Innovation Act
Floor Speech
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Madam Chairman, I think it is time this morning to reveal a little bit of truth.
We have had reports of trolls just running through the marketplace of America. Trolls--you know those, the ones that hang out under bridges and scare you when you were a child. A troll is just something that is, oh boy, it is to be avoided. So all patent plaintiffs bringing actions to protect their patents, we are now calling them trolls. That is not true; that is not accurate. In fact, it is very inaccurate.
Only 5 percent of the patent cases that are filed in the courts of this country could be considered done in bad faith. So you could call those plaintiffs, I suppose, patent trolls. But 5 percent of the litigation does not equate to ``we are being overrun by patent trolls.'' That is just not correct.
There is a problem with abusive litigation. So how do you get at that? How do you--without closing the courthouse door on plaintiffs seeking to assert their rights to their patents, and those plaintiffs tend to be small entities, mom-and-pop inventors back in the garage or down in the basement, some 28-year-old ex-Harvard junior who dropped out and comes up with the next thing that explodes in the technology field--how do we protect those folks who are trying to honestly protect their patents?
I submit that H.R. 3309 goes way beyond what is necessary. It also has some constitutional implications. The Rules Enabling Act was passed by Congress back in 1934. That Rules Enabling Act was a very wise and considered piece of legislation. It recognized the fact that Federal Courts would be better off, and the Federal body of law would be better off, if we leave it to the Federal Courts to determine their rules of procedure.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. So prior to 1934, there was something called the ``conformity principle,'' which held that Federal Court procedures should be in accordance with the States wherein those Federal Courts sat; but that proved to be unworkable, so the rules enabling clause went into effect. Since then, we have left it to the Federal judiciary, through the Judicial Conference, to promulgate rules of procedure in both civil and criminal cases, and it has worked well.
Now we have section 6 of this ``patent troll act'' that imposes upon our judicial rules of procedure. These rules have not been recommended by the Judicial Conference. In fact, the Judicial Conference, led by Chief Justice Roberts, is opposed to this change. Therefore, I think on constitutional grounds this should be defeated.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Conyers-Watt substitute amendment.
I must say that this has been a very spirited debate here today, but I would be remiss not to come back to speak on the issue of an inventor such as Danny Ross, a venture capitalist and an example of the type of person that this bill should protect.
Danny cofounded a tech company down in Atlanta that employed more than 100 people and reached more than half the Internet audience at its peak. He owns several patents based on great inventions and has got a start-up. He had the Patent Office review and affirm these patents. But not only were these strong patents, they were also sought after by several companies. Rather than pay Danny for his innovation and hard work, these companies refused to license his patent. This practice is common for large companies that would rather bully someone in court than license their patents.
We are an innovation economy. The drive to create and tinker is what motivates Americans to innovate. Those innovations should be rewarded, and those innovators should be rewarded for their labor and contribution to society. That is the whole point of the patent system; but if this bill becomes law, patent owners and inventors will be unable to enforce their patents without risking personal bankruptcy.
I have long supported reform and am a friend of the innovation economy, but today I call on my colleagues to support this amendment.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Source