John Conyers

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Madam Chairman, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Johnson).

Mr. CONYERS. I yield an additional minute to the gentleman from Georgia.

Mr. CONYERS. Madam Chair, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher).

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

Mr. CONYERS. Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CONYERS. Madam Chair, I am pleased to yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentlelady from California (Ms. Lofgren).

Mr. CONYERS. Madam Chair, I am pleased now to yield 3 minutes the gentlelady from Texas (Ms. Sheila Jackson Lee), an effective member of the Judiciary Committee.

Mr. CONYERS. Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CONYERS. Madam Chairwoman, we are ready to close on this side, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CONYERS. Madam Chairwoman, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CONYERS. Madam Chairwoman, how much time remains?

Mr. CONYERS. Madam Chairwoman, I am pleased now to yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Watt), a senior member of the committee who has worked on this assiduously for a number of years.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the manager's amendment.

Mr. CONYERS. Just simply put, I must oppose the manager's amendment because it does not significantly alter the underlying bill, which will be making sweeping and unnecessary changes to patent litigation and encroach upon the independence of the Federal Judiciary. Section 6(d) does not address the substantive deficiencies in the bill. 6(d), by mandating U.S. law, applies in determining the rights of intellectual property licensees, directly contravenes the important principles that pertain to Chapter 15 of the Bankruptcy Code, which deals with transnational bankruptcies. Congress intended that Chapter 15 not mandate any one country's substantive law should control, but Section 6(d) does exactly this and may encourage other countries to opt out of the cooperative insolvency system that is integral to Chapter 15. So this, in short, is failing to address another flawed revision to the Bankruptcy Code, and Section 6(d) imposes an impossible affirmative duty on a bankrupt licensor to monitor and control the quality of the license, product, or service, even if there is no money to pay for this. Please vote against this manager's amendment. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 15 seconds, before I yield to Mr. Watt, merely to let you know that the National Bankruptcy Conference is opposed to this amendment and has set forth in a very detailed draft their reasons for that. National Bankruptcy Conference, Washington, DC, November 15, 2013. Re H.R. 3309 (Innovation Act). Hon. John Conyers, Jr., Ranking Member, House Judiciary Committee, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Chairman, Ranking Member, and Members of the House Judiciary Committee: I am writing to you in my capacity as Chair of the Committee on Legislation of the National Bankruptcy Conference (NBC or Conference). The NBC is a voluntary, non-partisan, not-for-profit organization composed of about 60 of the nation's leading bankruptcy judges, professors and practitioners; it has provided advice to Congress on bankruptcy-related legislation for over 75 years. The Conference takes substantive policy positions on issues. It also provides technical advice on bankruptcy legislation without regard to its policy positions so that, to the extent possible, such legislation will achieve the objectives intended by its supporters. The Innovation Act, which is primarily focused on patent litigation reform, contains an amendment to section 1520 of chapter 15 of the Bankruptcy Code that the Conference opposes in its present form. The proposed amendment appears in SEC. 6. PROCEDURES AND PRACTICES TO IMPLEMENT AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE JUDICIAL CONFERENCE and provides as follows: (d) PROTECTION OF INTELLECTUAL-PROPERTY LICENSES IN

Mr. CONYERS. I thank you. I want to applaud the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Massie). This is exactly what will improve this measure considerably. Mr. Chair, the language currently in section 5 will not likely curb abusive patent litigation. It needs substantial revisions to be effective and to remove loopholes which allow manufacturers and others to avoid litigation. Striking section 5 of the bill will give patent stakeholders, retailers, and customers more time to improve the customer stay provision. I support the gentleman's amendment.

Mr. CONYERS. I thank the gentlelady from Texas for her amendment. It is an important one because it limits the use of customer stay provisions to smaller businesses. This is very, very important. Mr. Chair, this amendment would improve the customer stay provision by limiting the use of the provision to smaller businesses, those who most likely did not know they were infringing when they bought and used a modern scanner or a fax machine. They are most likely local mom-and- pop shops. So, in preventing larger businesses from using the customer stay provision to avoid litigation, this amendment will also help protect the ability of individual inventors and entrepreneurs to enforce their patent rights. Please support the Jackson Lee amendment.

Mr. CONYERS. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. CONYERS. I just want to associate myself with the gentleman's remarks and join in the support for the Jackson Lee amendment No. 6. It is a very important one.

Mr. CONYERS. I want to commend Mr. Rohrabacher for what he is doing here. This is another little guy provision that deserves support because the Supreme Court has even recently affirmed the expansive breadth of evidence that a patent applicant may introduce in a section 145 proceeding. And so I am for keeping this provision in, and I am proud to add my support to the Rohrabacher amendment.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, this substitute amendment is entitled the Conyers-Watt amendment, and I am very pleased to bring it to the attention of our colleagues at this time. I am offering this substitute amendment because it will give the Members an opportunity to vote for language that will actually address the identifiable abuses in the patent system. These abuses include the inability to identify the real party in interest and filing abusive lawsuits against end users instead of manufacturers of product. These issues are addressed in a measured and balanced way in this substitute. Unlike the reported bill, which makes one-sided changes in fee- shifting, discovery, and pleading requirements in all patent cases, not just cases involving trolls, my, our amendment, directly responds to the real problems without undermining the patent or legal system as a whole. That is what the thrust of our arguments have been throughout this debate. Our amendment builds in large part on a patent reform bill introduced on the Senate side by Chairman Leahy and which even the present administration and other stakeholders strongly support. The amendment does the following: It promotes transparency of patent ownership by using a well- established standard utilized by many Federal courts to require plaintiffs to disclose entities with an interest in the patent; It protects customers who are targeted in infringement suits by providing an option to stay the case against them while the manufacturer litigates the alleged infringement; It directs the USPTO to develop educational resources for small businesses that are targeted in patent suits; It helps innovators by ensuring that applicants do not abuse the patent system by simply filing variations on their patents to extend the length of the patent term. Our amendment addresses the major concerns expressed by key stakeholders about abusive patent litigation. And Members on both sides of the aisle, and a broad range of patent stakeholders, are strongly opposed to H.R. 3309 because of its many deficiencies and unintended consequences. So rather than promoting innovation and job growth, we fear that the underlying bill will have just the opposite effect. Our amendment corrects many of the bill's deficiencies in a responsive and measured approach without unbalancing the entire patent system. I implore my colleagues very strongly to support this amendment. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chair, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Watt), the cosponsor of this substitute amendment.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I am now pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler), a senior member of the committee.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Johnson).