`
`1
`
`ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY
`
`2
`
`HJU104000
`
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`MARKUP OF H.R. 1249, THE AMERICA INVENTS ACT
`
`4
`
`Thursday, April 14, 2011
`
`5
`
`House of Representatives
`
`6
`
`Committee on the Judiciary
`
`7
`
`Washington, D.C.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`8
`
` The committee met, pursuant to call, at 10:35 a.m., in
`
`9
`
`Room 2141, Rayburn Office Building, Hon. Lamar Smith
`
`10
`
`[chairman of the committee] presiding.
`
`11
`
` Present: Representatives Smith, Sensenbrenner, Coble,
`
`12
`
`Gallegly, Goodlatte, Lungren, Chabot, Issa, Pence, Forbes,
`
`13
`
`King, Franks, Gohmert, Jordan, Poe, Chaffetz, Griffin,
`
`14
`
`Marino, Gowdy, Ross, Adams, Quayle, Conyers, Berman, Nadler,
`
`15
`
`Scott, Watt, Lofgren, Jackson Lee, Waters, Cohen, Johnson,
`
`16
`
`Pierluisi, Quigley, Chu, Deutch, Sanchez, and Wasserman
`
`17
`
`Schultz.
`
`VIRNETX EXHIBIT 2003
`Apple v. Virnetx
`Case IPR2013-00393
`
`Page 1 of 5
`
`
`
`HJU104000 PAGE 2
`
`18
`
` Staff present: Sean McLaughlin, Chief of Staff;
`
`19
`
`Allison Halatei, Deputy Chief of Staff/Parliamentarian;
`
`20
`
`Sarah Kish, Clerk; Perry Apelbaum, Minority Staff Director;
`
`21
`
`and Chrystal Sheppard.
`
`22
`
`Page 2 of 5
`
`Page 2 of 5
`
`
`
`HJU104000 PAGE 71
`
`1408
`
`genuine issues in the case in order to prepare an effective
`
`1409
`
`petition.
`
`1410
`
`I think this is a fair approach for both the patent
`
`1411
`
`owner and those accused of infringement. It preserves the
`
`1412
`
`ability of inter partes while still preventing undue delay,
`
`1413
`
`and while there is no deadline tied to litigation in the
`
`1414
`
`status quo, proponents of strict deadlines really haven’t
`
`1415
`
`given any real world examples that I am aware of of inter
`
`1416
`
`partes challenges that have been unduly delayed or harm that
`
`1417
`
`would occur therefor.
`
`1418
`
`So if there are concerns, they are theoretical, and
`
`1419
`
`regardless of the deadline, defendants have a significant
`
`1420
`
`incentive to file their petitions for IPR as early as
`
`1421
`
`possible. If the defendant waits too long to file, it could
`
`1422
`
`lose at trial and be forced into paying damages for
`
`1423
`
`infringement before the PTO makes a decision to invalidate
`
`1424
`
`the patent.
`
`1425
`
`So I think this amendment is a middle ground and
`
`1426
`
`improves the bill, and I hope that the members will see fit
`
`1427
`
`to approve it.
`
`1428
`
`And I yield back.
`
`1429
`
`Chairman Smith. Thank you, Ms. Lofgren.
`
`Page 3 of 5
`
`Page 3 of 5
`
`
`
`HJU104000 PAGE 72
`
`1430
`
`I will recognize myself in opposition to the
`
`1431
`
`amendment.
`
`1432
`
`This amendment expands the inter partes review program
`
`1433
`
`from 12 months after the filing of a civil action to 30 days
`
`1434
`
`after the Markman hearing. This amendment could create an
`
`1435
`
`open-ended process because there is actually no guarantee
`
`1436
`
`that a Markman hearing will even take place. The inter
`
`1437
`
`partes proceeding in H.R. 1249 has been carefully written to
`
`1438
`
`balance the need to encourage its use while at same time
`
`1439
`
`preventing the serial harassment of patent holders. This
`
`1440
`
`bill represents a delicate balance, and making such a core
`
`1441
`
`change to the deadline may turn the inter partes program
`
`1442
`
`into a tool for litigation gamesmanship rather than a
`
`1443
`
`meaningful and less expensive alternative to litigation.
`
`1444
`
`For those reasons, I oppose the amendment.
`
`1445
`
`Are there other members who wish to be heard on this
`
`1446
`
`amendment?
`
`1447
`
`[No response.]
`
`1448
`
`Chairman Smith. If not, we will vote on it. All
`
`1449
`
`those in -- the gentleman from California, Mr. Berman, is
`
`1450
`
`recognized.
`
`1451
`
`Mr. Berman. Mr. Chairman, the issue you raise -- I
`
`Page 4 of 5
`
`Page 4 of 5
`
`
`
`HJU104000 PAGE 73
`
`1452
`
`rise to suggest an alternative to the amendment, although I
`
`1453
`
`think the amendment is good.
`
`1454
`
`If there is a Markman hearing, that is the logical
`
`1455
`
`time to cut off the ability to stay a court case, 30 days
`
`1456
`
`afterwards. So on the face of it, I think the amendment
`
`1457
`
`makes sense. You raise legitimately what if there is no
`
`1458
`
`Markman hearing. So what if the gentlelady’s amendment said
`
`1459
`
`the Markman hearing or no later than 18 months so that if
`
`1460
`
`there were no Markman hearing, the time set, they could not
`
`1461
`
`go beyond the 18 months? Would that make it then more
`
`1462
`
`attractive to you? It would deal with this issue of no
`
`1463
`
`Markman hearing.
`
`1464
`
`Remember, under existing law -- first of all, the stay
`
`1465
`
`is never mandated. The court gets to decide whether or not
`
`1466
`
`to have a stay. And your bill, I think, is a positive
`
`1467
`
`improvement on the Senate language which was only 6 months,
`
`1468
`
`but conceptually knowing what claims are going to be
`
`1469
`
`litigated makes the most sense in terms of telling the
`
`1470
`
`defendant they no longer can use inter partes reexam as an
`
`1471
`
`effort to stall the litigation. They got to do it within 30
`
`1472
`
`days of the Markman hearing or if they haven’t gotten the
`
`1473
`
`Markman hearing or aren’t going to get a Markman hearing, no
`
`Page 5 of 5
`
`Page 5 of 5
`
`