PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the Subcommittee on Courts, Intellectual Property, and the Internet.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Nov 19, 2013
Demand Letter Transparency Act of 2013 - Requires any entity that sends a specified number of demand letters during any 365-day period to submit to the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), with respect to each patent that was the subject in each letter, a disclosure identifying:
the patent, including a confirmation that the entity that sent the letter is the owner of the patent and is the last recorded entity in USPTO records for purposes of assignment, grant, or conveyance;
the entity that has the right to license the patent or the name of the exclusive licensee;
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
each entity asserting a claim with regard to the patent;
each obligation to license the patent and the financial terms at which such patent has been licensed;
the ultimate parent entity of such entity;
the number of recipients of the letter;
any case that has been filed by such entity relating to such patent; and
any ex parte review or inter partes review of such patent.
Defines "demand letter" as any written communication directed to an unaffiliated third party stating or indicating that the intended recipient, or anyone affiliated with that recipient, is or may be infringing a patent, or may bear liability or owe compensation to another because of such patent.
Authorizes a court, in a patent infringement or validity action brought by an entity that does not meet such USPTO disclosure requirements, to sanction such entity for an amount to be awarded to the adverse party to cover any costs incurred as a result of such violation.
Exempts from such disclosure requirements: (1) original or joint inventors, (2) institutions of higher education, and (3) technology transfer organizations facilitating the commercialization of technology developed by institutions of higher education.
Directs the USPTO to establish a publicly accessible and searchable database of the information obtained pursuant to such disclosures.
Requires any demand letter sent to another entity to include specified information concerning:
each claim of each patent allegedly infringed, including each accused instrumentality;
each party alleging infringement;
the direct infringement for each claim alleged to have been infringed indirectly;
the principal business of the party alleging infringement;
each complaint filed that asserts or asserted any of the same patents, each case filed by such entity, and any ex parte or inter partes review for each patent;
whether the patent is subject to any licensing term or pricing commitments;
owners, co-owners, assignees, or exclusive licensees of the patent;
any person who has a legal right to enforce the patent;
any person with a direct financial interest in the outcome of the action; and
how the recipient can access the USPTO demand letter database.
Permits a recipient of a demand letter to file a petition with the USPTO if it believes that disclosure or patent letter information requirements have not been met. Directs the USPTO, if it determines that a requirement has not been met, to notify the patent owner that the patent will be voided unless a fee is paid.
Requires the USPTO to consider good faith mistakes in the determination of whether to void a patent.
Directs the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) to enforce a violation of this Act as an unfair or deceptive act or practice.
People & committees
Rep. Polis, Jared [D-CO-2] · D–CO
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Courts, Intellectual Property, and the Internet.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Commerce, Manufacturing, and Trade.
Referred to the Committee on the Judiciary, and in addition to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
Referred to the Committee on the Judiciary, and in addition to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
No related bills are listed in this snapshot. This does not establish whether the proposal has appeared in earlier Congresses.
Source last updated: Aug 12, 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.3540 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.3540 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.3540 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.3540 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.