8/13/2019 Statement from the Higher Education Community on Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute to H.R. 3309

1/1

Association of American Universities 1200 New York Ave., NW, Suite 550, Washington, DC 20005 (202) 408-7500

American Council on Education One Dupont Circle, NW, Suite 800, Washington, DC 20036 (202) 939-9300

Association of American Medical Colleges 2450 N Street, NW, Washington, DC 20037-1126 (202)-828-0400

Association of Public and Land-grant Universities 1307 New York Ave., NW, Washington, DC 20005 (202) 478-6040

Association of University Technology Managers 111 Deer Lake Road, Suite 100, Deerfield, IL 60015 (847) 480-9282

Council on Governmental Relations 1200 New York Ave., NW, Suite 750, Washington, DC 20036 (202) 289-6655

AAAAUUAssociation of American UniversitiesAACCEE American Council on EducationAAAAMMCCAssociation of American Medical Colleges

AAPPLLUUAssociation of Public and Land-grant UniversitiesAAUUTTMMAssociation of University Technology ManagersCCOOGGRRCouncil on Governmental Relations

November 19, 2013

Statement from the Higher Education Community on

Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute to H.R. 3309

We write to communicate the views of the higher education community on the Amendment in the

Nature of a Substitute to H.R. 3309. We commend Chairman Goodlatte for the improvements inthis Managers Amendment in comparison to the previous version of H.R. 3309. Included among

those improvements, in our view, are the elimination of the expansion of the kinds of patents that

can be reviewed under the AIAs post-grant review procedures for covered business methodpatents and retaining the transitional nature of those procedures, and the narrowing of the joinder

provisions -- although we are concerned about some remaining aspects of these provisions.

Despite these improvements, however, we believe that a number of provisions in the Managers

Amendment are problematic, including the extremely broad scope of civil actions to which fee

shifting would apply and the high, indefinite threshold for a courts waiver of that fee shifting, the

extent of the heightened pleading requirements, the breadth of the information required in Sec. 4stransparency provisions, and the narrowing of the scope of the estoppel provisions in the AIAs

new post-grant review procedure. It continues to be our view that the courts are best suited to

manage litigation according to the facts of a case, and a number of the proposals unduly limit that

court discretion in meritorious patent infringement cases. We are concerned that these proposalswould undercut the value of a patent to encourage investment in new technology, which is why

patents exist, and how universities use them.

We strongly encourage the addition of H.R. 3349 to the Managers Amendment. Providing the

USPTO with full access to its fee revenue is the most significant action that can be taken to

enhance the quality and effectiveness of the U.S. patent system.

We respectfully request the Judiciary Committee to address these issues of concern as it considersthe Managers Amendment.