Private, no accountPrivacy details: browsing privately, no account needed
You're browsing privately, no account needed. Your region stays in this session and your precise location is never stored.What we store
S. 632 · 114th CongressIn committee

STRONG Patents Act of 2015

Latest action. Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship. Hearings held. Hearings printed: S.Hrg. 114-603. · February 25, 2016

Live record from Congress.gov, updated as the official record changes.
What this bill would do
Official summary · Congressional Research Service

Support Technology and Research for Our Nation's Growth Patents Act of 2015 or the STRONG Patents Act of 2015

Directs the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) to prescribe regulations requiring the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) to construe patent claims in post-issuance proceedings for inter partes or post-grant review in the same manner as a court in a civil action is required to construe claims regarding the validity of a patent in accordance with the ordinary and customary meaning.

Requires the USPTO to consider a court's claim construction if the court has previously construed the claim in a civil action to which the patent owner was a party.

Requires a patent owner's motion to amend a patent during a post-issuance review to be granted if the owner has not already amended the patent during the review and the proposed number of substitute claims is reasonable. Provides the PTAB with discretion to grant or deny any additional motions to amend the patent if the owner has already amended the patent during the review.

Requires the PTAB to apply a presumption of validity standard during post-issuance challenges. Places the burden on the petitioner to prove unpatentability of: (1) a previously issued claim by clear and convincing evidence, and (2) an amended claim by a preponderance of the evidence. (Currently, the preponderance of evidence standard applies to all such claims.)

Prohibits post-issuance review petitions from being filed with the USPTO unless the person, or a real party in interest or privy of the person, is eligible to file: (1) a petition for an inter partes review because the person has been sued for or charged with infringement such that the petitioner would have standing to bring a declaratory judgment action in federal court, or (2) a petition for post-grant review because the person demonstrates a reasonable possibility of being sued for or charged with infringement or demonstrates a competitive harm related to the validity of the patent.

The summary continues for 13 more paragraphs. Read it in full on Congress.gov

Written by analysts at the Congressional Research Service and published on Congress.gov, not by Civibrief. Summarized at the "Introduced in Senate" stage on March 3, 2015. It describes the bill, it is not the legal text.

Status
Introduced
March 3, 2015
In committee
February 25, 2016
Passed a chamber
Cleared Congress
Enacted
Where this sits in the process
Common questions
Composed from the official record
Where is it in the process, and what happens next?

4 steps remain before this bill could become law.

The record's latest action, on February 25, 2016: Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship. Hearings held. Hearings printed: S.Hrg. 114-603.

  1. Clearing the committees it was referred to, and being scheduled for a floor vote
  2. Passage by the Senate
  3. Passage by the House
  4. The President's signature. If the President vetoes it, two-thirds of both chambers must vote to override.
How likely is it to become law?

Civibrief does not forecast outcomes and this page has no opinion about this one. What the record supports is a base rate, which is a fact about the whole pile, not a prediction about this measure.

In the 114th Congress (2015-16), 329 of the 10,233 bills and joint resolutions introduced became law, about 3.2 percent. That count covers every measure at every stage, including the many that never left committee.

This one is not there yet: 4 steps are still outstanding, listed above.

Has anyone actually voted on it?

No. No roll call in this Congress cites this measure. That is the ordinary outcome: most measures never reach a recorded floor vote, and a committee ends most of them simply by not acting.

A vote is not the only thing that happens to a measure. Hearings, markups, and referrals are all recorded actions, and none of them is a vote of the full chamber.

Who is behind it?

Christopher Coons (D-DE) introduced it on March 3, 2015, and 5 members have since signed on as cosponsors.

They come from both major parties: 3 Democrats, 2 Republicans.

Cosponsoring is a formal signature on the text. It is not a commitment to vote for the measure, it does not bind anyone's party, and a long list of cosponsors is a measure of attention rather than of prospects.

How long has it been in play?

It was introduced on March 3, 2015, 4209 days ago. The most recent recorded action was 3850 days ago, on February 25, 2016.

Measures do not carry over. Anything the 114th Congress has not finished by January 3, 2017 dies when the term ends, and has to be introduced again from the start in the next Congress.

Every answer above is assembled from this measure's own record on Congress.gov and from published counts of what Congress has passed before. Civibrief does not predict outcomes and takes no position on any measure.

Vote history

  1. Senate
    In committee, no floor vote yet
  2. House
    Awaits Senate passage
  3. President
    Awaits both chambers
No recorded votes yet
No roll call in this Congress cites this bill. Most bills die in committee without ever reaching a recorded floor vote.