Senate Debate - 157 Cong. Rec. S1348-S1352 (March 8, 2011) (Sen. Udall):
`
`“This bill will establish a more efficient and streamlined patent system that will improve patent
`quality and limit unnecessary and counterproductive litigation costs, while making sure no
`party’s access to court is denied.” S1349.
`
`“The America Invents Act will improve the quality of patents issued by the PTO in several ways.
`. . . The bill will also create a new post-grant review process for patents that recently issued to
`improve the quality of patents in the system, as recommended by the National Academy of
`Sciences, and it will streamline the current “inter partes” system so that it will be a more efficient
`alternative to litigation.’ S1350.
`
`“Inter partes reexamines a proceeding at the Patent Office that allows for the validity of a patent
`to be challenged in an administrative proceeding. These proceedings are intended to serve as a
`less-expensive alternative to the courtroom litigation and provide additional access to the
`expertise of the Patent Office on questions of patentability.
`
`“Inter partes reexam is often the preferred method of examination because a panel of experts is
`more likely to reach the correct decision on a technical question compared to a jury composed of
`laypeople. The inter partes process is not frequently used today because of procedural restrictions
`in the existing law. Rather than expanding the opportunities to use the inter partes reexamination
`process, the America Invents Act before us today imposes standards that are more restrictive
`than current law and are not supported by top high-tech innovators.
`
`“By failing to provide any relief from the huge burden abusive patent lawsuits impose on
`technology companies and instead reducing the protections in current law, I fear this legislation
`will force these companies to spend hundreds of millions of dollars on frivolous lawsuits. These
`are dollars that otherwise would be used to employ engineers, produce and market new goods
`and services, and help Colorado and America win the global economic race.
`
`“As this legislation moves to the House, we must work to achieve consensus on inter partes
`reexamination. While I do not believe we have the right balance quite yet, I do believe this bill is
`a good faith effort to improve our patent system, and I am going to support moving it forward
`because we cannot let job-creating patents languish any longer.” S1352.
`
`Senate Debate - 157 Cong. Rec. S5319-5321 (Sept. 6, 2011) (Sen. Kyle):
`
`“By allowing post-grant review of patents, especially low quality, business method patents, the
`bill creates an inexpensive substitute for district court litigation and allows key issues to be
`addressed by experts in the field.” S5319.
`
`1
`
`IPR2020-00200
`Apple Inc. EX1042 Page 1
`
`

`

`Senate Debate - 157 Cong. Rec. S5322-S5328 (Sept. 6 2011) (Sen. Leahy):
`
`“The bill also implements a National Academy of Sciences recommendation by creating a
`postgrant review process to weed out recently issued patents that should not have been issued in
`the first place.” S5326.
`
`
`Senate Debate - 157 Cong. Rec. S5353-S5356 (Sept. 7, 2011) (Sen. Leahy):
`
`“The America Invents Act will improve patent quality by expanding the role of third parties to
`the patent examination process, creating a streamlined first-window, postgrant review to quickly
`challenge and weed out patents that never should have been issued in the first place.” S5354.
`
`
`“The Patent Reform Act of 2007 (Senate Report 110-259) (Jan. 24, 2008):
`
`“Given the numerous problems and limitations with the reexamination system, and the chorus of
`concerns heard by the Committee about that process, the Committee determined not to try to
`adopt another, and necessarily massive, set of amendments to the current system. Rather, the
`Committee determined that it would be simpler, and ultimately better, to make a clean start. The
`time has come to eliminate the inter partes reexamination system and replace it with a new post-
`grant review system at the USPTO that will give third parties a quick, inexpensive, and reliable
`alternative to district court litigation to resolve questions of patent validity.”
`
` …
`
`
`
`
`“The legislation is designed to establish a more efficient and streamlined patent system that will
`improve patent quality and limit unnecessary and counterproductive litigation costs. If the United
`States is to maintain its competitive edge in the global economy, it needs a system that will
`support and reward all innovators with high quality patents.
`
` .
`
` . .
`
`
`“The Patent Reform Act of 2007 has three primary goals: . . . (ii) to improve and clarify several
`aspects of patent litigation, including the creation of a less expensive, more expeditious
`administrative alternative to litigation patent validity issues[.]”
`
`
`Patent Quality Improvement: Post-Grant Opposition: Hearing Before the Subcomm. on Courts,
`the Internet, and Intellectual Property of the H. Comm. on the Judiciary, 108th Cong. 10 (2004)
`(statement of PTO General Counsel James A. Toupin):
`
`“The [ ]PTO's proposal is thus designed to put review of the propriety of patent claims that the
`public regards as important in the hands of senior, legally qualified officials with experience in
`dispute resolution. It is designed to be more efficient than litigation, while preserving enough of
`the full participation accorded to parties in litigation that challengers will be willing to risk being
`
`
`
`2
`
`IPR2020-00200
`Apple Inc. EX1042 Page 2
`
`

`

`bound by the result. By providing for the possibility of amendment of challenged claims, the
`proposed system would preserve the merited benefits of patent claims better than the win-all or
`lose-all validity contests in district court.”
`
`
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`IPR2020-00200
`Apple Inc. EX1042 Page 3
`
`