13. Funding agreements. 
Sec. 14. Tax strategies deemed within the prior art. 
Sec. 15. Best mode requirement. 
Sec. 16. Marking. 
Sec. 17. Advice of counsel. 
Sec. 18. Transitional program for covered business method patents. 
Sec. 19. Jurisdiction and procedural matters. 
Sec. 20. Technical amendments. 
Sec. 21. Travel expenses and payment of administrative judges. 
Sec. 22. Patent and Trademark Office funding. 
Sec. 23. Satellite offices. 
Sec. 24. Designation of Detroit satellite office. 
Sec. 25. Priority examination for important technologies. 
Sec. 26. Study on implementation. 
Sec. 27. Study on genetic testing. 
Sec. 28. Patent Ombudsman Program for small business concerns. 
Sec. 29. Establishment of methods for studying the diversity of applicants. 
Sec. 30. Sense of Congress. 
Sec. 31. USPTO study on international patent protections for small businesses. 
Sec. 32. Pro bono program. 
Sec. 33. Limitation on issuance of patents. 
Sec. 34. Study of patent litigation. 
Sec. 35. Effective date. 
Sec. 36. Budgetary effects. 
Sec. 37. Calculation of 60-day period for application of patent term extension. 
SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS. 
In this Act: 
(1) DIRECTOR.—The term ‘‘Director’’ means the Under Sec-
retary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and Director of 
the United States Patent and Trademark Office.
H. R. 1249—2 
(2) OFFICE.—The term ‘‘Office’’ means the United States 
Patent and Trademark Office. 
(3) PATENT
PUBLIC
ADVISORY
COMMITTEE.—The term 
‘‘Patent Public Advisory Committee’’ means the Patent Public 
Advisory Committee established under section 5(a) of title 35, 
United States Code. 
(4) TRADEMARK ACT OF 1946.—The term ‘‘Trademark Act 
of 1946’’ means the Act entitled ‘‘An Act to provide for the 
registration and protection of trademarks used in commerce, 
to carry out the provisions of certain international conventions, 
and for other purposes’’, approved July 5, 1946 (15 U.S.C. 
1051 et seq.) (commonly referred to as the ‘‘Trademark Act 
of 1946’’ or the ‘‘Lanham Act’’). 
(5) TRADEMARK PUBLIC ADVISORY COMMITTEE.—The term 
‘‘Trademark Public Advisory Committee’’ means the Trademark 
Public Advisory Committee established under section 5(a) of 
title 35, United States Code. 
SEC. 3. FIRST INVENTOR TO FILE. 
(a) DEFINITIONS.—Section 100 of title 35, United States Code, 
is amended— 
(1) in subsection (e), by striking ‘‘or inter partes reexamina-
tion under section 311’’; and 
(2) by adding at the end the following: 
‘‘(f) The term ‘inventor’ means the individual or, if a joint 
invention, the individuals collectively who invented or discovered 
the subject matter of the invention. 
‘‘(g) The terms ‘joint inventor’ and ‘coinventor’ mean any 1 
of the individuals who invented or discovered the subject matter 
of a joint invention. 
‘‘(h) The term ‘joint research agreement’ means a written con-
tract, grant, or cooperative agreement entered into by 2 or more 
persons or entities for the performance of experimental, develop-
mental, or research work in the field of the claimed invention. 
‘‘(i)(1) The term ‘effective filing date’ for a claimed invention 
in a patent or application for patent means— 
‘‘(A) if subparagraph (B) does not apply, the actual filing 
date of the patent or the application for the patent containing 
a claim to the invention; or 
‘‘(B) the filing date of the earliest application for which 
the patent or application is entitled, as to such invention, 
to a right of priority under section 119, 365(a), or 365(b) or 
to the benefit of an earlier filing date under section 120, 121, 
or 365(c). 
‘‘(2) The effective filing date for a claimed invention in an 
application for reissue or reissued patent shall be determined by 
deeming the claim to the invention to have been contained in 
the patent for which reissue was sought. 
‘‘(j) The term ‘claimed invention’ means the subject matter 
defined by a claim in a patent or an application for a patent.’’. 
(b) CONDITIONS FOR PATENTABILITY.— 
(1) IN GENERAL.—Section 102 of title 35, United States 
Code, is amended to read as follows: 
‘‘§ 102. Conditions for patentability; novelty 
‘‘(a) NOVELTY; PRIOR ART.—A person shall be entitled to a 
patent unless—
H. R. 1249—3 
‘‘(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a 
printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise 
available to the public before the effective filing date of the 
claimed invention; or 
‘‘(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued 
under section 151, or in an application for patent published 
or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent 
or application, as the case may be, names another inventor 
and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the 
claimed invention. 
‘‘(b) EXCEPTIONS.— 
‘‘(1) DISCLOSURES MADE 1 YEAR OR LESS BEFORE THE EFFEC-
TIVE FILING DATE OF THE CLAIMED INVENTION.—A disclosure 
made 1 year or less before the effective filing date of a claimed 
invention shall not be prior art to the claimed invention under 
subsection (a)(1) if— 
‘‘(A) the disclosure was made by the inventor or joint 
inventor or by another who obtained the subject matter 
disclosed directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint 
inventor; or 
‘‘(B) the subject matter disclosed had, before such 
disclosure, been publicly disclosed by the inventor or a 
joint inventor or another who obtained the subject matter 
disclosed directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint 
inventor. 
‘‘(2) DISCLOSURES
APPEARING
IN
APPLICATIONS
AND
PAT-
ENTS.—A disclosure shall not be prior art to a claimed invention 
under subsection (a)(2) if— 
‘‘(A) the subject matter disclosed was obtained directly 
or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor; 
‘‘(B) the subject matter disclosed had, before such sub-
ject matter was effectively filed under subsection (a)(2), 
been publicly disclosed by the inventor or a joint inventor 
or another who obtained the subject matter disclosed 
directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor; 
or 
‘‘(C) the subject matter disclosed and the claimed inven-
tion, not later than the effective filing date of the claimed 
invention, were owned by the same person or subject to 
an obligation of assignment to the same person. 
‘‘(c) COMMON OWNERSHIP UNDER JOINT RESEARCH AGREE-
MENTS.—Subject matter disclosed and a claimed invention shall 
be deemed to have been owned by the same person or subject 
to an obligation of assignment to the same person in applying 
the provisions of subsection (b)(2)(C) if— 
‘‘(1) the subject matter disclosed was developed and the 
claimed invention was made by, or on behalf of, 1 or more 
parties to a joint research agreement that was in effect on 
or before the effective filing date of the claimed invention; 
‘‘(2) the claimed invention was made as a result of activities 
undertaken within the scope of the joint research agreement; 
and 
‘‘(3) the application for patent for the claimed invention 
discloses or is amended to disclose the names of the parties 
to the joint research agreement. 
‘‘(d) PATENTS
AND PUBLISHED APPLICATIONS EFFECTIVE
AS 
PRIOR ART.—For purposes of determining whether a patent or
H. R. 1249—4 
application for patent is prior art to a claimed invention under 
subsection (a)(2), such patent or application shall be considered 
to have been effectively filed, with respect to any subject matter 
described in the patent or application— 
‘‘(1) if paragraph (2) does not apply, as of the actual filing 
date of the patent or the application for patent; or 
‘‘(2) if the patent or application for patent is entitled to 
claim a right of priority under section 119, 365(a), or 365(b), 
or to claim the benefit of an earlier filing date under section 
120, 121, or 365(c), based upon 1 or more prior filed applications 
for patent, as of the filing date of the earliest such application 
that describes the subject matter.’’. 
(2) CONTINUITY OF INTENT UNDER THE CREATE ACT.—The 
enactment of section 102(c) of title 35, United States Code, 
under paragraph (1) of this subsection is done with the same 
intent to promote joint research activities that was expressed, 
including in the legislative history, through the enactment of 
the Cooperative Research and Technology Enhancement Act 
of 2004 (Public Law 108–453; the ‘‘CREATE Act’’), the amend-
ments of which are stricken by subsection (c) of this section. 
The United States Patent and Trademark Office shall admin-
ister section 102(c) of title 35, United States Code, in a manner 
consistent with the legislative history of the CREATE Act that 
was relevant to its administration by the United States Patent 
and Trademark Office. 
(3) CONFORMING AMENDMENT.—The item relating to section 
102 in the table of sections for chapter 10 of title 35, United 
States Code, is amended to read as follows: 
‘‘102. Conditions for patentability; novelty.’’. 
(c) CONDITIONS
FOR
PATENTABILITY; NONOBVIOUS
SUBJECT 
MATTER.—Section 103 of title 35, United States Code, is amended 
to read as follows: 
‘‘§ 103. Conditions for patentability; non-obvious subject 
matter 
‘‘A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwith-
standing that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed 
as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed 
invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention 
as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing 
date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill 
in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability 
shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was 
made.’’. 
(d) 
REPEAL
OF
REQUIREMENTS
FOR
INVENTIONS
MADE 
ABROAD.—Section 104 of title 35, United States Code, and the 
item relating to that section in the table of sections for chapter 
10 of title 35, United States Code, are repealed. 
(e) REPEAL OF STATUTORY INVENTION REGISTRATION.— 
(1) IN GENERAL.—Section 157 of title 35, United States 
Code, and the item relating to that section in the table of 
sections for chapter 14 of title 35, United States Code, are 
repealed. 
(2) REMOVAL OF CROSS REFERENCES.—Section 111(b)(8) of 
title 35, United States Code, is amended by striking ‘‘sections 
115, 131, 135, and 157’’ and inserting ‘‘sections 131 and 135’’.
H. R. 1249—5 
(3) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by this sub-
section shall take effect upon the expiration of the 18-month 
period beginning on the date of the enactment of this Act, 
and shall apply to any request for a statutory invention reg-
istration filed on or after that effective date. 
(f) EARLIER FILING DATE FOR INVENTOR AND JOINT INVENTOR.— 
Section 120 of title 35, United States Code, is amended by striking 
‘‘which is filed by an inventor or inventors named’’ and inserting 
‘‘which names an inventor or joint inventor’’. 
(g) CONFORMING AMENDMENTS.— 
(1) RIGHT OF PRIORITY.—Section 172 of title 35, United 
States Code, is amended by striking ‘‘and the time specified 
in section 102(d)’’. 
(2) LIMITATION ON REMEDIES.—Section 287(c)(4) of title 35, 
United States Code, is amended by striking ‘‘the earliest effec-
tive filing date of which is prior to’’ and inserting ‘‘which 
has an effective filing date before’’. 
(3) INTERNATIONAL APPLICATION DESIGNATING THE UNITED 
STATES: EFFECT.—Section 363 of title 35, United States Code, 
is amended by striking ‘‘except as otherwise provided in section 
102(e) of this title’’. 
(4) PUBLICATION OF INTERNATIONAL APPLICATION: EFFECT.— 
Section 374 of title 35, United States Code, is amended by 
striking ‘‘sections 102(e) and 154(d)’’ and inserting ‘‘section 
154(d)’’. 
(5) PATENT
ISSUED
ON
INTERNATIONAL
APPLICATION: 
EFFECT.—The second sentence of section 375(a) of title 35, 
United States Code, is amended by striking ‘‘Subject to section 
102(e) of this title, such’’ and inserting ‘‘Such’’. 
(6) LIMIT ON RIGHT OF PRIORITY.—Section 119(a) of title 
35, United States Code, is amended by striking ‘‘; but no patent 
shall be granted’’ and all that follows through ‘‘one year prior 
to such filing’’. 
(7) INVENTIONS MADE WITH FEDERAL ASSISTANCE.—Section 
202(c) of title 35, United States Code, is amended— 
(A) in paragraph (2)— 
(i) by striking ‘‘publication, on sale, or public use,’’ 
and all that follows through ‘‘obtained in the United 
States’’ and inserting ‘‘the 1-year period referred to 
in section 102(b) would end before the end of that 
2-year period’’; and 
(ii) by striking ‘‘prior to the end of the statutory’’ 
and inserting ‘‘before the end of that 1-year’’; and 
(B) in paragraph (3), by striking ‘‘any statutory bar 
date that may occur under this title due to publication, 
on sale, or public use’’ and inserting ‘‘the expiration of 
the 1-year period referred to in section 102(b)’’. 
(h) DERIVED PATENTS.— 
(1) IN GENERAL.—Section 291 of title 35, United States 
Code, is amended to read as follows: 
‘‘§ 291. Derived Patents 
‘‘(a) IN GENERAL.—The owner of a patent may have relief by 
civil action against the owner of another patent that claims the 
same invention and has an earlier effective filing date, if the inven-
tion claimed in such other patent was derived from the inventor
H. R. 1249—6 
of the invention claimed in the patent owned by the person seeking 
relief under this section. 
‘‘(b) FILING LIMITATION.—An action under this section may 
be filed only before the end of the 1-year period beginning on 
the date of the issuance of the first patent containing a claim 
to the allegedly derived invention and naming an individual alleged 
to have derived such invention as the inventor or joint inventor.’’. 
(2) CONFORMING AMENDMENT.—The item relating to section 
291 in the table of sections for chapter 29 of title 35, United 
States Code, is amended to read as follows: 
‘‘291. Derived patents.’’. 
(i) DERIVATION PROCEEDINGS.—Section 135 of title 35, United 
States Code, is amended to read as follows: 
‘‘§ 135. Derivation proceedings 
‘‘(a) INSTITUTION OF PROCEEDING.—An applicant for patent may 
file a petition to institute a derivation proceeding in the Office. 
The petition shall set forth with particularity the basis for finding 
that an inventor named in an earlier application derived the claimed 
invention from an inventor named in the petitioner’s application 
and, without authorization, the earlier application claiming such 
invention was filed. Any such petition may be filed only within 
the 1-year period beginning on the date of the first publication 
of a claim to an invention that is the same or substantially the 
same as the earlier application’s claim to the invention, shall be 
made under oath, and shall be supported by substantial evidence. 
Whenever the Director determines that a petition filed under this 
subsection demonstrates that the standards for instituting a deriva-
tion proceeding are met, the Director may institute a derivation 
proceeding. The determination by the Director whether to institute 
a derivation proceeding shall be final and nonappealable. 
‘‘(b) DETERMINATION BY PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD.— 
In a derivation proceeding instituted under subsection (a), the 
Patent Trial and Appeal Board shall determine whether an inventor 
named in the earlier application derived the claimed invention 
from an inventor named in the petitioner’s application and, without 
authorization, the earlier application claiming such invention was 
filed. In appropriate circumstances, the Patent Trial and Appeal 
Board may correct the naming of the inventor in any application 
or patent at issue. The Director shall prescribe regulations setting 
forth standards for the conduct of derivation proceedings, including 
requiring parties to provide sufficient evidence to prove and rebut 
a claim of derivation. 
‘‘(c) DEFERRAL
OF DECISION.—The Patent Trial and Appeal 
Board may defer action on a petition for a derivation proceeding 
until the expiration of the 3-month period beginning on the date 
on which the Director issues a patent that includes the claimed 
invention that is the subject of the petition. The Patent Trial 
and Appeal Board also may defer action on a petition for a deriva-
tion proceeding, or stay the proceeding after it has been instituted, 
until the termination of a proceeding under chapter 30, 31, or 
32 involving the patent of the earlier applicant. 
‘‘(d) EFFECT
OF FINAL DECISION.—The final decision of the 
Patent Trial and Appeal Board, if adverse to claims in an applica-
tion for patent, shall constitute the final refusal by the Office 
on those claims. The final decision of the Patent Trial and Appeal
H. R. 1249—7 
Board, if adverse to claims in a patent, shall, if no appeal or 
other review of the decision has been or can be taken or had, 
constitute cancellation of those claims, and notice of such cancella-
tion shall be endorsed on copies of the patent distributed after 
such cancellation. 
‘‘(e) SETTLEMENT.—Parties to a proceeding instituted under sub-
section (a) may terminate the proceeding by filing a written state-
ment reflecting the agreement of the parties as to the correct 
inventors of the claimed invention in dispute. Unless the Patent 
Trial and Appeal Board finds the agreement to be inconsistent 
with the evidence of record, if any, it shall take action consistent 
with the agreement. Any written settlement or understanding of 
the parties shall be filed with the Director. At the request of 
a party to the proceeding, the agreement or understanding shall 
be treated as business confidential information, shall be kept sepa-
rate from the file of the involved patents or applications, and 
shall be made available only to Government agencies on written 
request, or to any person on a showing of good cause. 
‘‘(f) ARBITRATION.—Parties to a proceeding instituted under sub-
section (a) may, within such time as may be specified by the 
Director by regulation, determine such contest or any aspect thereof 
by arbitration. Such arbitration shall be governed by the provisions 
of title 9, to the extent such title is not inconsistent with this 
section. The parties shall give notice of any arbitration award 
to the Director, and such award shall, as between the parties 
to the arbitration, be dispositive of the issues to which it relates. 
The arbitration award shall be unenforceable until such notice 
is given. Nothing in this subsection shall preclude the Director 
from determining the patentability of the claimed inventions 
involved in the proceeding.’’. 
(j) ELIMINATION OF REFERENCES TO INTERFERENCES.—(1) Sec-
tions 134, 145, 146, 154, and 305 of title 35, United States Code, 
are each amended by striking ‘‘Board of Patent Appeals and Inter-
ferences’’ each place it appears and inserting ‘‘Patent Trial and 
Appeal Board’’. 
(2)(A) Section 146 of title 35, United States Code, is amended— 
(i) by striking ‘‘an interference’’ and inserting ‘‘a deriva-
tion proceeding’’; and 
(ii) by striking ‘‘the interference’’ and inserting ‘‘the 
derivation proceeding’’. 
(B) The subparagraph heading for section 154(b)(1)(C) of 
title 35, United States Code, is amended to read as follows: 
‘‘(C) GUARANTEE OF ADJUSTMENTS FOR DELAYS DUE 
TO
DERIVATION
PROCEEDINGS, SECRECY
ORDERS, AND 
APPEALS.—’’. 
(3) The section heading for section 134 of title 35, United 
States Code, is amended to read as follows: 
‘‘§ 134. Appeal to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’’. 
(4) The section heading for section 146 of title 35, United 
States Code, is amended to read as follows:
H. R. 1249—8 
‘‘§ 146. Civil action in case of derivation proceeding’’. 
(5) The items relating to sections 134 and 135 in the table 
of sections for chapter 12 of title 35, United States Code, are 
amended to read as follows: 
‘‘134. Appeal to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. 
‘‘135. Derivation proceedings.’’. 
(6) The item relating to section 146 in the table of sections 
for chapter 13 of title 35, United States Code, is amended to 
read as follows: 
‘‘146. Civil action in case of derivation proceeding.’’. 
(k) STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS.— 
(1) IN GENERAL.—Section 32 of title 35, United States Code, 
is amended by inserting between the third and fourth sentences 
the following: ‘‘A proceeding under this section shall be com-
menced not later than the earlier of either the date that is 
10 years after the date on which the misconduct forming the 
basis for the proceeding occurred, or 1 year after the date 
on which the misconduct forming the basis for the proceeding 
is made known to an officer or employee of the Office as 
prescribed in the regulations established under section 
2(b)(2)(D).’’. 
(2) REPORT TO CONGRESS.—The Director shall provide on 
a biennial basis to the Judiciary Committees of the Senate 
and House of Representatives a report providing a short 
description of incidents made known to an officer or employee 
of the Office as prescribed in the regulations established under 
section 2(b)(2)(D) of title 35, United States Code, that reflect 
substantial evidence of misconduct before the Office but for 
which the Office was barred from commencing a proceeding 
under section 32 of title 35, United States Code, by the time 
limitation established by the fourth sentence of that section. 
(3) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by paragraph 
(1) shall apply in any case in which the time period for insti-
tuting a proceeding under section 32 of title 35, United States 
Code, had not lapsed before the date of the enactment of this 
Act. 
(l) SMALL BUSINESS STUDY.— 
(1) DEFINITIONS.—In this subsection— 
(A) the term ‘‘Chief Counsel’’ means the Chief Counsel 
for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration; 
(B) the term ‘‘General Counsel’’ means the General 
Counsel of the United States Patent and Trademark Office; 
and 
(C) the term ‘‘small business concern’’ has the meaning 
given that term under section 3 of the Small Business 
Act (15 U.S.C. 632). 
(2) STUDY.— 
(A) IN GENERAL.—The Chief Counsel, in consultation 
with the General Counsel, shall conduct a study of the 
effects of eliminating the use of dates of invention in deter-
mining whether an applicant is entitled to a patent under 
title 35, United States Code. 
(B) AREAS
OF
STUDY.—The study conducted under 
subparagraph (A) shall include examination of the effects
H. R. 1249—9 
of eliminating the use of invention dates, including exam-
ining— 
(i) how the change would affect the ability of small 
business concerns to obtain patents and their costs 
of obtaining patents; 
(ii) whether the change would create, mitigate, 
or exacerbate any disadvantages for applicants for pat-
ents that are small business concerns relative to 
applicants for patents that are not small business con-
cerns, and whether the change would create any advan-
tages for applicants for patents that are small business 
concerns relative to applicants for patents that are 
not small business concerns; 
(iii) the cost savings and other potential benefits 
to small business concerns of the change; and 
(iv) the feasibility and costs and benefits to small 
business concerns of alternative means of determining 
whether an applicant is entitled to a patent under 
title 35, United States Code. 
(3) REPORT.—Not later than the date that is 1 year after 
the date of the enactment of this Act, the Chief Counsel shall 
submit to the Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneur-
ship and the Committee on the Judiciary of the Senate and 
the Committee on Small Business and the Committee on the 
Judiciary of the House of Representatives a report on the 
results of the study under paragraph (2). 
(m) REPORT ON PRIOR USER RIGHTS.— 
(1) IN GENERAL.—Not later than the end of the 4-month 
period beginning on the date of the enactment of this Act, 
the Director shall report, to the Committee on the Judiciary 
of the Senate and the Committee on the Judiciary of the House 
of Representatives, the findings and recommendations of the 
Director on the operation of prior user rights in selected coun-
tries in the industrialized world. The report shall include the 
following: 
(A) A comparison between patent laws of the United 
States and the laws of other industrialized countries, 
including members of the European Union and Japan, 
Canada, and Australia. 
(B) An analysis of the effect of prior user rights on 
innovation rates in the selected countries. 
(C) An analysis of the correlation, if any, between 
prior user rights and start-up enterprises and the ability 
to attract venture capital to start new companies. 
(D) An analysis of the effect of prior user rights, if 
any, on small businesses, universities, and individual 
inventors. 
(E) An analysis of legal and constitutional issues, if 
any, that arise from placing trade secret law in patent 
law. 
(F) An analysis of whether the change to a first-to- 
file patent system creates a particular need for prior user 
rights. 
(2) CONSULTATION WITH OTHER AGENCIES.—In preparing 
the report required under paragraph (1), the Director shall 
consult with the United States Trade Representative, the Sec-
retary of State, and the Attorney General.
H. R. 1249—10 
(n) EFFECTIVE DATE.— 
(1) IN GENERAL.—Except as otherwise provided in this sec-
tion, the amendments made by this section shall take effect 
upon the expiration of the 18-month period beginning on the 
date of the enactment of this Act, and shall apply to any 
application for patent, and to any patent issuing thereon, that 
contains or contained at any time— 
(A) a claim to a claimed invention that has an effective 
filing date as defined in section 100(i) of title 35, United 
States Code, that is on or after the effective date described 
in this paragraph; or 
(B) a specific reference under section 120, 121, or 365(c) 
of title 35, United States Code, to any patent or application 
that contains or contained at any time such a claim. 
(2) INTERFERING
PATENTS.—The provisions of sections 
102(g), 135, and 291 of title 35, United States Code, as in 
effect on the day before the effective date set forth in paragraph 
(1) of this subsection, shall apply to each claim of an application 
for patent, and any patent issued thereon, for which the amend-
ments made by this section also apply, if such application 
or patent contains or contained at any time— 
(A) a claim to an invention having an effective filing 
date as defined in section 100(i) of title 35, United States 
Code, that occurs before the effective date set forth in 
paragraph (1) of this subsection; or 
(B) a specific reference under section 120, 121, or 365(c) 
of title 35, United States Code, to any patent or application 
that contains or contained at any time such a claim. 
(o) SENSE OF CONGRESS.—It is the sense of the Congress that 
converting the United States patent system from ‘‘first to invent’’ 
to a system of ‘‘first inventor to file’’ will promote the progress 
of science and the useful arts by securing for limited times to 
inventors the exclusive rights to their discoveries and provide inven-
tors with greater certainty regarding the scope of protection pro-
vided by the grant of exclusive rights to their discoveries. 
(p) SENSE OF CONGRESS.—It is the sense of the Congress that 
converting the United States patent system from ‘‘first to invent’’ 
to a system of ‘‘first inventor to file’’ will improve the United 
States patent system and promote harmonization of the United 
States patent system with the patent systems commonly used in 
nearly all other countries throughout the world with whom the 
United States conducts trade and thereby promote greater inter-
national uniformity and certainty in the procedures used for 
securing the exclusive rights of inventors to their discoveries. 
SEC. 4. INVENTOR’S OATH OR DECLARATION. 
(a) INVENTOR’S OATH OR DECLARATION.— 
(1) IN GENERAL.—Section 115 of title 35, United States 
Code, is amended to read as follows: 
‘‘§ 115. Inventor’s oath or declaration 
‘‘(a) NAMING THE INVENTOR; INVENTOR’S OATH OR DECLARA-
TION.—An application for patent that is filed under section 111(a) 
or commences the national stage under section 371 shall include, 
or be amended to include, the name of the inventor for any invention 
claimed in the application. Except as otherwise provided in this 
section, each individual who is the inventor or a joint inventor
H. R. 1249—11 
of a claimed invention in an application for patent shall execute 
an oath or declaration in connection with the application. 
‘‘(b) REQUIRED STATEMENTS.—An oath or declaration under sub-
section (a) shall contain statements that— 
‘‘(1) the application was made or was authorized to be 
made by the affiant or declarant; and 
‘‘(2) such individual believes himself or herself to be the 
original inventor or an original joint inventor of a claimed 
invention in the application. 
‘‘(c) ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS.—The Director may specify 
additional information relating to the inventor and the invention 
that is required to be included in an oath or declaration under 
subsection (a). 
‘‘(d) SUBSTITUTE STATEMENT.— 
‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—In lieu of executing an oath or declara-
tion under subsection (a), the applicant for patent may provide 
a substitute statement under the circumstances described in 
paragraph (2) and such additional circumstances that the 
Director may specify by regulation. 
‘‘(2) PERMITTED CIRCUMSTANCES.—A substitute statement 
under paragraph (1) is permitted with respect to any individual 
who— 
‘‘(A) is unable to file the oath or declaration under 
subsection (a) because the individual— 
‘‘(i) is deceased; 
‘‘(ii) is under legal incapacity; or 
‘‘(iii) cannot be found or reached after diligent 
effort; or 
‘‘(B) is under an obligation to assign the invention 
but has refused to make the oath or declaration required 
under subsection (a). 
‘‘(3) CONTENTS.—A substitute statement under this sub-
section shall— 
‘‘(A) identify the individual with respect to whom the 
statement applies; 
‘‘(B) set forth the circumstances representing the per-
mitted basis for the filing of the substitute statement in 
lieu of the oath or declaration under subsection (a); and 
‘‘(C) contain any additional information, including any 
showing, required by the Director. 
‘‘(e) MAKING
REQUIRED
STATEMENTS
IN
ASSIGNMENT
OF 
RECORD.—An individual who is under an obligation of assignment 
of an application for patent may include the required statements 
under subsections (b) and (c) in the assignment executed by the 
individual, in lieu of filing such statements separately. 
‘‘(f) TIME
FOR FILING.—A notice of allowance under section 
151 may be provided to an applicant for patent only if the applicant 
for patent has filed each required oath or declaration under sub-
section (a) or has filed a substitute statement under subsection 
(d) or recorded an assignment meeting the requirements of sub-
section (e). 
‘‘(g) EARLIER-FILED APPLICATION CONTAINING REQUIRED STATE-
MENTS OR SUBSTITUTE STATEMENT.— 
‘‘(1) EXCEPTION.—The requirements under this section shall 
not apply to an individual with respect to an application for 
patent in which the individual is named as the inventor or
H. R. 1249—12 
a joint inventor and who claims the benefit under section 120, 
121, or 365(c) of the filing of an earlier-filed application, if— 
‘‘(A) an oath or declaration meeting the requirements 
of subsection (a) was executed by the individual and was 
filed in connection with the earlier-filed application; 
‘‘(B) a substitute statement meeting the requirements 
of subsection (d) was filed in connection with the earlier 
filed application with respect to the individual; or 
‘‘(C) an assignment meeting the requirements of sub-
section (e) was executed with respect to the earlier-filed 
application by the individual and was recorded in connec-
tion with the earlier-filed application. 
‘‘(2) COPIES
OF
OATHS, DECLARATIONS, STATEMENTS, OR 
ASSIGNMENTS.—Notwithstanding paragraph (1), the Director 
may require that a copy of the executed oath or declaration, 
the substitute statement, or the assignment filed in connection 
with the earlier-filed application be included in the later-filed 
application. 
‘‘(h) SUPPLEMENTAL AND CORRECTED STATEMENTS; FILING ADDI-
TIONAL STATEMENTS.— 
‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—Any person making a statement required 
under this section may withdraw, replace, or otherwise correct 
the statement at any time. If a change is made in the naming 
of the inventor requiring the filing of 1 or more additional 
statements under this section, the Director shall establish regu-
lations under which such additional statements may be filed. 
‘‘(2) SUPPLEMENTAL STATEMENTS NOT REQUIRED.—If an indi-
vidual has executed an oath or declaration meeting the require-
ments of subsection (a) or an assignment meeting the require-
ments of subsection (e) with respect to an application for patent, 
the Director may not thereafter require that individual to make 
any additional oath, declaration, or other statement equivalent 
to those required by this section in connection with the applica-
tion for patent or any patent issuing thereon. 
‘‘(3) SAVINGS CLAUSE.—A patent shall not be invalid or 
unenforceable based upon the failure to comply with a require-
ment under this section if the failure is remedied as provided 
under paragraph (1). 
‘‘(i) ACKNOWLEDGMENT
OF
PENALTIES.—Any declaration or 
statement filed pursuant to this section shall contain an acknowl-
edgment that any willful false statement made in such declaration 
or statement is punishable under section 1001 of title 18 by fine 
or imprisonment of not more than 5 years, or both.’’. 
(2) RELATIONSHIP
TO
DIVISIONAL
APPLICATIONS.—Section 
121 of title 35, United States Code, is amended by striking 
‘‘If a divisional application’’ and all that follows through 
‘‘inventor.’’. 
(3) REQUIREMENTS FOR NONPROVISIONAL APPLICATIONS.— 
Section 111(a) of title 35, United States Code, is amended— 
(A) in paragraph (2)(C), by striking ‘‘by the applicant’’ 
and inserting ‘‘or declaration’’; 
(B) in the heading for paragraph (3), by inserting ‘‘OR 
DECLARATION’’ after ‘‘AND OATH’’; and 
(C) by inserting ‘‘or declaration’’ after ‘‘and oath’’ each 
place it appears.
H. R. 1249—13 
(4) CONFORMING AMENDMENT.—The item relating to section 
115 in the table of sections for chapter 11 of title 35, United 
States Code, is amended to read as follows: 
‘‘115. Inventor’s oath or declaration.’’. 
(b) FILING BY OTHER THAN INVENTOR.— 
(1) IN GENERAL.—Section 118 of title 35, United States 
Code, is amended to read as follows: 
‘‘§ 118. Filing by other than inventor 
‘‘A person to whom the inventor has assigned or is under 
an obligation to assign the invention may make an application 
for patent. A person who otherwise shows sufficient proprietary 
interest in the matter may make an application for patent on 
behalf of and as agent for the inventor on proof of the pertinent 
facts and a showing that such action is appropriate to preserve 
the rights of the parties. If the Director grants a patent on an 
application filed under this section by a person other than the 
inventor, the patent shall be granted to the real party in interest 
and upon such notice to the inventor as the Director considers 
to be sufficient.’’. 
(2) CONFORMING
AMENDMENT.—Section 251 of title 35, 
United States Code, is amended in the third undesignated 
paragraph by inserting ‘‘or the application for the original 
patent was filed by the assignee of the entire interest’’ after 
‘‘claims of the original patent’’. 
(c) SPECIFICATION.—Section 112 of title 35, United States Code, 
is amended— 
(1) in the first undesignated paragraph— 
(A) by striking ‘‘The specification’’ and inserting ‘‘(a) 
IN GENERAL.—The specification’’; and 
(B) by striking ‘‘of carrying out his invention’’ and 
inserting ‘‘or joint inventor of carrying out the invention’’; 
(2) in the second undesignated paragraph— 
(A) by striking ‘‘The specification’’ and inserting ‘‘(b) 
CONCLUSION.—The specification’’; and 
(B) by striking ‘‘applicant regards as his invention’’ 
and inserting ‘‘inventor or a joint inventor regards as the 
invention’’; 
(3) in the third undesignated paragraph, by striking ‘‘A 
claim’’ and inserting ‘‘(c) FORM.—A claim’’; 
(4) in the fourth undesignated paragraph, by striking ‘‘Sub-
ject to the following paragraph,’’ and inserting ‘‘(d) REFERENCE 
IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e),’’; 
(5) in the fifth undesignated paragraph, by striking ‘‘A 
claim’’ and inserting ‘‘(e) REFERENCE IN MULTIPLE DEPENDENT 
FORM.—A claim’’; and 
(6) in the last undesignated paragraph, by striking ‘‘An 
element’’ and inserting ‘‘(f) ELEMENT IN CLAIM FOR A COMBINA-
TION.—An element’’. 
(d) CONFORMING AMENDMENTS.— 
(1) Sections 111(b)(1)(A) of title 35, United States Code, 
is amended by striking ‘‘the first paragraph of section 112 
of this title’’ and inserting ‘‘section 112(a)’’. 
(2) Section 111(b)(2) of title 35, United States Code, is 
amended by striking ‘‘the second through fifth paragraphs of
H. R. 1249—14 
section 112,’’ and inserting ‘‘subsections (b) through (e) of sec-
tion 112,’’. 
(e) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by this section 
shall take effect upon the expiration of the 1-year period beginning 
on the date of the enactment of this Act and shall apply to any 
patent application that is filed on or after that effective date. 
SEC. 5. DEFENSE TO INFRINGEMENT BASED ON PRIOR COMMERCIAL 
USE. 
(a) IN GENERAL.—Section 273 of title 35, United States Code, 
is amended to read as follows: 
‘‘§ 273. Defense to infringement based on prior commercial 
use 
‘‘(a) IN GENERAL.—A person shall be entitled to a defense 
under section 282(b) with respect to subject matter consisting of 
a process, or consisting of a machine, manufacture, or composition 
of matter used in a manufacturing or other commercial process, 
that would otherwise infringe a claimed invention being asserted 
against the person if— 
‘‘(1) such person, acting in good faith, commercially used 
the subject matter in the United States, either in connection 
with an internal commercial use or an actual arm’s length 
sale or other arm’s length commercial transfer of a useful 
end result of such commercial use; and 
‘‘(2) such commercial use occurred at least 1 year before 
the earlier of either— 
‘‘(A) the effective filing date of the claimed invention; 
or 
‘‘(B) the date on which the claimed invention was dis-
closed to the public in a manner that qualified for the 
exception from prior art under section 102(b). 
‘‘(b) BURDEN OF PROOF.—A person asserting a defense under 
this section shall have the burden of establishing the defense by 
clear and convincing evidence. 
‘‘(c) ADDITIONAL COMMERCIAL USES.— 
‘‘(1) PREMARKETING REGULATORY REVIEW.—Subject matter 
for which commercial marketing or use is subject to a premar-
keting regulatory review period during which the safety or 
efficacy of the subject matter is established, including any 
period specified in section 156(g), shall be deemed to be commer-
cially used for purposes of subsection (a)(1) during such regu-
latory review period. 
‘‘(2) NONPROFIT LABORATORY USE.—A use of subject matter 
by a nonprofit research laboratory or other nonprofit entity, 
such as a university or hospital, for which the public is the 
intended beneficiary, shall be deemed to be a commercial use 
for purposes of subsection (a)(1), except that a defense under 
this section may be asserted pursuant to this paragraph only 
for continued and noncommercial use by and in the laboratory 
or other nonprofit entity. 
‘‘(d) EXHAUSTION
OF
RIGHTS.—Notwithstanding subsection 
(e)(1), the sale or other disposition of a useful end result by a 
person entitled to assert a defense under this section in connection 
with a patent with respect to that useful end result shall exhaust 
the patent owner’s rights under the patent to the extent that
H. R. 1249—15 
such rights would have been exhausted had such sale or other 
disposition been made by the patent owner. 
‘‘(e) LIMITATIONS AND EXCEPTIONS.— 
‘‘(1) PERSONAL DEFENSE.— 
‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—A defense under this section may 
be asserted only by the person who performed or directed 
the performance of the commercial use described in sub-
section (a), or by an entity that controls, is controlled 
by, or is under common control with such person. 
‘‘(B) TRANSFER OF RIGHT.—Except for any transfer to 
the patent owner, the right to assert a defense under 
this section shall not be licensed or assigned or transferred 
to another person except as an ancillary and subordinate 
part of a good-faith assignment or transfer for other reasons 
of the entire enterprise or line of business to which the 
defense relates. 
‘‘(C) RESTRICTION ON SITES.—A defense under this sec-
tion, when acquired by a person as part of an assignment 
or transfer described in subparagraph (B), may only be 
asserted for uses at sites where the subject matter that 
would otherwise infringe a claimed invention is in use 
before the later of the effective filing date of the claimed 
invention or the date of the assignment or transfer of 
such enterprise or line of business. 
‘‘(2) DERIVATION.—A person may not assert a defense under 
this section if the subject matter on which the defense is based 
was derived from the patentee or persons in privity with the 
patentee. 
‘‘(3) NOT A GENERAL LICENSE.—The defense asserted by 
a person under this section is not a general license under 
all claims of the patent at issue, but extends only to the 
specific subject matter for which it has been established that 
a commercial use that qualifies under this section occurred, 
except that the defense shall also extend to variations in the 
quantity or volume of use of the claimed subject matter, and 
to improvements in the claimed subject matter that do not 
infringe additional specifically claimed subject matter of the 
patent. 
‘‘(4) ABANDONMENT OF USE.—A person who has abandoned 
commercial use (that qualifies under this section) of subject 
matter may not rely on activities performed before the date 
of such abandonment in establishing a defense under this sec-
tion with respect to actions taken on or after the date of 
such abandonment. 
‘‘(5) UNIVERSITY EXCEPTION.— 
‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—A person commercially using subject 
matter to which subsection (a) applies may not assert a 
defense under this section if the claimed invention with 
respect to which the defense is asserted was, at the time 
the invention was made, owned or subject to an obligation 
of assignment to either an institution of higher education 
(as defined in section 101(a) of the Higher Education Act 
of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1001(a)), or a technology transfer 
organization whose primary purpose is to facilitate the 
commercialization of technologies developed by one or more 
such institutions of higher education.
H. R. 1249—16 
‘‘(B) EXCEPTION.—Subparagraph (A) shall not apply 
if any of the activities required to reduce to practice the 
subject matter of the claimed invention could not have 
been undertaken using funds provided by the Federal 
Government. 
‘‘(f) UNREASONABLE ASSERTION
OF DEFENSE.—If the defense 
under this section is pleaded by a person who is found to infringe 
the patent and who subsequently fails to demonstrate a reasonable 
basis for asserting the defense, the court shall find the case excep-
tional for the purpose of awarding attorney fees under section 
285. 
‘‘(g) INVALIDITY.—A patent shall not be deemed to be invalid 
under section 102 or 103 solely because a defense is raised or 
established under this section.’’. 
(b) CONFORMING AMENDMENT.—The item relating to section 
273 in the table of sections for chapter 28 of title 35, United 
States Code, is amended to read as follows: 
‘‘273. Defense to infringement based on prior commercial use.’’. 
(c) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by this section 
shall apply to any patent issued on or after the date of the enact-
ment of this Act. 
SEC. 6. POST-GRANT REVIEW PROCEEDINGS. 
(a) INTER PARTES REVIEW.—Chapter 31 of title 35, United 
States Code, is amended to read as follows: 
‘‘CHAPTER 31—INTER PARTES REVIEW 
‘‘Sec. 
‘‘311. Inter partes review. 
‘‘312. Petitions. 
‘‘313. Preliminary response to petition. 
‘‘314. Institution of inter partes review. 
‘‘315. Relation to other proceedings or actions. 
‘‘316. Conduct of inter partes review. 
‘‘317. Settlement. 
‘‘318. Decision of the Board. 
‘‘319. Appeal. 
‘‘§ 311. Inter partes review 
‘‘(a) IN GENERAL.—Subject to the provisions of this chapter, 
a person who is not the owner of a patent may file with the 
Office a petition to institute an inter partes review of the patent. 
The Director shall establish, by regulation, fees to be paid by 
the person requesting the review, in such amounts as the Director 
determines to be reasonable, considering the aggregate costs of 
the review. 
‘‘(b) SCOPE.—A petitioner in an inter partes review may request 
to cancel as unpatentable 1 or more claims of a patent only on 
a ground that could be raised under section 102 or 103 and only 
on the basis of prior art consisting of patents or printed publications. 
‘‘(c) FILING DEADLINE.—A petition for inter partes review shall 
be filed after the later of either— 
‘‘(1) the date that is 9 months after the grant of a patent 
or issuance of a reissue of a patent; or 
‘‘(2) if a post-grant review is instituted under chapter 32, 
the date of the termination of such post-grant review.
H. R. 1249—17 
‘‘§ 312. Petitions 
‘‘(a) REQUIREMENTS OF PETITION.—A petition filed under section 
311 may be considered only if— 
‘‘(1) the petition is accompanied by payment of the fee 
established by the Director under section 311; 
‘‘(2) the petition identifies all real parties in interest; 
‘‘(3) the petition identifies, in writing and with particu-
larity, each claim challenged, the grounds on which the chal-
lenge to each claim is based, and the evidence that supports 
the grounds for the challenge to each claim, including— 
‘‘(A) copies of patents and printed publications that 
the petitioner relies upon in support of the petition; and 
‘‘(B) affidavits or declarations of supporting evidence 
and opinions, if the petitioner relies on expert opinions; 
‘‘(4) the petition provides such other information as the 
Director may require by regulation; and 
‘‘(5) the petitioner provides copies of any of the documents 
required under paragraphs (2), (3), and (4) to the patent owner 
or, if applicable, the designated representative of the patent 
owner. 
‘‘(b) PUBLIC AVAILABILITY.—As soon as practicable after the 
receipt of a petition under section 311, the Director shall make 
the petition available to the public. 
‘‘§ 313. Preliminary response to petition 
‘‘If an inter partes review petition is filed under section 311, 
the patent owner shall have the right to file a preliminary response 
to the petition, within a time period set by the Director, that 
sets forth reasons why no inter partes review should be instituted 
based upon the failure of the petition to meet any requirement 
of this chapter. 
‘‘§ 314. Institution of inter partes review 
‘‘(a) THRESHOLD.—The Director may not authorize an inter 
partes review to be instituted unless the Director determines that 
the information presented in the petition filed under section 311 
and any response filed under section 313 shows that there is a 
reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect 
to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition. 
‘‘(b) TIMING.—The Director shall determine whether to institute 
an inter partes review under this chapter pursuant to a petition 
filed under section 311 within 3 months after— 
‘‘(1) receiving a preliminary response to the petition under 
section 313; or 
‘‘(2) if no such preliminary response is filed, the last date 
on which such response may be filed. 
‘‘(c) NOTICE.—The Director shall notify the petitioner and patent 
owner, in writing, of the Director’s determination under subsection 
(a), and shall make such notice available to the public as soon 
as is practicable. Such notice shall include the date on which 
the review shall commence. 
‘‘(d) NO APPEAL.—The determination by the Director whether 
to institute an inter partes review under this section shall be 
final and nonappealable. 
‘‘§ 315. Relation to other proceedings or actions 
‘‘(a) INFRINGER’S CIVIL ACTION.—
H. R. 1249—18 
‘‘(1) INTER PARTES REVIEW BARRED BY CIVIL ACTION.—An 
inter partes review may not be instituted if, before the date 
on which the petition for such a review is filed, the petitioner 
or real party in interest filed a civil action challenging the 
validity of a claim of the patent. 
‘‘(2) STAY OF CIVIL ACTION.—If the petitioner or real party 
in interest files a civil action challenging the validity of a 
claim of the patent on or after the date on which the petitioner 
files a petition for inter partes review of the patent, that civil 
action shall be automatically stayed until either— 
‘‘(A) the patent owner moves the court to lift the stay; 
‘‘(B) the patent owner files a civil action or counterclaim 
alleging that the petitioner or real party in interest has 
infringed the patent; or 
‘‘(C) the petitioner or real party in interest moves the 
court to dismiss the civil action. 
‘‘(3) TREATMENT OF COUNTERCLAIM.—A counterclaim chal-
lenging the validity of a claim of a patent does not constitute 
a civil action challenging the validity of a claim of a patent 
for purposes of this subsection. 
‘‘(b) PATENT OWNER’S ACTION.—An inter partes review may 
not be instituted if the petition requesting the proceeding is filed 
more than 1 year after the date on which the petitioner, real 
party in interest, or privy of the petitioner is served with a com-
plaint alleging infringement of the patent. The time limitation 
set forth in the preceding sentence shall not apply to a request 
for joinder under subsection (c). 
‘‘(c) JOINDER.—If the Director institutes an inter partes review, 
the Director, in his or her discretion, may join as a party to 
that inter partes review any person who properly files a petition 
under section 311 that the Director, after receiving a preliminary 
response under section 313 or the expiration of the time for filing 
such a response, determines warrants the institution of an inter 
partes review under section 314. 
‘‘(d) MULTIPLE PROCEEDINGS.—Notwithstanding sections 135(a), 
251, and 252, and chapter 30, during the pendency of an inter 
partes review, if another proceeding or matter involving the patent 
is before the Office, the Director may determine the manner in 
which the inter partes review or other proceeding or matter may 
proceed, including providing for stay, transfer, consolidation, or 
termination of any such matter or proceeding. 
‘‘(e) ESTOPPEL.— 
‘‘(1) PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE OFFICE.—The petitioner in 
an inter partes review of a claim in a patent under this chapter 
that results in a final written decision under section 318(a), 
or the real party in interest or privy of the petitioner, may 
not request or maintain a proceeding before the Office with 
respect to that claim on any ground that the petitioner raised 
or reasonably could have raised during that inter partes review. 
‘‘(2) CIVIL ACTIONS AND OTHER PROCEEDINGS.—The peti-
tioner in an inter partes review of a claim in a patent under 
this chapter that results in a final written decision under 
section 318(a), or the real party in interest or privy of the 
petitioner, may not assert either 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 that the claim is invalid on any
H. R. 1249—19 
ground that the petitioner raised or reasonably could have 
raised during that inter partes review. 
‘‘§ 316. Conduct of inter partes review 
‘‘(a) REGULATIONS.—The Director shall prescribe regulations— 
‘‘(1) providing that the file of any proceeding under this 
chapter shall be made available to the public, except that 
any petition or document filed with the intent that it be sealed 
shall, if accompanied by a motion to seal, be treated as sealed 
pending the outcome of the ruling on the motion; 
‘‘(2) setting forth the standards for the showing of sufficient 
grounds to institute a review under section 314(a); 
‘‘(3) establishing procedures for the submission of supple-
mental information after the petition is filed; 
‘‘(4) establishing and governing inter partes review under 
this chapter and the relationship of such review to other pro-
ceedings under this title; 
‘‘(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; and 
‘‘(B) what is otherwise necessary in the interest of 
justice; 
‘‘(6) prescribing sanctions for abuse of discovery, abuse 
of process, or any other improper use of the proceeding, such 
as to harass or to cause unnecessary delay or an unnecessary 
increase in the cost of the proceeding; 
‘‘(7) providing for protective orders governing the exchange 
and submission of confidential information; 
‘‘(8) providing for the filing by the patent owner of a 
response to the petition under section 313 after an inter partes 
review has been instituted, and requiring that the patent owner 
file with such response, through affidavits or declarations, any 
additional factual evidence and expert opinions on which the 
patent owner relies in support of the response; 
‘‘(9) setting forth standards and procedures for allowing 
the patent owner to move to amend the patent under subsection 
(d) to cancel a challenged claim or propose a reasonable number 
of substitute claims, and ensuring that any information sub-
mitted by the patent owner in support of any amendment 
entered under subsection (d) is made available to the public 
as part of the prosecution history of the patent; 
‘‘(10) providing either party with the right to an oral 
hearing as part of the proceeding; 
‘‘(11) requiring that the final determination in an inter 
partes review be issued not later than 1 year after the date 
on which the Director notices the institution of a review under 
this chapter, except that the Director may, for good cause 
shown, extend the 1-year period by not more than 6 months, 
and may adjust the time periods in this paragraph in the 
case of joinder under section 315(c); 
‘‘(12) setting a time period for requesting joinder under 
section 315(c); and 
‘‘(13) providing the petitioner with at least 1 opportunity 
to file written comments within a time period established by 
the Director.
H. R. 1249—20 
‘‘(b) CONSIDERATIONS.—In prescribing regulations under this 
section, the Director shall consider the effect of any such regulation 
on the economy, the integrity of the patent system, the efficient 
administration of the Office, and the ability of the Office to timely 
complete proceedings instituted under this chapter. 
‘‘(c) PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD.—The Patent Trial and 
Appeal Board shall, in accordance with section 6, conduct each 
inter partes review instituted under this chapter. 
‘‘(d) AMENDMENT OF THE PATENT.— 
‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—During an inter partes review instituted 
under this chapter, the patent owner may file 1 motion to 
amend the patent in 1 or more of the following ways: 
‘‘(A) Cancel any challenged patent claim. 
‘‘(B) For each challenged claim, propose a reasonable 
number of substitute claims. 
‘‘(2) ADDITIONAL MOTIONS.—Additional motions to amend 
may be permitted upon the joint request of the petitioner and 
the patent owner to materially advance the settlement of a 
proceeding under section 317, or as permitted by regulations 
prescribed by the Director. 
‘‘(3) SCOPE OF CLAIMS.—An amendment under this sub-
section may not enlarge the scope of the claims of the patent 
or introduce new matter. 
‘‘(e) EVIDENTIARY
STANDARDS.—In an inter partes review 
instituted under this chapter, the petitioner shall have the burden 
of proving a proposition of unpatentability by a preponderance 
of the evidence. 
‘‘§ 317. Settlement 
‘‘(a) IN GENERAL.—An inter partes review instituted under this 
chapter shall be terminated with respect to any petitioner upon 
the joint request of the petitioner and the patent owner, unless 
the Office has decided the merits of the proceeding before the 
request for termination is filed. If the inter partes review is termi-
nated with respect to a petitioner under this section, no estoppel 
under section 315(e) shall attach to the petitioner, or to the real 
party in interest or privy of the petitioner, on the basis of that 
petitioner’s institution of that inter partes review. If no petitioner 
remains in the inter partes review, the Office may terminate the 
review or proceed to a final written decision under section 318(a). 
‘‘(b) AGREEMENTS
IN
WRITING.—Any agreement or under-
standing between the patent owner and a petitioner, including 
any collateral agreements referred to in such agreement or under-
standing, made in connection with, or in contemplation of, the 
termination of an inter partes review under this section shall be 
in writing and a true copy of such agreement or understanding 
shall be filed in the Office before the termination of the inter 
partes review as between the parties. At the request of a party 
to the proceeding, the agreement or understanding shall be treated 
as business confidential information, shall be kept separate from 
the file of the involved patents, and shall be made available only 
to Federal Government agencies on written request, or to any 
person on a showing of good cause. 
‘‘§ 318. Decision of the Board 
‘‘(a) FINAL WRITTEN DECISION.—If an inter partes review is 
instituted and not dismissed under this chapter, the Patent Trial
H. R. 1249—21 
and Appeal Board shall issue a final written decision with respect 
to the patentability of any patent claim challenged by the petitioner 
and any new claim added under section 316(d). 
‘‘(b) CERTIFICATE.—If the Patent Trial and Appeal Board issues 
a final written decision under subsection (a) and the time for 
appeal has expired or any appeal has terminated, the Director 
shall issue and publish a certificate canceling any claim of the 
patent finally determined to be unpatentable, confirming any claim 
of the patent determined to be patentable, and incorporating in 
the patent by operation of the certificate any new or amended 
claim determined to be patentable. 
‘‘(c) INTERVENING RIGHTS.—Any proposed amended or new claim 
determined to be patentable and incorporated into a patent fol-
lowing an inter partes review under this chapter shall have the 
same effect as that specified in section 252 for reissued patents 
on the right of any person who made, purchased, or used within 
the United States, or imported into the United States, anything 
patented by such proposed amended or new claim, or who made 
substantial preparation therefor, before the issuance of a certificate 
under subsection (b). 
‘‘(d) DATA ON LENGTH OF REVIEW.—The Office shall make avail-
able to the public data describing the length of time between the 
institution of, and the issuance of a final written decision under 
subsection (a) for, each inter partes review. 
‘‘§ 319. Appeal 
‘‘A party dissatisfied with the final written decision of the 
Patent Trial and Appeal Board under section 318(a) may appeal 
the decision pursuant to sections 141 through 144. Any party to 
the inter partes review shall have the right to be a party to 
the appeal.’’. 
(b) CONFORMING AMENDMENT.—The table of chapters for part 
III of title 35, United States Code, is amended by striking the 
item relating to chapter 31 and inserting the following: 
‘‘31. Inter Partes Review ........................................................................................
311’’. 
(c) REGULATIONS AND EFFECTIVE DATE.— 
(1) REGULATIONS.—The Director shall, not later than the 
date that is 1 year after the date of the enactment of this 
Act, issue regulations to carry out chapter 31 of title 35, United 
States Code, as amended by subsection (a) of this section. 
(2) APPLICABILITY.— 
(A) IN GENERAL.—The amendments made by subsection 
(a) shall take effect upon the expiration of the 1-year period 
beginning on the date of the enactment of this Act and 
shall apply to any patent issued before, on, or after that 
effective date. 
(B) GRADUATED IMPLEMENTATION.—The Director may 
impose a limit on the number of inter partes reviews that 
may be instituted under chapter 31 of title 35, United 
States Code, during each of the first 4 1-year periods in 
which the amendments made by subsection (a) are in effect, 
if such number in each year equals or exceeds the number 
of inter partes reexaminations that are ordered under 
chapter 31 of title 35, United States Code, in the last 
fiscal year ending before the effective date of the amend-
ments made by subsection (a). 
(3) TRANSITION.—
H. R. 1249—22 
(A) IN GENERAL.—Chapter 31 of title 35, United States 
Code, is amended— 
(i) in section 312— 
(I) in subsection (a)— 
(aa) in the first sentence, by striking ‘‘a 
substantial new question of patentability 
affecting any claim of the patent concerned 
is raised by the request,’’ and inserting ‘‘the 
information presented in the request shows 
that there is a reasonable likelihood that the 
requester would prevail with respect to at 
least 1 of the claims challenged in the 
request,’’; and 
(bb) in the second sentence, by striking 
‘‘The existence of a substantial new question 
of patentability’’ and inserting ‘‘A showing that 
there is a reasonable likelihood that the 
requester would prevail with respect to at 
least 1 of the claims challenged in the 
request’’; and 
(II) in subsection (c), in the second sentence, 
by striking ‘‘no substantial new question of patent-
ability has been raised,’’ and inserting ‘‘the 
showing required by subsection (a) has not been 
made,’’; and 
(ii) in section 313, by striking ‘‘a substantial new 
question of patentability affecting a claim of the patent 
is raised’’ and inserting ‘‘it has been shown that there 
is a reasonable likelihood that the requester would 
prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims chal-
lenged in the request’’. 
(B) APPLICATION.—The amendments made by this 
paragraph— 
(i) shall take effect on the date of the enactment 
of this Act; and 
(ii) shall apply to requests for inter partes 
reexamination that are filed on or after such date 
of enactment, but before the effective date set forth 
in paragraph (2)(A) of this subsection. 
(C) CONTINUED APPLICABILITY OF PRIOR PROVISIONS.— 
The provisions of chapter 31 of title 35, United States 
Code, as amended by this paragraph, shall continue to 
apply to requests for inter partes reexamination that are 
filed before the effective date set forth in paragraph (2)(A) 
as if subsection (a) had not been enacted. 
(d) POST-GRANT REVIEW.—Part III of title 35, United States 
Code, is amended by adding at the end the following: 
‘‘CHAPTER 32—POST-GRANT REVIEW 
‘‘Sec. 
‘‘321. Post-grant review. 
‘‘322. Petitions. 
‘‘323. Preliminary response to petition. 
‘‘324. Institution of post-grant review. 
‘‘325. Relation to other proceedings or actions. 
‘‘326. Conduct of post-grant review. 
‘‘327. Settlement. 
‘‘328. Decision of the Board. 
‘‘329. Appeal.
H. R. 1249—23 
‘‘§ 321. Post-grant review 
‘‘(a) IN GENERAL.—Subject to the provisions of this chapter, 
a person who is not the owner of a patent may file with the 
Office a petition to institute a post-grant review of the patent. 
The Director shall establish, by regulation, fees to be paid by 
the person requesting the review, in such amounts as the Director 
determines to be reasonable, considering the aggregate costs of 
the post-grant review. 
‘‘(b) SCOPE.—A petitioner in a post-grant review may request 
to cancel as unpatentable 1 or more claims of a patent on any 
ground that could be raised under paragraph (2) or (3) of section 
282(b) (relating to invalidity of the patent or any claim). 
‘‘(c) FILING DEADLINE.—A petition for a post-grant review may 
only be filed not later than the date that is 9 months after the 
date of the grant of the patent or of the issuance of a reissue 
patent (as the case may be). 
‘‘§ 322. Petitions 
‘‘(a) REQUIREMENTS OF PETITION.—A petition filed under section 
321 may be considered only if— 
‘‘(1) the petition is accompanied by payment of the fee 
established by the Director under section 321; 
‘‘(2) the petition identifies all real parties in interest; 
‘‘(3) the petition identifies, in writing and with particu-
larity, each claim challenged, the grounds on which the chal-
lenge to each claim is based, and the evidence that supports 
the grounds for the challenge to each claim, including— 
‘‘(A) copies of patents and printed publications that 
the petitioner relies upon in support of the petition; and 
‘‘(B) affidavits or declarations of supporting evidence 
and opinions, if the petitioner relies on other factual evi-
dence or on expert opinions; 
‘‘(4) the petition provides such other information as the 
Director may require by regulation; and 
‘‘(5) the petitioner provides copies of any of the documents 
required under paragraphs (2), (3), and (4) to the patent owner 
or, if applicable, the designated representative of the patent 
owner. 
‘‘(b) PUBLIC AVAILABILITY.—As soon as practicable after the 
receipt of a petition under section 321, the Director shall make 
the petition available to the public. 
‘‘§ 323. Preliminary response to petition 
‘‘If a post-grant review petition is filed under section 321, 
the patent owner shall have the right to file a preliminary response 
to the petition, within a time period set by the Director, that 
sets forth reasons why no post-grant review should be instituted 
based upon the failure of the petition to meet any requirement 
of this chapter. 
‘‘§ 324. Institution of post-grant review 
‘‘(a) THRESHOLD.—The Director may not authorize a post-grant 
review to be instituted unless the Director determines that the 
information presented in the petition filed under section 321, if 
such information is not rebutted, would demonstrate that it is 
more likely than not that at least 1 of the claims challenged in 
the petition is unpatentable.
H. R. 1249—24 
‘‘(b) ADDITIONAL GROUNDS.—The determination required under 
subsection (a) may also be satisfied by a showing that the petition 
raises a novel or unsettled legal question that is important to 
other patents or patent applications. 
‘‘(c) TIMING.—The Director shall determine whether to institute 
a post-grant review under this chapter pursuant to a petition filed 
under section 321 within 3 months after— 
‘‘(1) receiving a preliminary response to the petition under 
section 323; or 
‘‘(2) if no such preliminary response is filed, the last date 
on which such response may be filed. 
‘‘(d) NOTICE.—The Director shall notify the petitioner and 
patent owner, in writing, of the Director’s determination under 
subsection (a) or (b), and shall make such notice available to the 
public as soon as is practicable. Such notice shall include the 
date on which the review shall commence. 
‘‘(e) NO APPEAL.—The determination by the Director whether 
to institute a post-grant review under this section shall be final 
and nonappealable. 
‘‘§ 325. Relation to other proceedings or actions 
‘‘(a) INFRINGER’S CIVIL ACTION.— 
‘‘(1) POST-GRANT REVIEW BARRED BY CIVIL ACTION.—A post- 
grant review may not be instituted under this chapter if, before 
the date on which the petition for such a review is filed, 
the petitioner or real party in interest filed a civil action chal-
lenging the validity of a claim of the patent. 
‘‘(2) STAY OF CIVIL ACTION.—If the petitioner or real party 
in interest files a civil action challenging the validity of a 
claim of the patent on or after the date on which the petitioner 
files a petition for post-grant review of the patent, that civil 
action shall be automatically stayed until either— 
‘‘(A) the patent owner moves the court to lift the stay; 
‘‘(B) the patent owner files a civil action or counterclaim 
alleging that the petitioner or real party in interest has 
infringed the patent; or 
‘‘(C) the petitioner or real party in interest moves the 
court to dismiss the civil action. 
‘‘(3) TREATMENT OF COUNTERCLAIM.—A counterclaim chal-
lenging the validity of a claim of a patent does not constitute 
a civil action challenging the validity of a claim of a patent 
for purposes of this subsection. 
‘‘(b) PRELIMINARY
INJUNCTIONS.—If a civil action alleging 
infringement of a patent is filed within 3 months after the date 
on which the patent is granted, the court may not stay its consider-
ation of the patent owner’s motion for a preliminary injunction 
against infringement of the patent on the basis that a petition 
for post-grant review has been filed under this chapter or that 
such a post-grant review has been instituted under this chapter. 
‘‘(c) JOINDER.—If more than 1 petition for a post-grant review 
under this chapter is properly filed against the same patent and 
the Director determines that more than 1 of these petitions war-
rants the institution of a post-grant review under section 324, 
the Director may consolidate such reviews into a single post-grant 
review. 
‘‘(d) MULTIPLE PROCEEDINGS.—Notwithstanding sections 135(a), 
251, and 252, and chapter 30, during the pendency of any post-
H. R. 1249—25 
grant review under this chapter, if another proceeding or matter 
involving the patent is before the Office, the Director may determine 
the manner in which the post-grant review or other proceeding 
or matter may proceed, including providing for the stay, transfer, 
consolidation, or termination of any such matter or proceeding. 
In determining whether to institute or order a proceeding under 
this chapter, chapter 30, or chapter 31, the Director may take 
into account whether, and reject the petition or request because, 
the same or substantially the same prior art or arguments pre-
viously were presented to the Office. 
‘‘(e) ESTOPPEL.— 
‘‘(1) PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE OFFICE.—The petitioner in 
a post-grant review of a claim in a patent under this chapter 
that results in a final written decision under section 328(a), 
or the real party in interest or privy of the petitioner, may 
not request or maintain a proceeding before the Office with 
respect to that claim on any ground that the petitioner raised 
or reasonably could have raised during that post-grant review. 
‘‘(2) CIVIL ACTIONS AND OTHER PROCEEDINGS.—The peti-
tioner in a post-grant review of a claim in a patent under 
this chapter that results in a final written decision under 
section 328(a), or the real party in interest or privy of the 
petitioner, may not assert either 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 that the claim is invalid on any 
ground that the petitioner raised or reasonably could have 
raised during that post-grant review. 
‘‘(f) REISSUE
PATENTS.—A post-grant review may not be 
instituted under this chapter if the petition requests cancellation 
of a claim in a reissue patent that is identical to or narrower 
than a claim in the original patent from which the reissue patent 
was issued, and the time limitations in section 321(c) would bar 
filing a petition for a post-grant review for such original patent. 
‘‘§ 326. Conduct of post-grant review 
‘‘(a) REGULATIONS.—The Director shall prescribe regulations— 
‘‘(1) providing that the file of any proceeding under this 
chapter shall be made available to the public, except that 
any petition or document filed with the intent that it be sealed 
shall, if accompanied by a motion to seal, be treated as sealed 
pending the outcome of the ruling on the motion; 
‘‘(2) setting forth the standards for the showing of sufficient 
grounds to institute a review under subsections (a) and (b) 
of section 324; 
‘‘(3) establishing procedures for the submission of supple-
mental information after the petition is filed; 
‘‘(4) establishing and governing a post-grant review under 
this chapter and the relationship of such review to other pro-
ceedings under this title; 
‘‘(5) setting forth standards and procedures for discovery 
of relevant evidence, including that such discovery shall be 
limited to evidence directly related to factual assertions 
advanced by either party in the proceeding; 
‘‘(6) prescribing sanctions for abuse of discovery, abuse 
of process, or any other improper use of the proceeding, such
H. R. 1249—26 
as to harass or to cause unnecessary delay or an unnecessary 
increase in the cost of the proceeding; 
‘‘(7) providing for protective orders governing the exchange 
and submission of confidential information; 
‘‘(8) providing for the filing by the patent owner of a 
response to the petition under section 323 after a post-grant 
review has been instituted, and requiring that the patent owner 
file with such response, through affidavits or declarations, any 
additional factual evidence and expert opinions on which the 
patent owner relies in support of the response; 
‘‘(9) setting forth standards and procedures for allowing 
the patent owner to move to amend the patent under subsection 
(d) to cancel a challenged claim or propose a reasonable number 
of substitute claims, and ensuring that any information sub-
mitted by the patent owner in support of any amendment 
entered under subsection (d) is made available to the public 
as part of the prosecution history of the patent; 
‘‘(10) providing either party with the right to an oral 
hearing as part of the proceeding; 
‘‘(11) requiring that the final determination in any post- 
grant review be issued not later than 1 year after the date 
on which the Director notices the institution of a proceeding 
under this chapter, except that the Director may, for good 
cause shown, extend the 1-year period by not more than 6 
months, and may adjust the time periods in this paragraph 
in the case of joinder under section 325(c); and 
‘‘(12) providing the petitioner with at least 1 opportunity 
to file written comments within a time period established by 
the Director. 
‘‘(b) CONSIDERATIONS.—In prescribing regulations under this 
section, the Director shall consider the effect of any such regulation 
on the economy, the integrity of the patent system, the efficient 
administration of the Office, and the ability of the Office to timely 
complete proceedings instituted under this chapter. 
‘‘(c) PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD.—The Patent Trial and 
Appeal Board shall, in accordance with section 6, conduct each 
post-grant review instituted under this chapter. 
‘‘(d) AMENDMENT OF THE PATENT.— 
‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—During a post-grant review instituted 
under this chapter, the patent owner may file 1 motion to 
amend the patent in 1 or more of the following ways: 
‘‘(A) Cancel any challenged patent claim. 
‘‘(B) For each challenged claim, propose a reasonable 
number of substitute claims. 
‘‘(2) ADDITIONAL MOTIONS.—Additional motions to amend 
may be permitted upon the joint request of the petitioner and 
the patent owner to materially advance the settlement of a 
proceeding under section 327, or upon the request of the patent 
owner for good cause shown. 
‘‘(3) SCOPE OF CLAIMS.—An amendment under this sub-
section may not enlarge the scope of the claims of the patent 
or introduce new matter. 
‘‘(e) 
EVIDENTIARY
STANDARDS.—In 
a 
post-grant 
review 
instituted under this chapter, the petitioner shall have the burden 
of proving a proposition of unpatentability by a preponderance 
of the evidence.
H. R. 1249—27 
‘‘§ 327. Settlement 
‘‘(a) IN GENERAL.—A post-grant review instituted under this 
chapter shall be terminated with respect to any petitioner upon 
the joint request of the petitioner and the patent owner, unless 
the Office has decided the merits of the proceeding before the 
request for termination is filed. If the post-grant review is termi-
nated with respect to a petitioner under this section, no estoppel 
under section 325(e) shall attach to the petitioner, or to the real 
party in interest or privy of the petitioner, on the basis of that 
petitioner’s institution of that post-grant review. If no petitioner 
remains in the post-grant review, the Office may terminate the 
post-grant review or proceed to a final written decision under section 
328(a). 
‘‘(b) AGREEMENTS
IN
WRITING.—Any agreement or under-
standing between the patent owner and a petitioner, including 
any collateral agreements referred to in such agreement or under-
standing, made in connection with, or in contemplation of, the 
termination of a post-grant review under this section shall be in 
writing, and a true copy of such agreement or understanding shall 
be filed in the Office before the termination of the post-grant review 
as between the parties. At the request of a party to the proceeding, 
the agreement or understanding shall be treated as business con-
fidential information, shall be kept separate from the file of the 
involved patents, and shall be made available only to Federal 
Government agencies on written request, or to any person on a 
showing of good cause. 
‘‘§ 328. Decision of the Board 
‘‘(a) FINAL
WRITTEN
DECISION.—If a post-grant review is 
instituted and not dismissed under this chapter, the Patent Trial 
and Appeal Board shall issue a final written decision with respect 
to the patentability of any patent claim challenged by the petitioner 
and any new claim added under section 326(d). 
‘‘(b) CERTIFICATE.—If the Patent Trial and Appeal Board issues 
a final written decision under subsection (a) and the time for 
appeal has expired or any appeal has terminated, the Director 
shall issue and publish a certificate canceling any claim of the 
patent finally determined to be unpatentable, confirming any claim 
of the patent determined to be patentable, and incorporating in 
the patent by operation of the certificate any new or amended 
claim determined to be patentable. 
‘‘(c) INTERVENING RIGHTS.—Any proposed amended or new claim 
determined to be patentable and incorporated into a patent fol-
lowing a post-grant review under this chapter shall have the same 
effect as that specified in section 252 of this title for reissued 
patents on the right of any person who made, purchased, or used 
within the United States, or imported into the United States, any-
thing patented by such proposed amended or new claim, or who 
made substantial preparation therefor, before the issuance of a 
certificate under subsection (b). 
‘‘(d) DATA ON LENGTH OF REVIEW.—The Office shall make avail-
able to the public data describing the length of time between the 
institution of, and the issuance of a final written decision under 
subsection (a) for, each post-grant review.
H. R. 1249—28 
‘‘§ 329. Appeal 
‘‘A party dissatisfied with the final written decision of the 
Patent Trial and Appeal Board under section 328(a) may appeal 
the decision pursuant to sections 141 through 144. Any party to 
the post-grant review shall have the right to be a party to the 
appeal.’’. 
(e) CONFORMING AMENDMENT.—The table of chapters for part 
III of title 35, United States Code, is amended by adding at the 
end the following: 
‘‘32. Post-Grant Review ..........................................................................................
321’’. 
(f) REGULATIONS AND EFFECTIVE DATE.— 
(1) REGULATIONS.—The Director shall, not later than the 
date that is 1 year after the date of the enactment of this 
Act, issue regulations to carry out chapter 32 of title 35, United 
States Code, as added by subsection (d) of this section. 
(2) APPLICABILITY.— 
(A) IN GENERAL.—The amendments made by subsection 
(d) shall take effect upon the expiration of the 1-year period 
beginning on the date of the enactment of this Act and, 
except as provided in section 18 and in paragraph (3), 
shall apply only to patents described in section 3(n)(1). 
(B) LIMITATION.—The Director may impose a limit on 
the number of post-grant reviews that may be instituted 
under chapter 32 of title 35, United States Code, during 
each of the first 4 1-year periods in which the amendments 
made by subsection (d) are in effect. 
(3) PENDING INTERFERENCES.— 
(A) PROCEDURES
IN
GENERAL.—The Director shall 
determine, and include in the regulations issued under 
paragraph (1), the procedures under which an interference 
commenced before the effective date set forth in paragraph 
(2)(A) is to proceed, including whether such interference— 
(i) is to be dismissed without prejudice to the filing 
of a petition for a post-grant review under chapter 
32 of title 35, United States Code; or 
(ii) is to proceed as if this Act had not been enacted. 
(B) PROCEEDINGS
BY
PATENT
TRIAL
AND
APPEAL 
BOARD.—For purposes of an interference that is commenced 
before the effective date set forth in paragraph (2)(A), the 
Director may deem the Patent Trial and Appeal Board 
to be the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences, and 
may allow the Patent Trial and Appeal Board to conduct 
any further proceedings in that interference. 
(C) APPEALS.—The authorization to appeal or have 
remedy from derivation proceedings in sections 141(d) and 
146 of title 35, United States Code, as amended by this 
Act, and the jurisdiction to entertain appeals from deriva-
tion proceedings in section 1295(a)(4)(A) of title 28, United 
States Code, as amended by this Act, shall be deemed 
to extend to any final decision in an interference that 
is commenced before the effective date set forth in para-
graph (2)(A) of this subsection and that is not dismissed 
pursuant to this paragraph. 
(g) CITATION OF PRIOR ART AND WRITTEN STATEMENTS.— 
(1) IN GENERAL.—Section 301 of title 35, United States 
Code, is amended to read as follows:
H. R. 1249—29 
‘‘§ 301. Citation of prior art and written statements 
‘‘(a) IN GENERAL.—Any person at any time may cite to the 
Office in writing— 
‘‘(1) prior art consisting of patents or printed publications 
which that person believes to have a bearing on the patent-
ability of any claim of a particular patent; or 
‘‘(2) statements of the patent owner filed in a proceeding 
before a Federal court or the Office in which the patent owner 
took a position on the scope of any claim of a particular patent. 
‘‘(b) OFFICIAL FILE.—If the person citing prior art or written 
statements pursuant to subsection (a) explains in writing the perti-
nence and manner of applying the prior art or written statements 
to at least 1 claim of the patent, the citation of the prior art 
or written statements and the explanation thereof shall become 
a part of the official file of the patent. 
‘‘(c) ADDITIONAL INFORMATION.—A party that submits a written 
statement pursuant to subsection (a)(2) shall include any other 
documents, pleadings, or evidence from the proceeding in which 
the statement was filed that addresses the written statement. 
‘‘(d) LIMITATIONS.—A written statement submitted pursuant 
to subsection (a)(2), and additional information submitted pursuant 
to subsection (c), shall not be considered by the Office for any 
purpose other than to determine the proper meaning of a patent 
claim in a proceeding that is ordered or instituted pursuant to 
section 304, 314, or 324. If any such written statement or additional 
information is subject to an applicable protective order, such state-
ment or information shall be redacted to exclude information that 
is subject to that order. 
‘‘(e) CONFIDENTIALITY.—Upon the written request of the person 
citing prior art or written statements pursuant to subsection (a), 
that person’s identity shall be excluded from the patent file and 
kept confidential.’’. 
(2) CONFORMING AMENDMENT.—The item relating to section 
301 in the table of sections for chapter 30 of title 35, United 
States Code, is amended to read as follows: 
‘‘301. Citation of prior art and written statements.’’. 
(3) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by this sub-
section shall take effect upon the expiration of the 1-year period 
beginning on the date of the enactment of this Act and shall 
apply to any patent issued before, on, or after that effective 
date. 
(h) REEXAMINATION.— 
(1) DETERMINATION BY DIRECTOR.— 
(A) IN GENERAL.—Section 303(a) of title 35, United 
States Code, is amended by striking ‘‘section 301 of this 
title’’ and inserting ‘‘section 301 or 302’’. 
(B) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by this 
paragraph shall take effect upon the expiration of the 1- 
year period beginning on the date of the enactment of 
this Act and shall apply to any patent issued before, on, 
or after that effective date. 
(2) APPEAL.— 
(A) IN GENERAL.—Section 306 of title 35, United States 
Code, is amended by striking ‘‘145’’ and inserting ‘‘144’’. 
(B) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by this 
paragraph shall take effect on the date of the enactment
H. R. 1249—30 
of this Act and shall apply to any appeal of a reexamination 
before the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences or 
the Patent Trial and Appeal Board that is pending on, 
or brought on or after, the date of the enactment of this 
Act. 
SEC. 7. PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD. 
(a) COMPOSITION AND DUTIES.— 
(1) IN GENERAL.—Section 6 of title 35, United States Code, 
is amended to read as follows: 
‘‘§ 6. Patent Trial and Appeal Board 
‘‘(a) IN GENERAL.—There shall be in the Office a Patent Trial 
and Appeal Board. The Director, the Deputy Director, the Commis-
sioner for Patents, the Commissioner for Trademarks, and the 
administrative patent judges shall constitute the Patent Trial and 
Appeal Board. The administrative patent judges shall be persons 
of competent legal knowledge and scientific ability who are 
appointed by the Secretary, in consultation with the Director. Any 
reference in any Federal law, Executive order, rule, regulation, 
or delegation of authority, or any document of or pertaining to 
the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences is deemed to refer 
to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. 
‘‘(b) DUTIES.—The Patent Trial and Appeal Board shall— 
‘‘(1) on written appeal of an applicant, review adverse 
decisions of examiners upon applications for patents pursuant 
to section 134(a); 
‘‘(2) review appeals of reexaminations pursuant to section 
134(b); 
‘‘(3) conduct derivation proceedings pursuant to section 135; 
and 
‘‘(4) conduct inter partes reviews and post-grant reviews 
pursuant to chapters 31 and 32. 
‘‘(c) 3-MEMBER PANELS.—Each appeal, derivation proceeding, 
post-grant review, and inter partes review shall be heard by at 
least 3 members of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, who shall 
be designated by the Director. Only the Patent Trial and Appeal 
Board may grant rehearings. 
‘‘(d) TREATMENT OF PRIOR APPOINTMENTS.—The Secretary of 
Commerce may, in the Secretary’s discretion, deem the appointment 
of an administrative patent judge who, before the date of the 
enactment of this subsection, held office pursuant to an appointment 
by the Director to take effect on the date on which the Director 
initially appointed the administrative patent judge. It shall be 
a defense to a challenge to the appointment of an administrative 
patent judge on the basis of the judge’s having been originally 
appointed by the Director that the administrative patent judge 
so appointed was acting as a de facto officer.’’. 
(2) CONFORMING AMENDMENT.—The item relating to section 
6 in the table of sections for chapter 1 of title 35, United 
States Code, is amended to read as follows: 
‘‘6. Patent Trial and Appeal Board.’’. 
(b) ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS.—Section 134 of title 35, United 
States Code, is amended— 
(1) in subsection (b), by striking ‘‘any reexamination pro-
ceeding’’ and inserting ‘‘a reexamination’’; and
H. R. 1249—31 
(2) by striking subsection (c). 
(c) CIRCUIT APPEALS.— 
(1) IN GENERAL.—Section 141 of title 35, United States 
Code, is amended to read as follows: 
‘‘§ 141. Appeal to Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit 
‘‘(a) EXAMINATIONS.—An applicant who is dissatisfied with the 
final decision in an appeal to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board 
under section 134(a) may appeal the Board’s decision to the United 
States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. By filing such 
an appeal, the applicant waives his or her right to proceed under 
section 145. 
‘‘(b) REEXAMINATIONS.—A patent owner who is dissatisfied with 
the final decision in an appeal of a reexamination to the Patent 
Trial and Appeal Board under section 134(b) may appeal the Board’s 
decision only to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal 
Circuit. 
‘‘(c) POST-GRANT AND INTER PARTES REVIEWS.—A party to an 
inter partes review or a post-grant review who is dissatisfied with 
the final written decision of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board 
under section 318(a) or 328(a) (as the case may be) may appeal 
the Board’s decision only to the United States Court of Appeals 
for the Federal Circuit. 
‘‘(d) DERIVATION PROCEEDINGS.—A party to a derivation pro-
ceeding who is dissatisfied with the final decision of the Patent 
Trial and Appeal Board in the proceeding may appeal the decision 
to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, 
but such appeal shall be dismissed if any adverse party to such 
derivation proceeding, within 20 days after the appellant has filed 
notice of appeal in accordance with section 142, files notice with 
the Director that the party elects to have all further proceedings 
conducted as provided in section 146. If the appellant does not, 
within 30 days after the filing of such notice by the adverse party, 
file a civil action under section 146, the Board’s decision shall 
govern the further proceedings in the case.’’. 
(2) JURISDICTION.—Section 1295(a)(4)(A) of title 28, United 
States Code, is amended to read as follows: 
‘‘(A) the Patent Trial and Appeal Board of the United 
States Patent and Trademark Office with respect to a 
patent application, derivation proceeding, reexamination, 
post-grant review, or inter partes review under title 35, 
at the instance of a party who exercised that party’s right 
to participate in the applicable proceeding before or appeal 
to the Board, except that an applicant or a party to a 
derivation proceeding may also have remedy by civil action 
pursuant to section 145 or 146 of title 35; an appeal under 
this subparagraph of a decision of the Board with respect 
to an application or derivation proceeding shall waive the 
right of such applicant or party to proceed under section 
145 or 146 of title 35;’’. 
(3) PROCEEDINGS
ON
APPEAL.—Section 143 of title 35, 
United States Code, is amended— 
(A) by striking the third sentence and inserting the 
following: ‘‘In an ex parte case, the Director shall submit 
to the court in writing the grounds for the decision of 
the Patent and Trademark Office, addressing all of the 
issues raised in the appeal. The Director shall have the
H. R. 1249—32 
right to intervene in an appeal from a decision entered 
by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board in a derivation 
proceeding under section 135 or in an inter partes or post- 
grant review under chapter 31 or 32.’’; and 
(B) by striking the last sentence. 
(d) CONFORMING AMENDMENTS.— 
(1) ATOMIC ENERGY ACT OF 1954.—Section 152 of the Atomic 
Energy Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C. 2182) is amended in the third 
undesignated paragraph— 
(A) by striking ‘‘Board of Patent Appeals and Inter-
ferences’’ each place it appears and inserting ‘‘Patent Trial 
and Appeal Board’’; and 
(B) by inserting ‘‘and derivation’’ after ‘‘established for 
interference’’. 
(2) TITLE 51.—Section 20135 of title 51, United States 
Code, is amended— 
(A) in subsections (e) and (f), by striking ‘‘Board of 
Patent Appeals and Interferences’’ each place it appears 
and inserting ‘‘Patent Trial and Appeal Board’’; and 
(B) in subsection (e), by inserting ‘‘and derivation’’ 
after ‘‘established for interference’’. 
(e) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by this section 
shall take effect upon the expiration of the 1-year period beginning 
on the date of the enactment of this Act and shall apply to pro-
ceedings commenced on or after that effective date, except that— 
(1) the extension of jurisdiction to the United States Court 
of Appeals for the Federal Circuit to entertain appeals of 
decisions of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board in reexamina-
tions under the amendment made by subsection (c)(2) shall 
be deemed to take effect on the date of the enactment of 
this Act and shall extend to any decision of the Board of 
Patent Appeals and Interferences with respect to a reexamina-
tion that is entered before, on, or after the date of the enactment 
of this Act; 
(2) the provisions of sections 6, 134, and 141 of title 35, 
United States Code, as in effect on the day before the effective 
date of the amendments made by this section shall continue 
to apply to inter partes reexaminations that are requested 
under section 311 of such title before such effective date; 
(3) the Patent Trial and Appeal Board may be deemed 
to be the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences for pur-
poses of appeals of inter partes reexaminations that are 
requested under section 311 of title 35, United States Code, 
before the effective date of the amendments made by this 
section; and 
(4) the Director’s right under the fourth sentence of section 
143 of title 35, United States Code, as amended by subsection 
(c)(3) of this section, to intervene in an appeal from a decision 
entered by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board shall be deemed 
to extend to inter partes reexaminations that are requested 
under section 311 of such title before the effective date of 
the amendments made by this section. 
SEC. 8. PREISSUANCE SUBMISSIONS BY THIRD PARTIES. 
(a) IN GENERAL.—Section 122 of title 35, United States Code, 
is amended by adding at the end the following: 
‘‘(e) PREISSUANCE SUBMISSIONS BY THIRD PARTIES.—
H. R. 1249—33 
‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—Any third party may submit for consider-
ation and inclusion in the record of a patent application, any 
patent, published patent application, or other printed publica-
tion of potential relevance to the examination of the application, 
if such submission is made in writing before the earlier of— 
‘‘(A) the date a notice of allowance under section 151 
is given or mailed in the application for patent; or 
‘‘(B) the later of— 
‘‘(i) 6 months after the date on which the applica-
tion for patent is first published under section 122 
by the Office, or 
‘‘(ii) the date of the first rejection under section 
132 of any claim by the examiner during the examina-
tion of the application for patent. 
‘‘(2) OTHER REQUIREMENTS.—Any submission under para-
graph (1) shall— 
‘‘(A) set forth a concise description of the asserted 
relevance of each submitted document; 
‘‘(B) be accompanied by such fee as the Director may 
prescribe; and 
‘‘(C) include a statement by the person making such 
submission affirming that the submission was made in 
compliance with this section.’’. 
(b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by this section 
shall take effect upon the expiration of the 1-year period beginning 
on the date of the enactment of this Act and shall apply to any 
patent application filed before, on, or after that effective date. 
SEC. 9. VENUE. 
(a) TECHNICAL AMENDMENTS RELATING TO VENUE.—Sections 
32, 145, 146, 154(b)(4)(A), and 293 of title 35, United States Code, 
and section 21(b)(4) of the Trademark Act of 1946 (15 U.S.C. 
1071(b)(4)), are each amended by striking ‘‘United States District 
Court for the District of Columbia’’ each place that term appears 
and inserting ‘‘United States District Court for the Eastern District 
of Virginia’’. 
(b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by this section 
shall take effect on the date of the enactment of this Act and 
shall apply to any civil action commenced on or after that date. 
SEC. 10. FEE SETTING AUTHORITY. 
(a) FEE SETTING.— 
(1) IN GENERAL.—The Director may set or adjust by rule 
any fee established, authorized, or charged under title 35, 
United States Code, or the Trademark Act of 1946 (15 U.S.C. 
1051 et seq.), for any services performed by or materials fur-
nished by, the Office, subject to paragraph (2). 
(2) FEES TO RECOVER COSTS.—Fees may be set or adjusted 
under paragraph (1) only to recover the aggregate estimated 
costs to the Office for processing, activities, services, and mate-
rials relating to patents (in the case of patent fees) and trade-
marks (in the case of trademark fees), including administrative 
costs of the Office with respect to such patent or trademark 
fees (as the case may be). 
(b) SMALL AND MICRO ENTITIES.—The fees set or adjusted under 
subsection (a) for filing, searching, examining, issuing, appealing, 
and maintaining patent applications and patents shall be reduced 
by 50 percent with respect to the application of such fees to any
H. R. 1249—34 
small entity that qualifies for reduced fees under section 41(h)(1) 
of title 35, United States Code, and shall be reduced by 75 percent 
with respect to the application of such fees to any micro entity 
as defined in section 123 of that title (as added by subsection 
(g) of this section). 
(c) REDUCTION OF FEES IN CERTAIN FISCAL YEARS.—In each 
fiscal year, the Director— 
(1) shall consult with the Patent Public Advisory Com-
mittee and the Trademark Public Advisory Committee on the 
advisability of reducing any fees described in subsection (a); 
and 
(2) after the consultation required under paragraph (1), 
may reduce such fees. 
(d) ROLE OF THE PUBLIC ADVISORY COMMITTEE.—The Director 
shall— 
(1) not less than 45 days before publishing any proposed 
fee under subsection (a) in the Federal Register, submit the 
proposed fee to the Patent Public Advisory Committee or the 
Trademark Public Advisory Committee, or both, as appropriate; 
(2)(A) provide the relevant advisory committee described 
in paragraph (1) a 30-day period following the submission of 
any proposed fee, in which to deliberate, consider, and comment 
on such proposal; 
(B) require that, during that 30-day period, the relevant 
advisory committee hold a public hearing relating to such pro-
posal; and 
(C) assist the relevant advisory committee in carrying out 
that public hearing, including by offering the use of the 
resources of the Office to notify and promote the hearing to 
the public and interested stakeholders; 
(3) require the relevant advisory committee to make avail-
able to the public a written report setting forth in detail the 
comments, advice, and recommendations of the committee 
regarding the proposed fee; and 
(4) consider and analyze any comments, advice, or rec-
ommendations received from the relevant advisory committee 
before setting or adjusting (as the case may be) the fee. 
(e) PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER.— 
(1) PUBLICATION AND RATIONALE.—The Director shall— 
(A) publish any proposed fee change under this section 
in the Federal Register; 
(B) include, in such publication, the specific rationale 
and purpose for the proposal, including the possible 
expectations or benefits resulting from the proposed 
change; and 
(C) notify, through the Chair and Ranking Member 
of the Committees on the Judiciary of the Senate and 
the House of Representatives, the Congress of the proposed 
change not later than the date on which the proposed 
change is published under subparagraph (A). 
(2) PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD.—The Director shall, in the 
publication under paragraph (1), provide the public a period 
of not less than 45 days in which to submit comments on 
the proposed change in fees. 
(3) PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE.—The final rule setting 
or adjusting a fee under this section shall be published in
H. R. 1249—35 
the Federal Register and in the Official Gazette of the Patent 
and Trademark Office. 
(4) CONGRESSIONAL
COMMENT
PERIOD.—A fee set or 
adjusted under subsection (a) may not become effective— 
(A) before the end of the 45-day period beginning on 
the day after the date on which the Director publishes 
the final rule adjusting or setting the fee under paragraph 
(3); or 
(B) if a law is enacted disapproving such fee. 
(5) RULE OF CONSTRUCTION.—Rules prescribed under this 
section shall not diminish— 
(A) the rights of an applicant for a patent under title 
35, United States Code, or for a mark under the Trademark 
Act of 1946; or 
(B) any rights under a ratified treaty. 
(f) RETENTION
OF
AUTHORITY.—The Director retains the 
authority under subsection (a) to set or adjust fees only during 
such period as the Patent and Trademark Office remains an agency 
within the Department of Commerce. 
(g) MICRO ENTITY DEFINED.— 
(1) IN GENERAL.—Chapter 11 of title 35, United States 
Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new 
section: 
‘‘§ 123. Micro entity defined 
‘‘(a) IN GENERAL.—For purposes of this title, the term ‘micro 
entity’ means an applicant who makes a certification that the 
applicant— 
‘‘(1) qualifies as a small entity, as defined in regulations 
issued by the Director; 
‘‘(2) has not been named as an inventor on more than 
4 previously filed patent applications, other than applications 
filed in another country, provisional applications under section 
111(b), or international applications filed under the treaty 
defined in section 351(a) for which the basic national fee under 
section 41(a) was not paid; 
‘‘(3) did not, in the calendar year preceding the calendar 
year in which the applicable fee is being paid, have a gross 
income, as defined in section 61(a) of the Internal Revenue 
Code of 1986, exceeding 3 times the median household income 
for that preceding calendar year, as most recently reported 
by the Bureau of the Census; and 
‘‘(4) has not assigned, granted, or conveyed, and is not 
under an obligation by contract or law to assign, grant, or 
convey, a license or other ownership interest in the application 
concerned to an entity that, in the calendar year preceding 
the calendar year in which the applicable fee is being paid, 
had a gross income, as defined in section 61(a) of the Internal 
Revenue Code of 1986, exceeding 3 times the median household 
income for that preceding calendar year, as most recently 
reported by the Bureau of the Census. 
‘‘(b) APPLICATIONS RESULTING FROM PRIOR EMPLOYMENT.—An 
applicant is not considered to be named on a previously filed applica-
tion for purposes of subsection (a)(2) if the applicant has assigned, 
or is under an obligation by contract or law to assign, all ownership 
rights in the application as the result of the applicant’s previous 
employment.
H. R. 1249—36 
‘‘(c) FOREIGN CURRENCY EXCHANGE RATE.—If an applicant’s 
or entity’s gross income in the preceding calendar year is not 
in United States dollars, the average currency exchange rate, as 
reported by the Internal Revenue Service, during that calendar 
year shall be used to determine whether the applicant’s or entity’s 
gross income exceeds the threshold specified in paragraphs (3) 
or (4) of subsection (a). 
‘‘(d) INSTITUTIONS OF HIGHER EDUCATION.—For purposes of this 
section, a micro entity shall include an applicant who certifies 
that— 
‘‘(1) the applicant’s employer, from which the applicant 
obtains the majority of the applicant’s income, is an institution 
of higher education as defined in section 101(a) of the Higher 
Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1001(a)); or 
‘‘(2) the applicant has assigned, granted, conveyed, or is 
under an obligation by contract or law, to assign, grant, or 
convey, a license or other ownership interest in the particular 
applications to such an institution of higher education. 
‘‘(e) DIRECTOR’S AUTHORITY.—In addition to the limits imposed 
by this section, the Director may, in the Director’s discretion, impose 
income limits, annual filing limits, or other limits on who may 
qualify as a micro entity pursuant to this section if the Director 
determines that such additional limits are reasonably necessary 
to avoid an undue impact on other patent applicants or owners 
or are otherwise reasonably necessary and appropriate. At least 
3 months before any limits proposed to be imposed pursuant to 
this subsection take effect, the Director shall inform the Committee 
on the Judiciary of the House of Representatives and the Committee 
on the Judiciary of the Senate of any such proposed limits.’’. 
(2) CONFORMING
AMENDMENT.—Chapter 11 of title 35, 
United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the 
following new item: 
‘‘123. Micro entity defined.’’. 
(h) ELECTRONIC FILING INCENTIVE.— 
(1) IN GENERAL.—Notwithstanding any other provision of 
this section, an additional fee of $400 shall be established 
for each application for an original patent, except for a design, 
plant, or provisional application, that is not filed by electronic 
means as prescribed by the Director. The fee established by 
this subsection shall be reduced by 50 percent for small entities 
that qualify for reduced fees under section 41(h)(1) of title 
35, United States Code. All fees paid under this subsection 
shall be deposited in the Treasury as an offsetting receipt 
that shall not be available for obligation or expenditure. 
(2) EFFECTIVE DATE.—This subsection shall take effect upon 
the expiration of the 60-day period beginning on the date of 
the enactment of this Act. 
(i) EFFECTIVE DATE; SUNSET.— 
(1) EFFECTIVE DATE.—Except as provided in subsection (h), 
this section and the amendments made by this section shall 
take effect on the date of the enactment of this Act. 
(2) SUNSET.—The authority of the Director to set or adjust 
any fee under subsection (a) shall terminate upon the expiration 
of the 7-year period beginning on the date of the enactment 
of this Act.
H. R. 1249—37 
(3) PRIOR REGULATIONS NOT AFFECTED.—The termination 
of authority under this subsection shall not affect any regula-
tions issued under this section before the effective date of 
such termination or any rulemaking proceeding for the issuance 
of regulations under this section that is pending on such date. 
SEC. 11. FEES FOR PATENT SERVICES. 
(a) GENERAL PATENT SERVICES.—Subsections (a) and (b) of sec-
tion 41 of title 35, United States Code, are amended to read as 
follows: 
‘‘(a) GENERAL FEES.—The Director shall charge the following 
fees: 
‘‘(1) FILING AND BASIC NATIONAL FEES.— 
‘‘(A) On filing each application for an original patent, 
except for design, plant, or provisional applications, $330. 
‘‘(B) On filing each application for an original design 
patent, $220. 
‘‘(C) On filing each application for an original plant 
patent, $220. 
‘‘(D) On filing each provisional application for an 
original patent, $220. 
‘‘(E) On filing each application for the reissue of a 
patent, $330. 
‘‘(F) The basic national fee for each international 
application filed under the treaty defined in section 351(a) 
entering the national stage under section 371, $330. 
‘‘(G) In addition, excluding any sequence listing or 
computer program listing filed in an electronic medium 
as prescribed by the Director, for any application the speci-
fication and drawings of which exceed 100 sheets of paper 
(or equivalent as prescribed by the Director if filed in 
an electronic medium), $270 for each additional 50 sheets 
of paper (or equivalent as prescribed by the Director if 
filed in an electronic medium) or fraction thereof. 
‘‘(2) EXCESS CLAIMS FEES.— 
‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—In addition to the fee specified in 
paragraph (1)— 
‘‘(i) on filing or on presentation at any other time, 
$220 for each claim in independent form in excess 
of 3; 
‘‘(ii) on filing or on presentation at any other time, 
$52 for each claim (whether dependent or independent) 
in excess of 20; and 
‘‘(iii) for each application containing a multiple 
dependent claim, $390. 
‘‘(B) MULTIPLE DEPENDENT CLAIMS.—For the purpose 
of computing fees under subparagraph (A), a multiple 
dependent claim referred to in section 112 or any claim 
depending therefrom shall be considered as separate 
dependent claims in accordance with the number of claims 
to which reference is made. 
‘‘(C) REFUNDS; ERRORS IN PAYMENT.—The Director may 
by regulation provide for a refund of any part of the fee 
specified in subparagraph (A) for any claim that is canceled 
before an examination on the merits, as prescribed by 
the Director, has been made of the application under sec-
tion 131. Errors in payment of the additional fees under
H. R. 1249—38 
this paragraph may be rectified in accordance with regula-
tions prescribed by the Director. 
‘‘(3) EXAMINATION FEES.— 
‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.— 
‘‘(i) For examination of each application for an 
original patent, except for design, plant, provisional, 
or international applications, $220. 
‘‘(ii) For examination of each application for an 
original design patent, $140. 
‘‘(iii) For examination of each application for an 
original plant patent, $170. 
‘‘(iv) For examination of the national stage of each 
international application, $220. 
‘‘(v) For examination of each application for the 
reissue of a patent, $650. 
‘‘(B) APPLICABILITY
OF
OTHER
FEE
PROVISIONS.—The 
provisions of paragraphs (3) and (4) of section 111(a) 
relating to the payment of the fee for filing the application 
shall apply to the payment of the fee specified in subpara-
graph (A) with respect to an application filed under section 
111(a). The provisions of section 371(d) relating to the 
payment of the national fee shall apply to the payment 
of the fee specified in subparagraph (A) with respect to 
an international application. 
‘‘(4) ISSUE FEES.— 
‘‘(A) For issuing each original patent, except for design 
or plant patents, $1,510. 
‘‘(B) For issuing each original design patent, $860. 
‘‘(C) For issuing each original plant patent, $1,190. 
‘‘(D) For issuing each reissue patent, $1,510. 
‘‘(5) DISCLAIMER FEE.—On filing each disclaimer, $140. 
‘‘(6) APPEAL FEES.— 
‘‘(A) On filing an appeal from the examiner to the 
Patent Trial and Appeal Board, $540. 
‘‘(B) In addition, on filing a brief in support of the 
appeal, $540, and on requesting an oral hearing in the 
appeal before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, $1,080. 
‘‘(7) REVIVAL FEES.—On filing each petition for the revival 
of an unintentionally abandoned application for a patent, for 
the unintentionally delayed payment of the fee for issuing 
each patent, or for an unintentionally delayed response by 
the patent owner in any reexamination proceeding, $1,620, 
unless the petition is filed under section 133 or 151, in which 
case the fee shall be $540. 
‘‘(8) EXTENSION FEES.—For petitions for 1-month extensions 
of time to take actions required by the Director in an applica-
tion— 
‘‘(A) on filing a first petition, $130; 
‘‘(B) on filing a second petition, $360; and 
‘‘(C) on filing a third or subsequent petition, $620. 
‘‘(b) MAINTENANCE FEES.— 
‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—The Director shall charge the following 
fees for maintaining in force all patents based on applications 
filed on or after December 12, 1980: 
‘‘(A) Three years and 6 months after grant, $980. 
‘‘(B) Seven years and 6 months after grant, $2,480. 
‘‘(C) Eleven years and 6 months after grant, $4,110.
H. R. 1249—39 
‘‘(2) GRACE PERIOD; SURCHARGE.—Unless payment of the 
applicable maintenance fee under paragraph (1) is received 
in the Office on or before the date the fee is due or within 
a grace period of 6 months thereafter, the patent shall expire 
as of the end of such grace period. The Director may require 
the payment of a surcharge as a condition of accepting within 
such 6-month grace period the payment of an applicable mainte-
nance fee. 
‘‘(3) NO MAINTENANCE FEE FOR DESIGN OR PLANT PATENT.— 
No fee may be established for maintaining a design or plant 
patent in force.’’. 
(b) DELAYS IN PAYMENT.—Subsection (c) of section 41 of title 
35, United States Code, is amended— 
(1) by striking ‘‘(c)(1) The Director’’ and inserting: 
‘‘(c) DELAYS IN PAYMENT OF MAINTENANCE FEES.— 
‘‘(1) ACCEPTANCE.—The Director’’; and 
(2) by striking ‘‘(2) A patent’’ and inserting: 
‘‘(2) EFFECT ON RIGHTS OF OTHERS.—A patent’’. 
(c) PATENT SEARCH FEES.—Subsection (d) of section 41 of title 
35, United States Code, is amended to read as follows: 
‘‘(d) PATENT SEARCH AND OTHER FEES.— 
‘‘(1) PATENT SEARCH FEES.— 
‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—The Director shall charge the fees 
specified under subparagraph (B) for the search of each 
application for a patent, except for provisional applications. 
The Director shall adjust the fees charged under this para-
graph to ensure that the fees recover an amount not to 
exceed the estimated average cost to the Office of searching 
applications for patent by Office personnel. 
‘‘(B) SPECIFIC FEES.—The fees referred to in subpara-
graph (A) are— 
‘‘(i) $540 for each application for an original patent, 
except for design, plant, provisional, or international 
applications; 
‘‘(ii) $100 for each application for an original design 
patent; 
‘‘(iii) $330 for each application for an original plant 
patent; 
‘‘(iv) $540 for the national stage of each inter-
national application; and 
‘‘(v) $540 for each application for the reissue of 
a patent. 
‘‘(C) APPLICABILITY OF OTHER PROVISIONS.—The provi-
sions of paragraphs (3) and (4) of section 111(a) relating 
to the payment of the fee for filing the application shall 
apply to the payment of the fee specified in this paragraph 
with respect to an application filed under section 111(a). 
The provisions of section 371(d) relating to the payment 
of the national fee shall apply to the payment of the fee 
specified in this paragraph with respect to an international 
application. 
‘‘(D) REFUNDS.—The Director may by regulation pro-
vide for a refund of any part of the fee specified in this 
paragraph for any applicant who files a written declaration 
of express abandonment as prescribed by the Director 
before an examination has been made of the application 
under section 131.
H. R. 1249—40 
‘‘(2) OTHER FEES.— 
‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—The Director shall establish fees 
for all other processing, services, or materials relating to 
patents not specified in this section to recover the estimated 
average cost to the Office of such processing, services, 
or materials, except that the Director shall charge the 
following fees for the following services: 
‘‘(i) For recording a document affecting title, $40 
per property. 
‘‘(ii) For each photocopy, $.25 per page. 
‘‘(iii) For each black and white copy of a patent, 
$3. 
‘‘(B) COPIES FOR LIBRARIES.—The yearly fee for pro-
viding a library specified in section 12 with uncertified 
printed copies of the specifications and drawings for all 
patents in that year shall be $50.’’. 
(d) FEES FOR SMALL ENTITIES.—Subsection (h) of section 41 
of title 35, United States Code, is amended to read as follows: 
‘‘(h) FEES FOR SMALL ENTITIES.— 
‘‘(1) REDUCTIONS IN FEES.—Subject to paragraph (3), fees 
charged under subsections (a), (b), and (d)(1) shall be reduced 
by 50 percent with respect to their application to any small 
business concern as defined under section 3 of the Small Busi-
ness Act, and to any independent inventor or nonprofit 
organization as defined in regulations issued by the Director. 
‘‘(2) SURCHARGES AND OTHER FEES.—With respect to its 
application to any entity described in paragraph (1), any sur-
charge or fee charged under subsection (c) or (d) shall not 
be higher than the surcharge or fee required of any other 
entity under the same or substantially similar circumstances. 
‘‘(3) REDUCTION FOR ELECTRONIC FILING.—The fee charged 
under subsection (a)(1)(A) shall be reduced by 75 percent with 
respect to its application to any entity to which paragraph 
(1) applies, if the application is filed by electronic means as 
prescribed by the Director.’’. 
(e) TECHNICAL AMENDMENTS.—Section 41 of title 35, United 
States Code, is amended— 
(1) in subsection (e), in the first sentence, by striking 
‘‘The Director’’ and inserting ‘‘WAIVER
OF
FEES; COPIES 
REGARDING NOTICE.—The Director’’; 
(2) in subsection (f), by striking ‘‘The fees’’ and inserting 
‘‘ADJUSTMENT OF FEES.—The fees’’; 
(3) by repealing subsection (g); and 
(4) in subsection (i)— 
(A) by striking ‘‘(i)(1) The Director’’ and inserting the 
following: 
‘‘(i) ELECTRONIC PATENT AND TRADEMARK DATA.— 
‘‘(1) MAINTENANCE OF COLLECTIONS.—The Director’’; 
(B) by striking ‘‘(2) The Director’’ and inserting the 
following: 
‘‘(2) AVAILABILITY OF AUTOMATED SEARCH SYSTEMS.—The 
Director’’; 
(C) by striking ‘‘(3) The Director’’ and inserting the 
following: 
‘‘(3) ACCESS FEES.—The Director’’; and 
(D) by striking ‘‘(4) The Director’’ and inserting the 
following:
H. R. 1249—41 
‘‘(4) ANNUAL REPORT TO CONGRESS.—The Director’’. 
(f) ADJUSTMENT OF TRADEMARK FEES.—Section 802(a) of divi-
sion B of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2005 (Public Law 
108–447) is amended— 
(1) in the first sentence, by striking ‘‘During fiscal years 
2005, 2006, and 2007,’’, and inserting ‘‘Until such time as 
the Director sets or adjusts the fees otherwise,’’; and 
(2) in the second sentence, by striking ‘‘During fiscal years 
2005, 2006, and 2007, the’’ and inserting ‘‘The’’. 
(g) EFFECTIVE DATE, APPLICABILITY, AND TRANSITION PROVI-
SIONS.—Section 803(a) of division B of the Consolidated Appropria-
tions Act, 2005 (Public Law 108–447) is amended by striking ‘‘and 
shall apply only with respect to the remaining portion of fiscal 
year 2005 and fiscal year 2006’’. 
(h) PRIORITIZED EXAMINATION FEE.— 
(1) IN GENERAL.— 
(A) FEE.— 
(i) PRIORITIZED EXAMINATION FEE.—A fee of $4,800 
shall be established for filing a request, pursuant to 
section 2(b)(2)(G) of title 35, United States Code, for 
prioritized examination of a nonprovisional application 
for an original utility or plant patent. 
(ii) 
ADDITIONAL
FEES.—In 
addition 
to 
the 
prioritized examination fee under clause (i), the fees 
due on an application for which prioritized examination 
is being sought are the filing, search, and examination 
fees (including any applicable excess claims and 
application size fees), processing fee, and publication 
fee for that application. 
(B) REGULATIONS; LIMITATIONS.— 
(i) REGULATIONS.—The Director may by regulation 
prescribe conditions for acceptance of a request under 
subparagraph (A) and a limit on the number of filings 
for prioritized examination that may be accepted. 
(ii) LIMITATION ON CLAIMS.— Until regulations are 
prescribed under clause (i), no application for which 
prioritized examination is requested may contain or 
be amended to contain more than 4 independent claims 
or more than 30 total claims. 
(iii) LIMITATION ON TOTAL NUMBER OF REQUESTS.— 
The Director may not accept in any fiscal year more 
than 10,000 requests for prioritization until regulations 
are prescribed under this subparagraph setting another 
limit. 
(2) REDUCTION IN FEES FOR SMALL ENTITIES.—The Director 
shall reduce fees for providing prioritized examination of non-
provisional applications for original utility and plant patents 
by 50 percent for small entities that qualify for reduced fees 
under section 41(h)(1) of title 35, United States Code. 
(3) DEPOSIT OF FEES.—All fees paid under this subsection 
shall be credited to the United States Patent and Trademark 
Office Appropriation Account, shall remain available until 
expended, and may be used only for the purposes specified 
in section 42(c)(3)(A) of title 35, United States Code. 
(4) EFFECTIVE DATE AND TERMINATION.—
H. R. 1249—42 
(A) EFFECTIVE DATE.—This subsection shall take effect 
on the date that is 10 days after the date of the enactment 
of this Act. 
(B) TERMINATION.—The fee imposed under paragraph 
(1)(A)(i), and the reduced fee under paragraph (2), shall 
terminate on the effective date of the setting or adjustment 
of the fee under paragraph (1)(A)(i) pursuant to the exercise 
of the authority under section 10 for the first time with 
respect to that fee. 
(i) APPROPRIATION ACCOUNT TRANSITION FEES.— 
(1) SURCHARGE.— 
(A) IN GENERAL.—There shall be a surcharge of 15 
percent, rounded by standard arithmetic rules, on all fees 
charged or authorized by subsections (a), (b), and (d)(1) 
of section 41, and section 132(b), of title 35, United States 
Code. Any surcharge imposed under this subsection is, 
and shall be construed to be, separate from and in addition 
to any other surcharge imposed under this Act or any 
other provision of law. 
(B) DEPOSIT OF AMOUNTS.—Amounts collected pursuant 
to the surcharge imposed under subparagraph (A) shall 
be credited to the United States Patent and Trademark 
Appropriation Account, shall remain available until 
expended, and may be used only for the purposes specified 
in section 42(c)(3)(A) of title 35, United States Code. 
(2) EFFECTIVE DATE AND TERMINATION OF SURCHARGE.— 
The surcharge provided for in paragraph (1)— 
(A) shall take effect on the date that is 10 days after 
the date of the enactment of this Act; and 
(B) shall terminate, with respect to a fee to which 
paragraph (1)(A) applies, on the effective date of the setting 
or adjustment of that fee pursuant to the exercise of the 
authority under section 10 for the first time with respect 
to that fee. 
(j) EFFECTIVE DATE.—Except as otherwise provided in this sec-
tion, this section and the amendments made by this section shall 
take effect on the date of the enactment of this Act. 
SEC. 12. SUPPLEMENTAL EXAMINATION. 
(a) IN GENERAL.—Chapter 25 of title 35, United States Code, 
is amended by adding at the end the following: 
‘‘§ 257. Supplemental examinations to consider, reconsider, 
or correct information 
‘‘(a) REQUEST
FOR SUPPLEMENTAL EXAMINATION.—A patent 
owner may request supplemental examination of a patent in the 
Office to consider, reconsider, or correct information believed to 
be relevant to the patent, in accordance with such requirements 
as the Director may establish. Within 3 months after the date 
a request for supplemental examination meeting the requirements 
of this section is received, the Director shall conduct the supple-
mental examination and shall conclude such examination by issuing 
a certificate indicating whether the information presented in the 
request raises a substantial new question of patentability. 
‘‘(b) REEXAMINATION ORDERED.—If the certificate issued under 
subsection (a) indicates that a substantial new question of patent-
ability is raised by 1 or more items of information in the request,
H. R. 1249—43 
the Director shall order reexamination of the patent. The 
reexamination shall be conducted according to procedures estab-
lished by chapter 30, except that the patent owner shall not have 
the right to file a statement pursuant to section 304. During the 
reexamination, the Director shall address each substantial new 
question of patentability identified during the supplemental exam-
ination, notwithstanding the limitations in chapter 30 relating to 
patents and printed publication or any other provision of such 
chapter. 
‘‘(c) EFFECT.— 
‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—A patent shall not be held unenforceable 
on the basis of conduct relating to information that had not 
been considered, was inadequately considered, or was incorrect 
in a prior examination of the patent if the information was 
considered, reconsidered, or corrected during a supplemental 
examination of the patent. The making of a request under 
subsection (a), or the absence thereof, shall not be relevant 
to enforceability of the patent under section 282. 
‘‘(2) EXCEPTIONS.— 
‘‘(A) PRIOR
ALLEGATIONS.—Paragraph (1) shall not 
apply to an allegation pled with particularity in a civil 
action, or set forth with particularity in a notice received 
by the patent owner under section 505(j)(2)(B)(iv)(II) of 
the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 
355(j)(2)(B)(iv)(II)), before the date of a supplemental exam-
ination request under subsection (a) to consider, reconsider, 
or correct information forming the basis for the allegation. 
‘‘(B) PATENT
ENFORCEMENT
ACTIONS.—In an action 
brought under section 337(a) of the Tariff Act of 1930 
(19 U.S.C. 1337(a)), or section 281 of this title, paragraph 
(1) shall not apply to any defense raised in the action 
that is based upon information that was considered, 
reconsidered, or corrected pursuant to a supplemental 
examination request under subsection (a), unless the 
supplemental examination, and any reexamination ordered 
pursuant to the request, are concluded before the date 
on which the action is brought. 
‘‘(d) FEES AND REGULATIONS.— 
‘‘(1) FEES.—The Director shall, by regulation, establish fees 
for the submission of a request for supplemental examination 
of a patent, and to consider each item of information submitted 
in the request. If reexamination is ordered under subsection 
(b), fees established and applicable to ex parte reexamination 
proceedings under chapter 30 shall be paid, in addition to 
fees applicable to supplemental examination. 
‘‘(2) REGULATIONS.—The Director shall issue regulations 
governing the form, content, and other requirements of requests 
for supplemental examination, and establishing procedures for 
reviewing information submitted in such requests. 
‘‘(e) FRAUD.—If the Director becomes aware, during the course 
of a supplemental examination or reexamination proceeding ordered 
under this section, that a material fraud on the Office may have 
been committed in connection with the patent that is the subject 
of the supplemental examination, then in addition to any other 
actions the Director is authorized to take, including the cancellation 
of any claims found to be invalid under section 307 as a result 
of a reexamination ordered under this section, the Director shall
H. R. 1249—44 
also refer the matter to the Attorney General for such further 
action as the Attorney General may deem appropriate. Any such 
referral shall be treated as confidential, shall not be included in 
the file of the patent, and shall not be disclosed to the public 
unless the United States charges a person with a criminal offense 
in connection with such referral. 
‘‘(f) RULE
OF CONSTRUCTION.—Nothing in this section shall 
be construed— 
‘‘(1) to preclude the imposition of sanctions based upon 
criminal or antitrust laws (including section 1001(a) of title 
18, the first section of the Clayton Act, and section 5 of the 
Federal Trade Commission Act to the extent that section relates 
to unfair methods of competition); 
‘‘(2) to limit the authority of the Director to investigate 
issues of possible misconduct and impose sanctions for mis-
conduct in connection with matters or proceedings before the 
Office; or 
‘‘(3) to limit the authority of the Director to issue regula-
tions under chapter 3 relating to sanctions for misconduct by 
representatives practicing before the Office.’’. 
(b) CONFORMING AMENDMENT.—The table of sections for chapter 
25 of title 35, United States Code, is amended by adding at the 
end the following new item: 
‘‘257. Supplemental examinations to consider, reconsider, or correct information.’’. 
(c) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by this section 
shall take effect upon the expiration of the 1-year period beginning 
on the date of the enactment of this Act and shall apply to any 
patent issued before, on, or after that effective date. 
SEC. 13. FUNDING AGREEMENTS. 
(a) IN GENERAL.—Section 202(c)(7)(E)(i) of title 35, United 
States Code, is amended— 
(1) by striking ‘‘75 percent’’ and inserting ‘‘15 percent’’; 
(2) by striking ‘‘25 percent’’ and inserting ‘‘85 percent’’; 
and 
(3) by striking ‘‘as described above in this clause (D);’’ 
and inserting ‘‘described above in this clause;’’. 
(b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by this section 
shall take effect on the date of the enactment of this Act and 
shall apply to any patent issued before, on, or after that date. 
SEC. 14. TAX STRATEGIES DEEMED WITHIN THE PRIOR ART. 
(a) IN GENERAL.—For purposes of evaluating an invention 
under section 102 or 103 of title 35, United States Code, any 
strategy for reducing, avoiding, or deferring tax liability, whether 
known or unknown at the time of the invention or application 
for patent, shall be deemed insufficient to differentiate a claimed 
invention from the prior art. 
(b) DEFINITION.—For purposes of this section, the term ‘‘tax 
liability’’ refers to any liability for a tax under any Federal, State, 
or local law, or the law of any foreign jurisdiction, including any 
statute, rule, regulation, or ordinance that levies, imposes, or 
assesses such tax liability. 
(c) EXCLUSIONS.—This section does not apply to that part of 
an invention that— 
(1) is a method, apparatus, technology, computer program 
product, or system, that is used solely for preparing a tax
H. R. 1249—45 
or information return or other tax filing, including one that 
records, transmits, transfers, or organizes data related to such 
filing; or 
(2) is a method, apparatus, technology, computer program 
product, or system used solely for financial management, to 
the extent that it is severable from any tax strategy or does 
not limit the use of any tax strategy by any taxpayer or tax 
advisor. 
(d) RULE OF CONSTRUCTION.—Nothing in this section shall be 
construed to imply that other business methods are patentable 
or that other business method patents are valid. 
(e) EFFECTIVE DATE; APPLICABILITY.—This section shall take 
effect on the date of the enactment of this Act and shall apply 
to any patent application that is pending on, or filed on or after, 
that date, and to any patent that is issued on or after that date. 
SEC. 15. BEST MODE REQUIREMENT. 
(a) IN GENERAL.—Section 282 of title 35, United States Code, 
is amended in the second undesignated paragraph by striking para-
graph (3) and inserting the following: 
‘‘(3) Invalidity of the patent or any claim in suit for failure 
to comply with— 
‘‘(A) any requirement of section 112, except that the 
failure to disclose the best mode shall not be a basis on 
which any claim of a patent may be canceled or held 
invalid or otherwise unenforceable; or 
‘‘(B) any requirement of section 251.’’. 
(b) CONFORMING AMENDMENT.—Sections 119(e)(1) and 120 of 
title 35, United States Code, are each amended by striking ‘‘the 
first paragraph of section 112 of this title’’ and inserting ‘‘section 
112(a) (other than the requirement to disclose the best mode)’’. 
(c) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by this section 
shall take effect upon the date of the enactment of this Act and 
shall apply to proceedings commenced on or after that date. 
SEC. 16. MARKING. 
(a) VIRTUAL MARKING.— 
(1) IN GENERAL.—Section 287(a) of title 35, United States 
Code, is amended by striking ‘‘or when,’’ and inserting ‘‘or 
by fixing thereon the word ‘patent’ or the abbreviation ‘pat.’ 
together with an address of a posting on the Internet, accessible 
to the public without charge for accessing the address, that 
associates the patented article with the number of the patent, 
or when,’’. 
(2) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by this sub-
section shall apply to any case that is pending on, or commenced 
on or after, the date of the enactment of this Act. 
(3) REPORT.—Not later than the date that is 3 years after 
the date of the enactment of this Act, the Director shall submit 
a report to Congress that provides— 
(A) an analysis of the effectiveness of ‘‘virtual 
marking’’, as provided in the amendment made by para-
graph (1) of this subsection, as an alternative to the phys-
ical marking of articles; 
(B) an analysis of whether such virtual marking has 
limited or improved the ability of the general public to 
access information about patents;
H. R. 1249—46 
(C) an analysis of the legal issues, if any, that arise 
from such virtual marking; and 
(D) an analysis of the deficiencies, if any, of such 
virtual marking. 
(b) FALSE MARKING.— 
(1) CIVIL
PENALTY.—Section 292(a) of title 35, United 
States, Code, is amended by adding at the end the following: 
‘‘Only the United States may sue for the penalty authorized 
by this subsection.’’. 
(2) CIVIL ACTION FOR DAMAGES.—Subsection (b) of section 
292 of title 35, United States Code, is amended to read as 
follows: 
‘‘(b) A person who has suffered a competitive injury as a result 
of a violation of this section may file a civil action in a district 
court of the United States for recovery of damages adequate to 
compensate for the injury.’’. 
(3) EXPIRED
PATENTS.—Section 292 of title 35, United 
States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following: 
‘‘(c) The marking of a product, in a manner described in sub-
section (a), with matter relating to a patent that covered that 
product but has expired is not a violation of this section.’’. 
(4) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by this sub-
section shall apply to all cases, without exception, that are 
pending on, or commenced on or after, the date of the enactment 
of this Act. 
SEC. 17. ADVICE OF COUNSEL. 
(a) IN GENERAL.—Chapter 29 of title 35, United States Code, 
is amended by adding at the end the following: 
‘‘§ 298. Advice of counsel 
‘‘The failure of an infringer to obtain the advice of counsel 
with respect to any allegedly infringed patent, or the failure of 
the infringer to present such advice to the court or jury, may 
not be used to prove that the accused infringer willfully infringed 
the patent or that the infringer intended to induce infringement 
of the patent.’’. 
(b) CONFORMING AMENDMENT.—The table of sections for chapter 
29 of title 35, United States Code, is amended by adding at the 
end the following: 
‘‘298. Advice of counsel.’’. 
SEC. 18. TRANSITIONAL PROGRAM FOR COVERED BUSINESS METHOD 
PATENTS. 
(a) TRANSITIONAL PROGRAM.— 
(1) ESTABLISHMENT.—Not later than the date that is 1 
year after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Director 
shall issue regulations establishing and implementing a transi-
tional post-grant review proceeding for review of the validity 
of covered business method patents. The transitional proceeding 
implemented pursuant to this subsection shall be regarded 
as, and shall employ the standards and procedures of, a post- 
grant review under chapter 32 of title 35, United States Code, 
subject to the following: 
(A) Section 321(c) of title 35, United States Code, and 
subsections (b), (e)(2), and (f) of section 325 of such title 
shall not apply to a transitional proceeding.
H. R. 1249—47 
(B) A person may not file a petition for a transitional 
proceeding with respect to a covered business method 
patent unless the person or the person’s real party in 
interest or privy has been sued for infringement of the 
patent or has been charged with infringement under that 
patent. 
(C) A petitioner in a transitional proceeding who chal-
lenges the validity of 1 or more claims in a covered business 
method patent on a ground raised under section 102 or 
103 of title 35, United States Code, as in effect on the 
day before the effective date set forth in section 3(n)(1), 
may support such ground only on the basis of— 
(i) prior art that is described by section 102(a) 
of such title of such title (as in effect on the day 
before such effective date); or 
(ii) prior art that— 
(I) discloses the invention more than 1 year 
before the date of the application for patent in 
the United States; and 
(II) would be described by section 102(a) of 
such title (as in effect on the day before the effec-
tive date set forth in section 3(n)(1)) if the disclo-
sure had been made by another before the inven-
tion thereof by the applicant for patent. 
(D) The petitioner in a transitional proceeding that 
results in a final written decision under section 328(a) 
of title 35, United States Code, with respect to a claim 
in a covered business method patent, or the petitioner’s 
real party in interest, may not assert, either in a civil 
action arising in whole or in part under section 1338 of 
title 28, United States Code, or in a proceeding before 
the International Trade Commission under section 337 of 
the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1337), that the claim 
is invalid on any ground that the petitioner raised during 
that transitional proceeding. 
(E) The Director may institute a transitional pro-
ceeding only for a patent that is a covered business method 
patent. 
(2) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The regulations issued under para-
graph (1) shall take effect upon the expiration of the 1-year 
period beginning on the date of the enactment of this Act 
and shall apply to any covered business method patent issued 
before, on, or after that effective date, except that the regula-
tions shall not apply to a patent described in section 6(f)(2)(A) 
of this Act during the period in which a petition for post- 
grant review of that patent would satisfy the requirements 
of section 321(c) of title 35, United States Code. 
(3) SUNSET.— 
(A) IN GENERAL.—This subsection, and the regulations 
issued under this subsection, are repealed effective upon 
the expiration of the 8-year period beginning on the date 
that the regulations issued under to paragraph (1) take 
effect. 
(B) APPLICABILITY.—Notwithstanding subparagraph 
(A), this subsection and the regulations issued under this 
subsection shall continue to apply, after the date of the
H. R. 1249—48 
repeal under subparagraph (A), to any petition for a transi-
tional proceeding that is filed before the date of such repeal. 
(b) REQUEST FOR STAY.— 
(1) IN GENERAL.—If a party seeks a stay of a civil action 
alleging infringement of a patent under section 281 of title 
35, United States Code, relating to a transitional proceeding 
for that patent, the court shall decide whether to enter a 
stay based on— 
(A) whether a stay, or the denial thereof, will simplify 
the issues in question and streamline the trial; 
(B) whether discovery is complete and whether a trial 
date has been set; 
(C) whether a stay, or the denial thereof, would unduly 
prejudice the nonmoving party or present a clear tactical 
advantage for the moving party; and 
(D) whether a stay, or the denial thereof, will reduce 
the burden of litigation on the parties and on the court. 
(2) REVIEW.—A party may take an immediate interlocutory 
appeal from a district court’s decision under paragraph (1). 
The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit 
shall review the district court’s decision to ensure consistent 
application of established precedent, and such review may be 
de novo. 
(c) ATM EXEMPTION FOR VENUE PURPOSES.—In an action for 
infringement under section 281 of title 35, United States Code, 
of a covered business method patent, an automated teller machine 
shall not be deemed to be a regular and established place of business 
for purposes of section 1400(b) of title 28, United States Code. 
(d) DEFINITION.— 
(1) IN GENERAL.—For purposes of this section, the term 
‘‘covered business method patent’’ means a patent that claims 
a method or corresponding apparatus for performing data proc-
essing or other operations used in the practice, administration, 
or management of a financial product or service, except that 
the term does not include patents for technological inventions. 
(2) REGULATIONS.—To assist in implementing the transi-
tional proceeding authorized by this subsection, the Director 
shall issue regulations for determining whether a patent is 
for a technological invention. 
(e) RULE OF CONSTRUCTION.—Nothing in this section shall be 
construed as amending or interpreting categories of patent-eligible 
subject matter set forth under section 101 of title 35, United States 
Code. 
SEC. 19. JURISDICTION AND PROCEDURAL MATTERS. 
(a) STATE COURT JURISDICTION.—Section 1338(a) of title 28, 
United States Code, is amended by striking the second sentence 
and inserting the following: ‘‘No State court shall have jurisdiction 
over any claim for relief arising under any Act of Congress relating 
to patents, plant variety protection, or copyrights. For purposes 
of this subsection, the term ‘State’ includes any State of the United 
States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, 
the United States Virgin Islands, American Samoa, Guam, and 
the Northern Mariana Islands.’’. 
(b) COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT.—Section 
1295(a)(1) of title 28, United States Code, is amended to read 
as follows:
H. R. 1249—49 
‘‘(1) of an appeal from a final decision of a district court 
of the United States, the District Court of Guam, the District 
Court of the Virgin Islands, or the District Court of the 
Northern Mariana Islands, in any civil action arising under, 
or in any civil action in which a party has asserted a compulsory 
counterclaim arising under, any Act of Congress relating to 
patents or plant variety protection;’’. 
(c) REMOVAL.— 
(1) IN GENERAL.—Chapter 89 of title 28, United States 
Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new 
section: 
‘‘§ 1454. Patent, plant variety protection, and copyright cases 
‘‘(a) IN GENERAL.—A civil action in which any party asserts 
a claim for relief arising under any Act of Congress relating to 
patents, plant variety protection, or copyrights may be removed 
to the district court of the United States for the district and division 
embracing the place where the action is pending. 
‘‘(b) SPECIAL RULES.—The removal of an action under this sec-
tion shall be made in accordance with section 1446, except that 
if the removal is based solely on this section— 
‘‘(1) the action may be removed by any party; and 
‘‘(2) the time limitations contained in section 1446(b) may 
be extended at any time for cause shown. 
‘‘(c) CLARIFICATION OF JURISDICTION IN CERTAIN CASES.—The 
court to which a civil action is removed under this section is 
not precluded from hearing and determining any claim in the civil 
action because the State court from which the civil action is removed 
did not have jurisdiction over that claim. 
‘‘(d) REMAND.—If a civil action is removed solely under this 
section, the district court— 
‘‘(1) shall remand all claims that are neither a basis for 
removal under subsection (a) nor within the original or supple-
mental jurisdiction of the district court under any Act of Con-
gress; and 
‘‘(2) may, under the circumstances specified in section 
1367(c), remand any claims within the supplemental jurisdic-
tion of the district court under section 1367.’’. 
(2) CONFORMING AMENDMENT.—The table of sections for 
chapter 89 of title 28, United States Code, is amended by 
adding at the end the following new item: 
‘‘1454. Patent, plant variety protection, and copyright cases.’’. 
(d) PROCEDURAL MATTERS IN PATENT CASES.— 
(1) JOINDER OF PARTIES AND STAY OF ACTIONS.—Chapter 
29 of title 35, United States Code, as amended by this Act, 
is further amended by adding at the end the following new 
section: 
‘‘§ 299. Joinder of parties 
‘‘(a) JOINDER OF ACCUSED INFRINGERS.—With respect to any 
civil action arising under any Act of Congress relating to patents, 
other than an action or trial in which an act of infringement 
under section 271(e)(2) has been pled, parties that are accused 
infringers may be joined in one action as defendants or counterclaim 
defendants, or have their actions consolidated for trial, or counter-
claim defendants only if—
H. R. 1249—50 
‘‘(1) any right to relief is asserted against the parties jointly, 
severally, or in the alternative with respect to or arising out 
of the same transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions 
or occurrences relating to the making, using, importing into 
the United States, offering for sale, or selling of the same 
accused product or process; and 
‘‘(2) questions of fact common to all defendants or counter-
claim defendants will arise in the action. 
‘‘(b) ALLEGATIONS INSUFFICIENT FOR JOINDER.—For purposes 
of this subsection, accused infringers may not be joined in one 
action as defendants or counterclaim defendants, or have their 
actions consolidated for trial, based solely on allegations that they 
each have infringed the patent or patents in suit. 
‘‘(c) WAIVER.—A party that is an accused infringer may waive 
the limitations set forth in this section with respect to that party.’’. 
(2) CONFORMING AMENDMENT.—The table of sections for 
chapter 29 of title 35, United States Code, as amended by 
this Act, is further amended by adding at the end the following 
new item: 
‘‘299. Joinder of parties.’’. 
(e) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by this section 
shall apply to any civil action commenced on or after the date 
of the enactment of this Act. 
SEC. 20. TECHNICAL AMENDMENTS. 
(a) JOINT INVENTIONS.—Section 116 of title 35, United States 
Code, is amended— 
(1) in the first undesignated paragraph, by striking 
‘‘When’’ and inserting ‘‘(a) JOINT INVENTIONS.—When’’; 
(2) in the second undesignated paragraph, by striking 
‘‘If 
a 
joint 
inventor’’ 
and 
inserting 
‘‘(b) 
OMITTED 
INVENTOR.—If a joint inventor’’; and 
(3) in the third undesignated paragraph— 
(A) by striking ‘‘Whenever’’ and inserting ‘‘(c) 
CORRECTION OF ERRORS IN APPLICATION.—Whenever’’; 
and 
(B) by striking ‘‘and such error arose without any 
deceptive intention on his part,’’. 
(b) FILING OF APPLICATION IN FOREIGN COUNTRY.—Section 184 
of title 35, United States Code, is amended— 
(1) in the first undesignated paragraph— 
(A) by striking ‘‘Except when’’ and inserting ‘‘(a) FILING 
IN FOREIGN COUNTRY.—Except when’’; and 
(B) by striking ‘‘and without deceptive intent’’; 
(2) in the second undesignated paragraph, by striking ‘‘The 
term’’ and inserting ‘‘(b) APPLICATION.—The term’’; and 
(3) in the third undesignated paragraph, by striking ‘‘The 
scope’’ and inserting ‘‘(c) SUBSEQUENT MODIFICATIONS, AMEND-
MENTS, AND SUPPLEMENTS.—The scope’’. 
(c) FILING WITHOUT A LICENSE.—Section 185 of title 35, United 
States Code, is amended by striking ‘‘and without deceptive intent’’. 
(d) REISSUE OF DEFECTIVE PATENTS.—Section 251 of title 35, 
United States Code, is amended— 
(1) in the first undesignated paragraph— 
(A) by striking ‘‘Whenever’’ and inserting ‘‘(a) IN GEN-
ERAL.—Whenever’’; and
H. R. 1249—51 
(B) by striking ‘‘without any deceptive intention’’; 
(2) in the second undesignated paragraph, by striking ‘‘The 
Director’’ and inserting ‘‘(b) MULTIPLE REISSUED PATENTS.— 
The Director’’; 
(3) in the third undesignated paragraph, by striking ‘‘The 
provisions’’ and inserting ‘‘(c) APPLICABILITY OF THIS TITLE.— 
The provisions’’; and 
(4) in the last undesignated paragraph, by striking ‘‘No 
reissued patent’’ and inserting ‘‘(d) REISSUE PATENT ENLARGING 
SCOPE OF CLAIMS.—No reissued patent’’. 
(e) EFFECT OF REISSUE.—Section 253 of title 35, United States 
Code, is amended— 
(1) in the first undesignated paragraph, by striking ‘‘When-
ever, without any deceptive intention,’’ and inserting ‘‘(a) IN 
GENERAL.—Whenever’’; and 
(2) in the second undesignated paragraph, by striking ‘‘In 
like manner’’ and inserting ‘‘(b) ADDITIONAL DISCLAIMER OR 
DEDICATION.—In the manner set forth in subsection (a),’’. 
(f) CORRECTION OF NAMED INVENTOR.—Section 256 of title 35, 
United States Code, is amended— 
(1) in the first undesignated paragraph— 
(A) by striking ‘‘Whenever’’ and inserting ‘‘(a) CORREC-
TION.—Whenever’’; and 
(B) by striking ‘‘and such error arose without any 
deceptive intention on his part’’; and 
(2) in the second undesignated paragraph, by striking ‘‘The 
error’’ and inserting ‘‘(b) PATENT VALID IF ERROR CORRECTED.— 
The error’’. 
(g) PRESUMPTION OF VALIDITY.—Section 282 of title 35, United 
States Code, is amended— 
(1) in the first undesignated paragraph— 
(A) by striking ‘‘A patent’’ and inserting ‘‘(a) IN GEN-
ERAL.—A patent’’; and 
(B) by striking the third sentence; 
(2) in the second undesignated paragraph— 
(A) by striking ‘‘The following’’ and inserting ‘‘(b) 
DEFENSES.—The following’’; 
(B) in paragraph (1), by striking ‘‘uneforceability,’’ and 
inserting ‘‘unenforceability.’’; and 
(C) in paragraph (2), by striking ‘‘patentability,’’ and 
inserting ‘‘patentability.’’ ; and 
(3) in the third undesignated paragraph— 
(A) by striking ‘‘In actions involving the validity or 
infringement of a patent’’ and inserting ‘‘(c) NOTICE OF 
ACTIONS; ACTIONS DURING EXTENSION OF PATENT TERM.— 
In an action involving the validity or infringement of a 
patent’’; and 
(B) by striking ‘‘Claims Court’’ and inserting ‘‘Court 
of Federal Claims’’. 
(h) ACTION FOR INFRINGEMENT.—Section 288 of title 35, United 
States Code, is amended by striking ‘‘, without deceptive intention,’’. 
(i) REVISER’S NOTES.— 
(1) Section 3(e)(2) of title 35, United States Code, is 
amended by striking ‘‘this Act,’’ and inserting ‘‘that Act,’’. 
(2) Section 202 of title 35, United States Code, is 
amended—
H. R. 1249—52 
(A) in subsection (b)(3), by striking ‘‘the section 203(b)’’ 
and inserting ‘‘section 203(b)’’; and 
(B) in subsection (c)(7)(D), by striking ‘‘except where 
it proves’’ and all that follows through ‘‘small business 
firms; and’’ and inserting: ‘‘except where it is determined 
to be infeasible following a reasonable inquiry, a preference 
in the licensing of subject inventions shall be given to 
small business firms; and’’. 
(3) Section 209(d)(1) of title 35, United States Code, is 
amended by striking ‘‘nontransferrable’’ and inserting ‘‘non-
transferable’’. 
(4) Section 287(c)(2)(G) of title 35, United States Code, 
is amended by striking ‘‘any state’’ and inserting ‘‘any State’’. 
(5) Section 371(b) of title 35, United States Code, is 
amended by striking ‘‘of the treaty’’ and inserting ‘‘of the 
treaty.’’. 
(j) UNNECESSARY REFERENCES.— 
(1) IN GENERAL.—Title 35, United States Code, is amended 
by striking ‘‘of this title’’ each place that term appears. 
(2) EXCEPTION.—The amendment made by paragraph (1) 
shall not apply to the use of such term in the following sections 
of title 35, United States Code: 
(A) Section 1(c). 
(B) Section 101. 
(C) Subsections (a) and (b) of section 105. 
(D) The first instance of the use of such term in section 
111(b)(8). 
(E) Section 161. 
(F) Section 164. 
(G) Section 171. 
(H) Section 251(c), as so designated by this section. 
(I) Section 261. 
(J) Subsections (g) and (h) of section 271. 
(K) Section 287(b)(1). 
(L) Section 289. 
(M) The first instance of the use of such term in 
section 375(a). 
(k) ADDITIONAL TECHNICAL AMENDMENTS.—Sections 155 and 
155A of title 35, United States Code, and the items relating to 
those sections in the table of sections for chapter 14 of such title, 
are repealed. 
(l) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by this section 
shall take effect upon the expiration of the 1-year period beginning 
on the date of the enactment of this Act and shall apply to pro-
ceedings commenced on or after that effective date. 
SEC. 21. TRAVEL EXPENSES AND PAYMENT OF ADMINISTRATIVE 
JUDGES. 
(a) 
AUTHORITY
TO
COVER
CERTAIN
TRAVEL
RELATED 
EXPENSES.—Section 2(b)(11) of title 35, United States Code, is 
amended by inserting ‘‘, and the Office is authorized to expend 
funds to cover the subsistence expenses and travel-related expenses, 
including per diem, lodging costs, and transportation costs, of per-
sons attending such programs who are not Federal employees’’ 
after ‘‘world’’.
H. R. 1249—53 
(b) PAYMENT OF ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGES.—Section 3(b) of title 
35, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the 
following: 
‘‘(6) ADMINISTRATIVE PATENT JUDGES AND ADMINISTRATIVE 
TRADEMARK JUDGES.—The Director may fix the rate of basic 
pay for the administrative patent judges appointed pursuant 
to section 6 and the administrative trademark judges appointed 
pursuant to section 17 of the Trademark Act of 1946 (15 U.S.C. 
1067) at not greater than the rate of basic pay payable for 
level III of the Executive Schedule under section 5314 of title 
5. The payment of a rate of basic pay under this paragraph 
shall not be subject to the pay limitation under section 5306(e) 
or 5373 of title 5.’’. 
SEC. 22. PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE FUNDING. 
(a) IN GENERAL.—Section 42(c) of title 35, United States Code, 
is amended— 
(1) by striking ‘‘(c)’’ and inserting ‘‘(c)(1)’’; 
(2) in the first sentence, by striking ‘‘shall be available’’ 
and inserting ‘‘shall, subject to paragraph (3), be available’’; 
(3) by striking the second sentence; and 
(4) by adding at the end the following: 
‘‘(2) There is established in the Treasury a Patent and Trade-
mark Fee Reserve Fund. If fee collections by the Patent and Trade-
mark Office for a fiscal year exceed the amount appropriated to 
the Office for that fiscal year, fees collected in excess of the appro-
priated amount shall be deposited in the Patent and Trademark 
Fee Reserve Fund. To the extent and in the amounts provided 
in appropriations Acts, amounts in the Fund shall be made available 
until expended only for obligation and expenditure by the Office 
in accordance with paragraph (3). 
‘‘(3)(A) Any fees that are collected under sections 41, 42, and 
376, and any surcharges on such fees, may only be used for expenses 
of the Office relating to the processing of patent applications and 
for other activities, services, and materials relating to patents and 
to cover a share of the administrative costs of the Office relating 
to patents. 
‘‘(B) Any fees that are collected under section 31 of the Trade-
mark Act of 1946, and any surcharges on such fees, may only 
be used for expenses of the Office relating to the processing of 
trademark registrations and for other activities, services, and mate-
rials relating to trademarks and to cover a share of the administra-
tive costs of the Office relating to trademarks.’’. 
(b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by this section 
shall take effect on October 1, 2011. 
SEC. 23. SATELLITE OFFICES. 
(a) ESTABLISHMENT.—Subject to available resources, the 
Director shall, by not later than the date that is 3 years after 
the date of the enactment of this Act, establish 3 or more satellite 
offices in the United States to carry out the responsibilities of 
the Office. 
(b) PURPOSES.—The purposes of the satellite offices established 
under subsection (a) are to— 
(1) increase outreach activities to better connect patent 
filers and innovators with the Office; 
(2) enhance patent examiner retention; 
(3) improve recruitment of patent examiners;
H. R. 1249—54 
(4) decrease the number of patent applications waiting 
for examination; and 
(5) improve the quality of patent examination. 
(c) REQUIRED CONSIDERATIONS.— 
(1) IN GENERAL.—In selecting the location of each satellite 
office to be established under subsection (a), the Director— 
(A) shall ensure geographic diversity among the offices, 
including by ensuring that such offices are established 
in different States and regions throughout the Nation; 
(B) may rely upon any previous evaluations by the 
Office of potential locales for satellite offices, including 
any evaluations prepared as part of the Office’s Nationwide 
Workforce Program that resulted in the 2010 selection 
of Detroit, Michigan, as the first satellite office of the 
Office; 
(C) shall evaluate and consider the extent to which 
the purposes of satellite offices listed under subsection 
(b) will be achieved; 
(D) shall consider the availability of scientific and tech-
nically knowledgeable personnel in the region from which 
to draw new patent examiners at minimal recruitment 
cost; and 
(E) shall consider the economic impact to the region. 
(2) OPEN SELECTION PROCESS.—Nothing in paragraph (1) 
shall constrain the Office to only consider its evaluations in 
selecting the Detroit, Michigan, satellite office. 
(d) REPORT TO CONGRESS.—Not later than the end of the third 
fiscal year that begins after the date of the enactment of this 
Act, the Director shall submit a report to Congress on— 
(1) the rationale of the Director in selecting the location 
of any satellite office required under subsection (a), including 
an explanation of how the selected location will achieve the 
purposes of satellite offices listed under subsection (b) and 
how the required considerations listed under subsection (c) 
were met; 
(2) the progress of the Director in establishing all such 
satellite offices; and 
(3) whether the operation of existing satellite offices is 
achieving the purposes under subsection (b). 
SEC. 24. DESIGNATION OF DETROIT SATELLITE OFFICE. 
(a) DESIGNATION.—The satellite office of the United States 
Patent and Trademark Office to be located in Detroit, Michigan, 
shall be known and designated as the ‘‘Elijah J. McCoy United 
States Patent and Trademark Office’’. 
(b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, regulation, 
document, paper, or other record of the United States to the satellite 
office of the United States Patent and Trademark Office to be 
located in Detroit, Michigan, referred to in subsection (a) shall 
be deemed to be a reference to the ‘‘Elijah J. McCoy United States 
Patent and Trademark Office’’. 
SEC. 25. PRIORITY EXAMINATION FOR IMPORTANT TECHNOLOGIES. 
Section 2(b)(2) of title 35, United States Code, is amended— 
(1) in subparagraph (E), by striking ‘‘and’’ after the semi-
colon; 
(2) in subparagraph (F), by inserting ‘‘and’’ after the semi-
colon; and
H. R. 1249—55 
(3) by adding at the end the following: 
‘‘(G) may, subject to any conditions prescribed by the 
Director and at the request of the patent applicant, provide 
for prioritization of examination of applications for prod-
ucts, processes, or technologies that are important to the 
national economy or national competitiveness without 
recovering the aggregate extra cost of providing such 
prioritization, notwithstanding section 41 or any other 
provision of law;’’. 
SEC. 26. STUDY ON IMPLEMENTATION. 
(a) PTO STUDY.—The Director shall conduct a study on the 
manner in which this Act and the amendments made by this 
Act are being implemented by the Office, and on such other aspects 
of the patent policies and practices of the Federal Government 
with respect to patent rights, innovation in the United States, 
competitiveness of United States markets, access by small 
businesses to capital for investment, and such other issues, as 
the Director considers appropriate. 
(b) REPORT TO CONGRESS.—The Director shall, not later than 
the date that is 4 years after the date of the enactment of this 
Act, submit to the Committees on the Judiciary of the House of 
Representatives and the Senate a report on the results of the 
study conducted under subsection (a), including recommendations 
for any changes to laws and regulations that the Director considers 
appropriate. 
SEC. 27. STUDY ON GENETIC TESTING. 
(a) IN GENERAL.—The Director shall conduct a study on effec-
tive ways to provide independent, confirming genetic diagnostic 
test activity where gene patents and exclusive licensing for primary 
genetic diagnostic tests exist. 
(b) ITEMS INCLUDED IN STUDY.—The study shall include an 
examination of at least the following: 
(1) The impact that the current lack of independent second 
opinion testing has had on the ability to provide the highest 
level of medical care to patients and recipients of genetic diag-
nostic testing, and on inhibiting innovation to existing testing 
and diagnoses. 
(2) The effect that providing independent second opinion 
genetic diagnostic testing would have on the existing patent 
and license holders of an exclusive genetic test. 
(3) The impact that current exclusive licensing and patents 
on genetic testing activity has on the practice of medicine, 
including but not limited to: the interpretation of testing results 
and performance of testing procedures. 
(4) The role that cost and insurance coverage have on 
access to and provision of genetic diagnostic tests. 
(c) 
CONFIRMING
GENETIC
DIAGNOSTIC
TEST
ACTIVITY 
DEFINED.—For purposes of this section, the term ‘‘confirming 
genetic diagnostic test activity’’ means the performance of a genetic 
diagnostic test, by a genetic diagnostic test provider, on an indi-
vidual solely for the purpose of providing the individual with an 
independent confirmation of results obtained from another test 
provider’s prior performance of the test on the individual. 
(d) REPORT.—Not later than 9 months after the date of enact-
ment of this Act, the Director shall report to the Committee on 
the Judiciary of the Senate and the Committee on the Judiciary
H. R. 1249—56 
of the House of Representatives on the findings of the study and 
provide recommendations for establishing the availability of such 
independent confirming genetic diagnostic test activity. 
SEC. 28. PATENT OMBUDSMAN PROGRAM FOR SMALL BUSINESS CON-
CERNS. 
Using available resources, the Director shall establish and 
maintain in the Office a Patent Ombudsman Program. The duties 
of the Program’s staff shall include providing support and services 
relating to patent filings to small business concerns and inde-
pendent inventors. 
SEC. 29. ESTABLISHMENT OF METHODS FOR STUDYING THE DIVER-
SITY OF APPLICANTS. 
The Director shall, not later than the end of the 6-month 
period beginning on the date of the enactment of this Act, establish 
methods for studying the diversity of patent applicants, including 
those applicants who are minorities, women, or veterans. The 
Director shall not use the results of such study to provide any 
preferential treatment to patent applicants. 
SEC. 30. SENSE OF CONGRESS. 
It is the sense of Congress that the patent system should 
promote industries to continue to develop new technologies that 
spur growth and create jobs across the country which includes 
protecting the rights of small businesses and inventors from preda-
tory behavior that could result in the cutting off of innovation. 
SEC. 31. USPTO STUDY ON INTERNATIONAL PATENT PROTECTIONS 
FOR SMALL BUSINESSES. 
(a) STUDY REQUIRED.—The Director, in consultation with the 
Secretary of Commerce and the Administrator of the Small Business 
Administration, shall, using the existing resources of the Office, 
carry out a study— 
(1) to determine how the Office, in coordination with other 
Federal departments and agencies, can best help small 
businesses with international patent protection; and 
(2) whether, in order to help small businesses pay for 
the costs of filing, maintaining, and enforcing international 
patent applications, there should be established either— 
(A) a revolving fund loan program to make loans to 
small businesses to defray the costs of such applications, 
maintenance, and enforcement and related technical assist-
ance; or 
(B) a grant program to defray the costs of such applica-
tions, maintenance, and enforcement and related technical 
assistance. 
(b) REPORT.—Not later than 120 days after the date of the 
enactment of this Act, the Director shall issue a report to the 
Congress containing— 
(1) all findings and determinations made in carrying out 
the study required under subsection (a); 
(2) a statement of whether the determination was made 
that— 
(A) a revolving fund loan program described under 
subsection (a)(2)(A) should be established; 
(B) a grant program described under subsection 
(a)(2)(B) should be established; or
H. R. 1249—57 
(C) neither such program should be established; and 
(3) any legislative recommendations the Director may have 
developed in carrying out such study. 
SEC. 32. PRO BONO PROGRAM. 
(a) IN GENERAL.—The Director shall work with and support 
intellectual property law associations across the country in the 
establishment of pro bono programs designed to assist financially 
under-resourced independent inventors and small businesses. 
(b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—This section shall take effect on the 
date of the enactment of this Act. 
SEC. 33. LIMITATION ON ISSUANCE OF PATENTS. 
(a) LIMITATION.—Notwithstanding any other provision of law, 
no patent may issue on a claim directed to or encompassing a 
human organism. 
(b) EFFECTIVE DATE.— 
(1) IN GENERAL.—Subsection (a) shall apply to any applica-
tion for patent that is pending on, or filed on or after, the 
date of the enactment of this Act. 
(2) PRIOR APPLICATIONS.—Subsection (a) shall not affect 
the validity of any patent issued on an application to which 
paragraph (1) does not apply. 
SEC. 34. STUDY OF PATENT LITIGATION. 
(a) GAO STUDY.—The Comptroller General of the United States 
shall conduct a study of the consequences of litigation by non- 
practicing entities, or by patent assertion entities, related to patent 
claims made under title 35, United States Code, and regulations 
authorized by that title. 
(b) CONTENTS OF STUDY.—The study conducted under this sec-
tion shall include the following: 
(1) The annual volume of litigation described in subsection 
(a) over the 20-year period ending on the date of the enactment 
of this Act. 
(2) The volume of cases comprising such litigation that 
are found to be without merit after judicial review. 
(3) The impacts of such litigation on the time required 
to resolve patent claims. 
(4) The estimated costs, including the estimated cost of 
defense, associated with such litigation for patent holders, 
patent licensors, patent licensees, and inventors, and for users 
of alternate or competing innovations. 
(5) The economic impact of such litigation on the economy 
of the United States, including the impact on inventors, job 
creation, employers, employees, and consumers. 
(6) The benefit to commerce, if any, supplied by non-prac-
ticing entities or patent assertion entities that prosecute such 
litigation. 
(c) REPORT TO CONGRESS.—The Comptroller General shall, not 
later than the date that is 1 year after the date of the enactment 
of this Act, submit to the Committee on the Judiciary of the House 
of Representatives and the Committee on the Judiciary of the 
Senate a report on the results of the study required under this 
section, including recommendations for any changes to laws and 
regulations that will minimize any negative impact of patent litiga-
tion that was the subject of such study.
H. R. 1249—58 
SEC. 35. EFFECTIVE DATE. 
Except as otherwise provided in this Act, the provisions of 
this Act shall take effect upon the expiration of the 1-year period 
beginning on the date of the enactment of this Act and shall 
apply to any patent issued on or after that effective date. 
SEC. 36. BUDGETARY EFFECTS. 
The budgetary effects of this Act, for the purpose of complying 
with the Statutory Pay-As-You-Go Act of 2010, shall be determined 
by reference to the latest statement titled ‘‘Budgetary Effects of 
PAYGO Legislation’’ for this Act, submitted for printing in the 
Congressional Record by the Chairman of the House Budget Com-
mittee, provided that such statement has been submitted prior 
to the vote on passage. 
SEC. 37. CALCULATION OF 60-DAY PERIOD FOR APPLICATION OF 
PATENT TERM EXTENSION. 
(a) IN GENERAL.—Section 156(d)(1) of title 35, United States 
Code, is amended by adding at the end the following flush sentence: 
‘‘For purposes of determining the date on which a product receives 
permission under the second sentence of this paragraph, if such 
permission is transmitted after 4:30 P.M., Eastern Time, on a 
business day, or is transmitted on a day that is not a business 
day, the product shall be deemed to receive such permission on 
the next business day. For purposes of the preceding sentence, 
the term ‘business day’ means any Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, 
Thursday, or Friday, excluding any legal holiday under section 
6103 of title 5.’’. 
(b) APPLICABILITY.—The amendment made by subsection (a) 
shall apply to any application for extension of a patent term under 
section 156 of title 35, United States Code, that is pending on, 
that is filed after, or as to which a decision regarding the application 
is subject to judicial review on, the date of the enactment of this 
Act. 
Speaker of the House of Representatives. 
Vice President of the United States and
President of the Senate.