直 Japanese PDF Font
  • Our Professionals
  • Our Work
  • Our Insights
  • Offices
  • Firm
  • Careers
Finnegan
  • Articles & Books
    • Ad Law Buzz Blog
    • At the PTAB Blog
    • European IP Blog
    • Federal Circuit IP Blog
    • INCONTESTABLE® Blog
    • Prosecution First Blog
  • Events & Webinars
  • IP Updates
  • Podcasts
    • AI + Finnegan
    • AI + Copyright
    • AI + Patent
    • AI + Privacy
    • AI + Trade Secrets
    • AI + Trademark
  • Unified Patent Court (UPC) Hub

IP Update

The House Votes to Reform U.S. Patent Laws by Approving the America Invents Act by a Margin of 304 to 117

June 24, 2011

By David W. Hill; Thomas Lee Irving; Barbara C. McCurdy

The U.S. House of Representatives voted by a margin of 304 to 117 on June 23, 2011, to reform U.S. patent laws by approving the America Invents Act (H.R. 1249). This vote follows approval in the U.S. Senate of very similar legislation (S. 23) on March 8, 2011. Prior to the final vote on the bill, the House had approved a manager’s amendment offered by Rep. Lamar Smith by a vote of 283 to 140. The manager’s amendment changed the language of the bill that had been previously reported out of the Judiciary Committee in several ways. The most significant change related to the establishment of a patent and trademark fee reserve fund overseen by the Congressional Appropriations Committee. Original H.R. 1249, like S. 23, gave the Director of the USPTO authority to use the fund without fiscal year limitations and implied this authority was without other limitations, such as approval by Congress. The amendment also addressed other sections of the legislation, including expanding prior user rights, synchronizing the timing requirements for post-grant review and inter partes review with S. 23, authorizing certain USPTO fee increases, authorizing the USPTO’s Track I prioritized examination, limiting the fraud exception to supplemental examination to circumstances where the USPTO Director becomes aware of the fraud, and limiting enforcement of DNA diagnostic patents when a patient needs a second opinion. The House also approved an amendment proposed by Rep. John Conyers, Jr. maintaining the 60-day deadline period to apply for patent term extension.

Both versions of the legislation passed by the House and Senate make significant changes to the U.S. patent system, most notably including conversion to a first-inventor-to-file system, introduction of enhanced post-grant review procedures conducted in the USPTO, and redefinition of the parameters of USPTO funding. The bill also addresses preissuance submissions by third parties; USPTO fee-setting authority; supplemental examination, which appears relevant to the issue of inequitable conduct; amendment of the reissue statute, which also appears relevant to the issue of inequitable conduct; micro entity fees; tax strategy patents; elimination of the best mode defense (although the best mode requirement remains in Section 112); special post-grant review for business method patents; USPTO satellite offices; creation of a USPTO ombudsman; residency for Federal Circuit judges; and USPTO authority to prioritize examination of inventions.

The House and Senate now will begin a process of reviewing the two versions of the legislation, aiming to adopt a final bill that the President can sign into law. The President has previously indicated his support for patent law reform, and we expect he will sign this legislation if and when it is presented to him.

Finnegan will continue to follow developing news on patent reform, and we will also provide analysis on how the changes, once enacted, will change the patent landscape. To view Finnegan’s Patent Law Reform 2011 resource page and learn more about patent law reform, please click  here. To sign up for IP Updates from Finnegan, please click here.

 

Related Professionals

Barbara C. McCurdy
Partner
Washington, DC
+1 202 408 4047
Email

Copyright © Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP. This article is for informational purposes, is not intended to constitute legal advice, and may be considered advertising under applicable state laws. This article is only the opinion of the authors and is not attributable to Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP, or the firm's clients.

Related Insights

Conference

2026 EDTX Bench Bar Conference

October 28-30, 2026

Fort Worth

Hybrid Conference

Intellectual Property Law Institute 2026 – California

October 19-20, 2026

San Francisco

Hybrid Conference

Intellectual Property Law Institute 2026 – New York

September 28-29, 2026

New York

Conference

Georgia Life Sciences Summit 2026

August 25-26, 2026

Sandy Springs

Lecture

IPIC/McGill Summer IP Course 2026: Understanding Trademarks

July 14, 2026

Montreal

Conference

7th International Conference on Biofuels and Bioenergy

June 25-26, 2026

Edinburgh

Charitable

Bridges From School to Work Gala 2026

June 22, 2026

Washington, DC

Charitable

Banding Together 2026

June 18, 2026

Washington, DC

Lecture

Munich Licensing Summer Course 2026

June 18-19, 2026

Munich

Due to international data regulations, we’ve updated our privacy policy. Click here to read our privacy policy in full.

  • Privacy
  • Disclaimer
  • Legal Notices
  • Fraud Alert
  • EEO Statement
  • Cookies
  • Contact Us

© 2026 Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP