Patent Reform Act of 2007
PATENT REFORM ACT OF 2007 -- (House of Representatives - September 07, 2007)
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California. Thank you, Mr. Conyers, Mr. Berman, Mr. Smith for your hard work.
I rise in support of the bill which brings much-needed reform to our system. We have worked hard really over the past half decade to come to this floor today with this legislation.
I want to talk about one issue, and that is venue. Due to a flawed Federal Court decision in 1990, B.E. Holdings, patent trolls have been able to file cases more or less wherever they choose in the United States. And that decision has led to forum shopping as plaintiffs filed in jurisdictions where they knew they stood a better chance of winning, and where they would get more money if they did win.
For example, filings in eastern Texas went from 32 cases a year 4 years ago to over 234 cases last year with a projected 8 percent increase this year. Patent holders win 27 percent more often there, and the awards are much bigger. The presiding judge himself describes the district as a ``plaintiff-oriented district.'' It has led to the formation of entities that exist solely to bring patent cases. For example, the Zodiac Conglomerate is formed of several smaller companies. None of the companies create any technology. They don't produce any products. All of those companies are incorporated in either Texas or Delaware. They exist for one purpose only, to bring patent cases. So far the Zodiac Conglomerate has sued 357 different companies, mostly in the Eastern District of Texas.
[Time: 13:00]
Manufacturing venue leads to overly aggressive litigation behavior, which deters legitimate innovation. This manager's amendment is going to correct the problem. The bill will allow cases to be filed where the defendant is located or has committed acts relevant to the patent dispute.
We give the freest rules to independent inventors and to individual inventors and universities, noting their special role in this system. Corporate plaintiffs can only bring cases where the facilities are located if they have engaged in activities relevant to the patent dispute.
In sum, the bill restores fairness and clarity to patent litigation by removing the most glaring instances of forum shopping by patent trolls.
I represent Silicon Valley, which has a diversity of high tech. Biotech, large companies, small companies, universities, small inventors, pharmaceutical companies, we have got them all, including small inventors working out of a garage. A balanced approach to innovation is essential to all of these entities. H.R. 1908 provides that balance. We need to pass this bill today. I urge my colleagues to do so.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding, and I support the amendment.
I would just like to note, however, that we have had over 21 hearings in the subcommittee and have convened several briefings on top of that. We have had reports from the National Academy, the FTC on this subject. And I think the gentlewoman's amendment to get still further information is valid. I support it. But certainly we have information today that has been gained over an extensive process over half a decade.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Source