PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Jul 13, 2018
Targeting Rogue and Opaque Letters Act of 2018
This bill makes sending bad faith patent demand letters an unfair or deceptive act in violation of the Federal Trade Commission Act.
A patent demand letter is a written communication claiming that the recipient may be liable for patent infringement. "Bad faith" means making knowingly false or misleading statements, making claims with reckless disregard for the truth, or omitting information with the intent to deceive.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
Bad faith representations under the bill include false or misleading claims about the sender's right to assert the patent, whether lawsuits have been filed against the recipient or others, and whether others have purchased a license to exercise the patent.
It is also bad faith to make written demands for compensation for invalid patents, or to demand compensation without identifying the ultimate parent entity of the letter sender.
The sender has an affirmative defense that it acted in good faith, by proving its misstatements or omissions were unintentional and it made an error in spite of procedures to avoid such errors.
The bill preempts state laws relating to patent assertion communications. The Federal Trade Commission and state attorneys general can bring actions to enforce these provisions.
People & committees
Rep. Burgess, Michael C. [R-TX-26] · R–TX
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Referred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce.
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 11, 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.6370 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.6370 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.6370 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.6370 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.