PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Became Public Law No: 111-349.
Congressional Research Service
Version 49 · Public Law · Jan 4, 2011
(This measure has not been amended since it was passed by the Senate on December 13, 2010. The summary of that version is repeated here.)
Establishes a pilot program in certain U.S. district courts under which: (1) those district judges who request to hear cases involving patent or plant variety protection issues are designated by the chief judge to hear them; (2) such cases are randomly assigned to the district court judges, regardless of whether they are designated; (3) a judge not designated to whom such a case is assigned may decline to accept the case; and (4) a case so declined is randomly reassigned to one of those judges so designated.
People & committees
Rep. Issa, Darrell E. [R-CA-49] · R–CA
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Became Public Law No: 111-349.
Became Public Law No: 111-349.
Signed by President.
Signed by President.
Presented to President.
Presented to President.
Cleared for White House.
Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
On motion that the House suspend the rules and agree to the Senate amendment Agreed to by recorded vote (2/3 required): 371 - 1 (Roll no. 651). (text as House agreed to Senate amendment: CR 12/16/2010 H8536-8537)
House roll call 651 · Individual votesResolving differences -- House actions: On motion that the House suspend the rules and agree to the Senate amendment Agreed to by recorded vote (2/3 required): 371 - 1 (Roll no. 651).(text as House agreed to Senate amendment: CR 12/16/2010 H8536-8537)
House roll call 651 · Individual votesConsidered as unfinished business. (consideration: CR H8762-8763)
At the conclusion of debate, the chair put the question on the motion to suspend the rules. Ms. Chu objected to the vote on the grounds that a quorum was not present. Further proceedings on the motion were postponed. The point of no quorum was withdrawn.
DEBATE - The House proceeded with forty minutes of debate on the Senate amendment to H.R. 628.
Ms. Chu moved that the House suspend the rules and agree to the Senate amendment. (consideration: CR H8536-8539)
Message on Senate action sent to the House.
Passed Senate with an amendment by Unanimous Consent.
Passed/agreed to in Senate: Passed Senate with an amendment by Unanimous Consent.
Measure laid before Senate by unanimous consent. (consideration: CR S8946-8947)
Senate Committee on the Judiciary discharged by Unanimous Consent.
Senate Committee on the Judiciary discharged by Unanimous Consent.
Received in the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.
Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill Agreed to by recorded vote (2/3 required): 409 - 7 (Roll no. 130). (text: CR H3456-3457)
House roll call 130 · Individual votesPassed/agreed to in House: On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill Agreed to by recorded vote (2/3 required): 409 - 7 (Roll no. 130).(text: CR H3456-3457)
House roll call 130 · Individual votesConsidered as unfinished business. (consideration: CR H3471)
At the conclusion of debate, the chair put the question on the motion to suspend the rules. Mr. Issa objected to the vote on the grounds that a quorum was not present. Further proceedings on the motion were postponed. The point of no quorum was withdrawn.
DEBATE - The House proceeded with forty minutes of debate on H.R. 628.
Considered under suspension of the rules. (consideration: CR H3456-3459)
Mr. Johnson (GA) moved to suspend the rules and pass the bill.
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 10, 2026. 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.628 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.628 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.628 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.628 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.