Our fee-shifting language, similar to the test used in current law, would require courts to award attorneys' fees to the prevailing party.

The bill before us would not only prohibit arbitration but actually terminate arbitration agreements that parties have already entered into.

I understand.

This is a very important issue and to ask if I could submit written questions to the witnesses.

I would hope and expect that any future exercises of that authority would be made to the greatest extent possible with transparency and input from the public.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, Ms. Overton, for joining us today.

And do any of those reforms obviate the need for any of the reforms we are discussing today?

And as you know, one of the litigation reform measures that Chairman Leahy and I have included in this legislation deals with the customer problem...

With regard to some of the pleading requirements and the filing requirements that we have talked about, aren't we really talking about infringement here?

But you would not disagree that we could also just decide that we want to clarify the issue on our own?

I do believe that action by Congress is warranted, and I do believe that there is empirical evidence to point that out.

I am curious to know why you seem to believe that the courts, rather than Congress, should address these issues...

Thank you. And, Mr. Rao, how do you respond to the argument that access to justice will be limited?

I think it is important for us to keep our focus on bad behaviors within patent litigation rather than focusing on anything that would tend to minimize or undermine the rights of property owners of intellectual property interests.

I think that is a crisis. I think that is a huge problem.

This is a problem, and it is an abuse, and I am glad we are addressing it.

We need some help understanding that because we're trying to look back at the law.

Well, there is very little flexibility.