PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the Subcommittee on Courts, the Internet, and Intellectual Property.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Oct 8, 2004
Patent Quality Assistance Act of 2004 - Allows a person to request that the grant or reissue of a patent be reconsidered by the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) by filing an opposition seeking to invalidate one or more claims in the patent.
Requires the Director of USPTO to issue and publish a certificate, in accordance with the final decision by the panel of three administrative patent judges, canceling any claim of the patent determined to be unpatentable and incorporating into the patent any new or amended claims determined to be patentable.
Allows a third party to submit for consideration, and for inclusion in the record, prior art to determine whether the invention was known, used, in public use, or on sale or would have been obvious.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
Provides that a notice of a patent holder alleging infringement of the patent is not deemed to be sufficient to subject a recipient of the notice to liability for willful infringement of the patent, with exceptions.
Prohibits a court from granting an injunction for violations of a right secured by a patent unless it finds that the patentee is likely to suffer irreparable harm that cannot be remedied by payment of money damages.
Provides that a third party requester whose request for a reexamination results in an order is not estopped from asserting a claim which the third party requester could have raised during such reexamination proceedings.
Sets forth provisions regarding circumstances under which a patent application involving a business method invention combined with computer technology would not be denied on the basis of obviousness.
People & committees
Rep. Berman, Howard L. [D-CA-28] · D–CA
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, the Internet, and Intellectual Property.
Sponsor introductory remarks on measure. (CR E1935-1936)
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.
No related bills are listed in this snapshot. This does not establish whether the proposal has appeared in earlier Congresses.
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.5299 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.5299 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.5299 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.5299 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.