United States 111th Congress Status: Enacted

HR 628 — To establish a pilot program in certain United States district courts to encourage enhancement of expertise in patent cases among district judges.

Last action — Became Public Law No: 111-349.

  1. ✓
    Introduced
  2. ✓
    In Committee
  3. ✓
    Passed House
  4. ✓
    Passed Senate
  5. ✓
    To Executive
  6. 6
    Enacted

This bill has been enacted into law. Introduced January 22, 2009. Enacted.

Prognosis

Not enough signal yet

Where this bill stands today.

Odds of enactment

High

How often bills like it became law.

Not enough signal yet to read this bill's trajectory — we surface a likelihood only once there's real movement (stage, sponsorship, committee, or votes) to point to.

Prognosis reads this bill's own signals — stage, sponsorship breadth, committee status, recorded votes and cross-state momentum. Odds come from a model trained on which bills have become law.

Summary

Establishes a pilot program in certain U.S. district courts under which: (1) those district judges who request to hear cases involving patent or plant variety protection issues are designated by the chief judge to hear them; (2) such cases are randomly assigned to the district court judges, regardless of whether they are designated; (3) a judge not designated to whom such a case is assigned may decline to accept the case; and (4) a case so declined is randomly reassigned to one of those judges so designated.

Bill Text

What changed in the latest version

82 added · 76 removed

Plain-language change summary

The amendment updates the text of the bill to specify how district judges are designated and assigned to hear cases related to patent issues. It clarifies that judges who wish to handle these cases must be designated by the chief judge of the court and that assignments to hear such cases will be made randomly among the judges, including those not specifically designated. This matters because it ensures a systematic approach to case assignment, potentially enhancing the expertise of judges handling patent law matters.

→
Previous
Latest
[Congressional Bills 111th Congress] [From the U.S.
[111th Congress Public Law 349] [From the U.S.
Government Publishing Office] [H.R.
Government Publishing Office] [[Page 3673]] PATENT CASES PILOT PROGRAM [[Page 124 STAT.
628 Engrossed Amendment Senate (EAS)] In the Senate of the United States, December 13, 2010.
3674]] Public Law 111-349 111th Congress An Act To establish a pilot program in certain United States district courts to encourage enhancement of expertise in patent cases among district judges.
Resolved, That the bill from the House of Representatives (H.R.
<<NOTE:
628) entitled ``An Act to establish a pilot program in certain United States district courts to encourage enhancement of expertise in patent cases among district judges.'', do pass with the following AMENDMENT:
Jan.
Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the following:
4, 2011 - [H.R.
SECTION 1.
628]>> Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, SECTION 1.
PILOT PROGRAM IN CERTAIN DISTRICT COURTS.
<<NOTE:
28 USC 137 note.>> PILOT PROGRAM IN CERTAIN DISTRICT COURTS.
(b) Designation.-- (1) In general.--Not later than 6 months after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Director of the Administrative Office of the United States Courts shall designate not less than 6 United States district courts, in at least 3 different judicial circuits, in which the program established under subsection (a) will be carried out.
(b) Designation.-- (1) In general <<NOTE:
(2) Criteria for designations.-- (A) In general.--The Director shall make designations under paragraph (1) from-- (i) the 15 district courts in which the largest number of patent and plant variety protection cases were filed in the most recent calendar year that has ended;
Deadline.>> .--Not later than 6 months after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Director of the Administrative Office of the United States Courts shall designate not less than 6 United States district courts, in at least 3 different judicial circuits, in which the program established under subsection (a) will be carried out.
(2) Criteria for designations.-- (A) In general.--The Director shall make designations under paragraph (1) from-- [[Page 124 STAT.
3675]] (i) the 15 district courts in which the largest number of patent and plant variety protection cases were filed in the most recent calendar year that has ended;
(B) Selection of courts.--From amongst the district courts that satisfy the criteria for designation under this subsection, the Director shall select-- (i) 3 district courts that each have at least 10 district judges authorized to be appointed by the President, whether under section 133(a) of title 28, United States Code, or on a temporary basis under any other provision of law, and at least 3 judges of the court have made the request under subsection (a)(1)(A);
(B) Selection of courts.--From amongst the district courts that satisfy the criteria for designation under this subsection, the Director shall select-- (i) 3 district courts that each have at least district judges authorized to be appointed by the President, whether under section 133(a) of title 28, United States Code, or on a temporary basis under any other provision of law, and at least 3 judges of the court have made the request under subsection (a)(1)(A);
(D) a discussion of any evidence indicating that litigants select certain of the judicial districts designated under subsection (b) in an attempt to ensure a given outcome;
[[Page 124 STAT.
3676]] (D) a discussion of any evidence indicating that litigants select certain of the judicial districts designated under subsection (b) in an attempt to ensure a given outcome;
Attest:
Approved January 4, 2011.
Secretary.
LEGISLATIVE HISTORY--H.R.
111th CONGRESS 2d Session H.R.
628:
628 _______________________________________________________________________ AMENDMENT
--------------------------------------------------------------------------- CONGRESSIONAL RECORD:
Vol.
155 (2009):
Mar.
17, considered and passed House.
Vol.
156 (2010):
Dec.
13, considered and passed Senate, amended.
Dec.
16, 17, House considered and concurred in Senate amendment.
<all>
⬇ Download PDF
View plain text versions (6)

Action History

  1. Became Public Law No: 111-349.

  2. Signed by President.

  3. Presented to President.

  4. Cleared for White House.

  5. Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.

  6. On motion that the House suspend the rules and agree to the Senate amendment Agreed to by recorded vote (2/3 required): 371 - 1 (Roll no. 651). (text as House agreed to Senate amendment: CR 12/16/2010 H8536-8537)

  7. Considered as unfinished business. (consideration: CR H8762-8763)

  8. At the conclusion of debate, the chair put the question on the motion to suspend the rules. Ms. Chu objected to the vote on the grounds that a quorum was not present. Further proceedings on the motion were postponed. The point of no quorum was withdrawn.

  9. DEBATE - The House proceeded with forty minutes of debate on the Senate amendment to H.R. 628.

  10. Ms. Chu moved that the House suspend the rules and agree to the Senate amendment. (consideration: CR H8536-8539)

  11. Message on Senate action sent to the House.

  12. Passed Senate with an amendment by Unanimous Consent.

  13. S.AMDT.4801 Amendment SA 4801 agreed to in Senate by Unanimous Consent.

  14. S.AMDT.4801 Amendment SA 4801 proposed by Senator Durbin for Senator Leahy. (consideration: CR S8946-8947; text: CR S8946-8947)In the nature of a substitute.

  15. Measure laid before Senate by unanimous consent. (consideration: CR S8946-8947)

  16. Senate Committee on the Judiciary discharged by Unanimous Consent.

  17. Received in the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.

  18. Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.

  19. On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill Agreed to by recorded vote (2/3 required): 409 - 7 (Roll no. 130). (text: CR H3456-3457)

  20. Considered as unfinished business. (consideration: CR H3471)

  21. At the conclusion of debate, the chair put the question on the motion to suspend the rules. Mr. Issa objected to the vote on the grounds that a quorum was not present. Further proceedings on the motion were postponed. The point of no quorum was withdrawn.

  22. DEBATE - The House proceeded with forty minutes of debate on H.R. 628.

  23. Considered under suspension of the rules. (consideration: CR H3456-3459)

  24. Mr. Johnson (GA) moved to suspend the rules and pass the bill.

  25. Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.

Sponsorship breakdown

Export CSV (upgrade) →

0 sponsors · 0 co-sponsors · 547 not signed on

Sponsors (0)

None.

Co-sponsors (0)

None.

Not signed on (547)

547 members have not signed on to this bill.

Show all 547 →

"Not signed on" means a member has not sponsored or co-sponsored this bill — it does not imply opposition. Members flagged Voted No have a recorded No vote on this bill.

Whip count is in markup. Polling the chamber and every recorded vote this session. Only the first open is slow. It’s instant for you after this. Calling the roll · Tallying · Engrossing

Subjects

technology agriculture
Cross-referencing the record. Reading this bill against every other bill in the corpus by meaning, not keywords. Only the first open is slow. It’s instant for you after this. Matching · Ranking · Engrossing

Frequently asked questions

What does HR 628 do?
Establishes a pilot program in certain U.S. district courts under which: (1) those district judges who request to hear cases involving patent or plant variety protection issues are designated by the chief judge to hear them; (2) such cases are randomly assigned to the district court judges, regardless of whether they are designated; (3) a judge not designated to whom such a case is assigned may decline to accept the case; and (4) a case so declined is randomly reassigned to one of those judges so designated.
What is the current status of HR 628?
This bill has been enacted into law. Introduced January 22, 2009. Enacted.
Where can I track HR 628?
Track HR 628 free on One Click Politics — get push/email alerts when it moves.

Make your voice heard on HR 628

Find the representatives who decide this bill and tell them where you stand — for yourself, or mobilize your whole list in one click with One Click Politics advocacy software.

Find my representatives → Run a campaign

Stay ahead of HR 628

Last checked for changes 7 days ago · updated continuously

One Click Politics tracks every bill in Congress and all 50 states.

Track this bill →