Providing for Consideration of H.R. 3309, Innovation Act; and Providing for Consideration of H.R. 1105, Small Business Capital Access and Job Preservation Act

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman for yielding.

I rise in strong support of the rule and the underlying legislation, particularly H.R. 3309, the Innovation Act.

As a member of the Judiciary Committee, I have seen firsthand the diligent and deliberative effort put forth by Chairman Goodlatte and the rest of the committee to bring forth to this body a pro-business, pro-growth, pro-liberty bill to reform our patent laws. As my friend from Colorado stated, there is more that can be done, but this is a very positive step. I agree with him, and I appreciate that support. The committee vote speaks for that as well when it is 33-5 reported out of committee on final passage.

In the time that I have been yielded, I would like to also talk about a misconception that some in the higher education community seem to have about a fee-shifting provision in this bill.

Despite the claims of some, the bill language protects plaintiffs who bring a reasonable and good faith case and who do not engage in litigation misconduct. In fact, even if a plaintiff's case is rejected by a court, the plaintiff is still immune from a fee award if his case ``had a reasonable basis in both law and fact.''

I am a strong supporter of our universities and the incredible research they are doing. I believe our patent laws should protect them, just as they should protect the small businesses and start-ups that rely on our world-class patent system. The ability to enforce one's patent in court is essential to preserving the value of the patent and is the inherent right of the patent-holder.

Nothing in the Innovation Act changes this. Ensuring fair and equitable access to our courts isn't done at the expense of universities, but at the benefit of all patent-holders.

As we move forward to general debate and the consideration of amendments made in order by this rule, I urge my colleagues to be very cautious in supporting amendments that would gut or upset the careful balance achieved by this bill.

Many of the sections in H.R. 3309 are intertwined, and the result is a package of reforms that collectively will help American businesses and job creators, both large and small, combat a business model designed solely to benefit from exploitation of our patent system.

And make no mistake, this isn't just a Silicon Valley problem. In my home State of Georgia, I hear from hotels, retailers and start-ups alike on the economically devastating impact that vague demand letters and the threat of costly and frivolous litigation has on their ability to do business.

End-users are often attacked and often threatened for infringement of an unidentified patent they previously bought in a store. This is why the customer protections in section 5 of the bill are so important and should not be weakened or eliminated. As a strong conservative, I believe our government shouldn't be in the business of picking winners and losers in the marketplace. Innovation thrives when government takes a hands-off approach, but there are time when Congress must step in to ensure that our laws operate as they were intended. This is exactly why we need H.R. 3309.

I urge my colleagues to support this rule and the underlying bills; and I also ask that each Member carefully consider any amendment that would weaken or compromise the provisions of H.R. 3309, and particularly section 5.

But I will say this before I leave because I have come and spoken on many bills, and my dear friend from Colorado continues to bring up immigration. I just want to remind the Speaker that there was a time a few years ago when there was a golden era in which his party controlled the House, the Senate, and the Presidency.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.

Mr. NUGENT. I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentleman.

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. I thank the gentleman.

There were choices made, and there were plenty of choices you made, and even one to this day that we are talking about, health care legislation. One of those choices, from your point of view, sadly, was not taken, and that was immigration. Today we are dealing with bills that we both agree on, but let's not forget the fact that when you had a chance, you didn't do it.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Members are advised to direct their remarks to the Chair and not to individual Members in the second person.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source