On the recordDecember 5, 2013
I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, this amendment offers a reformulation of section 5 of the bill. The provision, however, is the product of years of discussions with stakeholders and the Patent Office. This amendment unduly restricts the protections offered by section 5 to customers. The amendment has been presented as protecting small business, but the underlying provision already applies to small businesses. What this amendment does is deny protection to larger grocery stores, charities, hospitals, universities, and restaurant chains that are sued on account of technology that they have purchased from others and did not design or develop. This provision would prevent many customers from benefiting from the important protections of section 5. Customer suits against a party that neither manufactures nor develops the product, accused of infringement, are frequent tactics used by trolls because they know that most customers are not sophisticated in patent laws and, thus, are more vulnerable to extortion. This amendment would eliminate a tool the bill provides to customers to protect themselves from truly abusive patent litigation. It is for these and many other reasons that I strongly oppose the amendment. I reserve the balance of my time.





