Zoe Lofgren: “I appreciate the time. Earlier in the debate, I jumped ahead of myself and addressed the issue of pleadings and…”

“I appreciate the time. Earlier in the debate, I jumped ahead of myself and addressed the issue of pleadings and discovery costs during the Watt amendment about fee shifting. So I will focus on fee shifting now. The provision in the bill is absolutely right on. I oppose the English rule generally, but we have created dozens of times instances where the losing party can pay--let me just read the language: The courts will shift the costs and fees to a non- prevailing party unless the party's position is reasonably justified in fact or law or the fee award would cause economic harm. The discretion is still with the judicial officer to avoid harm. In terms of what should be in the bill, I mentioned at the outset that I don't believe this bill is perfect. If it were up to me, the bill would also exempt PTO user-fees from sequestration; it would clarify the scope of prior art and the grace period; it would allow the PTO to continue using its BRI standard in post-grant and inter partes review. I hope that the Senate will address those issues. Certainly, the amendment by Mr. Watt and Mr. Conyers does not. It pains me when I have to disagree with my ranking member, who I admire so very much, but I do disagree with this amendment. I think it will absolutely gut the bill. I intend to vote against it, and I hope that others join me.”