PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.
H.R.1732 / 104th Congress

Patent Reexamination Reform Act of 1995

For Further Action See H.R.3460.

Official summary

Version 00 · Introduced in House · May 25, 1995

Patent Reexamination Reform Act of 1995 - Amends Federal patent law to expand reexamination request authority to authorize the filing of such requests by any person on the basis of patent specification requirements except for the best mode requirement. (Current law permits reexamination requests only on the basis of prior art.) Establishes procedures for reexamination proceedings based upon third-party (persons who are not the patent owner) requests. Requires documents filed in such proceedings, other than the request, to be served on all parties. Authorizes third-party requesters to file written comments not less than one month from the date of service of the patent owner's response to any Patent and Trademark Office action on the merits of reexamination. Grants third-party requesters the right to appeal final reexamination decisions on the same basis such right is available to patent owners. Estops a third-party requester who files a notice of appeal or who participates as a party to an appeal from later asserting the invalidity of any claim determined to be patentable on appeal on any ground which was or could have been raised during reexamination. Bars patent owners and third-party requesters, once an order for reexamination has been issued, from filing a subsequent reexamination request until a reexamination certificate is published. Prohibits a party, once a final decision has been entered in a civil action that the party has not sustained the burden of proving the invalidity of a patent claim, from requesting reexamination on issues that were or could have been raised in the civil action. Requires the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences to review adverse decisions of examiners in reexamination proceedings and authorizes appeals to the Board by patent owners and third-party requesters with respect to reexamination decisions. Permits appeals of Board decisions to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.

Read the summary on Congress.gov
PlainBill analysis is coming later. This page presents official source data. We have not yet published a PlainBill explanation for this bill.

Who introduced it

Rep. Moorhead, Carlos J. [R-CA-27] · R–CA

Committees

  • Judiciary Committee
2 cosponsorship records, including any withdrawals

Actions

A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.

  1. For Further Action See H.R.3460.

  2. Subcommittee Hearings Held.

  3. Referred to the Subcommittee on Courts and Intellectual Property.

  4. Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.

  5. Introduced in House

  6. Introduced in House

Bill text & related measures

Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.

Related bills identified by Congress.gov

Source last updated: Aug 21, 2025. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.

Explore the bill from different angles

Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.

Neutral evidence review

Objective

Analyze H.R.1732 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.

View full prompt & sources
Fairness and public impact

Progressive lens

Examine H.R.1732 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.

View full prompt & sources
Institutions and government scope

Conservative lens

Examine H.R.1732 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.

View full prompt & sources
Individual rights and government power

Liberty lens

Examine H.R.1732 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.

View full prompt & sources