PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Subcommittee Hearings Held.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Jun 5, 2003
Intellectual Property Protection Restoration Act of 2003 - Amends Federal patent law to prohibit the award of remedies in civil actions brought for infringement of a patent issued on or after January 1, 2004, if a State or State instrumentality is or was at any time the legal or beneficial owner of such patent, except upon proof that by the date the infringement commenced (or January 1, 2006, whichever is later) the State has waived its immunity from suit in Federal court for any infringement of intellectual property protected under Federal law.
Exempts patents from such limitation if it would materially and adversely affect a legitimate contract-based expectation in existence before January 1, 2004, or the party seeking remedies was a bona fide purchaser for value of the patent, and, at the time of the purchase, did not know and was reasonably without cause to believe that a State or State instrumentality was once the legal or beneficial owner of the patent.
Amends Federal copyright law and the Trademark Act of 1946 to apply the same condition of State waiver of immunity to suit under Federal law to the award of remedies in any civil action brought under such laws where a State or State instrumentality is or was at any time the legal or beneficial owner of the copyright or trademark involved.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
Provides that in actions against an officer or employee of a State or its instrumentality for violations of provisions of Federal copyright or patent laws, the U.S. Code, the Trademark Act of 1946, or the Plant Variety Protection Act, remedies shall be available against such individual in the same manner and to the same extent as they available in an action against a private individual under like circumstances.
Imposes liability on States for violations of the fifth or fourteenth amendment of the U.S. Constitution (takings or due process violations) involving intellectual property under such Federal laws.
People & committees
Rep. Smith, Lamar [R-TX-21] · R–TX
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Subcommittee Hearings Held.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Courts, the Internet, and Intellectual Property.
Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
Source last updated: Aug 18, 2025. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
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.
Analyze H.R.2344 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.
Examine H.R.2344 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.
Examine H.R.2344 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.
Examine H.R.2344 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.