PATENT Act introduced in US Senate with bipartisan support

Managing IP is part of Legal Benchmarking Limited, 1-2 Paris Gardens, London, SE1 8ND

Copyright © Legal Benchmarking Limited and its affiliated companies 2026

Accessibility | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Modern Slavery Statement

PATENT Act introduced in US Senate with bipartisan support

A patent reform bill has been introduced in the Senate that includes wide-ranging proposals to tackle patent trolls, but its fee shifting provision gives less chance to recover fees than under the House of Representatives’ Innovation Act

us-congress.jpg

Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley and Ranking Member Patrick Leahy, along with senior committee members John Cornyn and Chuck Schumer, have introduced legislation to reform the US patent system.

The Protecting American Talent and Entrepreneurship Act 6 of 2015 (PATENT Act) is also co-sponsored by Judiciary Committee members Mike Lee, Orrin Hatch and Amy Klobuchar.

The PATENT Act includes a fee shifting provision, a subject that has proved controversial in discussions over reform in Congress. Senator Hatch noted: “Effective patent troll legislation must provide a mechanism to ensure that defendants can recover fees even against judgment-proof shell companies. With the addition of a strong fee recovery provision that I have long championed, the PATENT Act now does just that.”

However, the fee shifting provision is less strict than the one included in the Innovation Act, which was reintroduced by Bob Goodlatte in the House of Representatives in February.

The overview provided with the PATENT Act says the fee shifting provision: “Provides that reasonable attorney fees will be awarded if a court determines the position or conduct of the non-prevailing party (plaintiff or defendant) was not objectively reasonable, unless special circumstances make an award unjust. The winner must show that the non-prevailing party’s position was not objectively reasonable and the judge must make a ruling for fees to 2 shift – this is not a presumptive fee shifting rule. Fee shifting extends to cases where a party attempts to unilaterally withdraw from a case on the eve of a trial. Keeps 271(e) (Hatch-Waxman and biosimilars) proceedings under current law.”

The main provisions of the PATENT Act are:

Clarifies Pleading Standards. The bill would establish clear, uniform standards for pleading in patent infringement suits to give defendants real notice of the claims against them, and keep meritless lawsuits from clogging federal court dockets. It also increases transparency by requiring early disclosures about the patent-in-suit.

Protects End Users. The bill protect customers who are targeted for patent infringement based on a product they simply purchased from a manufacturer or off the shelf by allowing the stay of an infringement case against an end user of a product while the manufacturer of the product litigates the alleged infringement.

Reasonably Limits Early Discovery. The legislation protects litigants from the threat of expensive discovery by requiring a court to stay discovery while it resolves key early motions in the case, including motions to dismiss and transfer venue. The bill also directs the Judicial Conference to develop rules about how much a party should bear the cost of discovery beyond what is core for the case.

Creates Risk for Bad Actors. In order to deter plaintiffs and defendants from engaging in abusive and dilatory litigation practices, the bill provides that reasonable attorney fees will be awarded if the winner proves and a court rules that the losing party was not “objectively reasonable.” The legislation provides a process to recover fees where the abusive litigant is hiding behind a shell company.

Curbs Abusive Demand Letters. The legislation adds requirements that demand letters contain meaningful information so they cannot be used merely to scare recipients into early settlements. The bill also heightens penalties for those found to violate the FTC Act by sending misleading demand letters.

Increases Transparency. The bill requires the PTO to keep information about patent ownership in order to provide a resource about patents being asserted in a demand letter or lawsuit.



more from across site and SHARED ros bottom lb

More from across our site

Peter O’Sullivan, a former professional services executive, says he is looking forward to helping Pearce IP become the leading life sciences firm in Australia and New Zealand
Matteo Di Lernia, advocate at LCA Studio Legale, unpicks the CJEU’s ruling in M.M. Ristorazione v Villa Ramazzini, including its impact on litigation strategies
Leaders at IP boutique say the decision to pursue sponsorless partnership with the specialised investment arm of a private equity firm comes at a time of ‘profound transformation’ in the profession
Patrick Zhang, formerly of Atlassian and TiVo, will become Via’s vice president of licensing and commercial strategy, tasked with helping expand client partnerships and licensing deals
IP services firm says new platform will cut patent portfolio analysis from months to minutes and optimise monetisation efforts
New role for the High Court judge will leave a gap for an IP specialist judge at the first instance
Laura Achával, founder of Achával IP in Argentina, shares how an evolving vision led her to launch her own practice
Monetisation is standing at the forefront of patent development, and one firm says AI is increasingly being deployed
Data centres are being built across the US, prompting patent disputes, but Texas’s thriving tech industry and patent-ready courts make the state particularly ‘ripe’ for litigation
Carpmaels & Ransford is set to bolster its UK attorney team with the appointment of Simmons & Simmons’s head of IP in the UK
Gift this article