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 · Feb 27, 2013
Saving High-Tech Innovators from Egregious Legal Disputes Act of 2013 - Amends federal patent law, with respect to the remedies available in actions involving validity or infringement of a patent, to allow a party asserting invalidity or noninfringement to move for a judgment that the adverse party is not: (1) the inventor, a joint inventor, or in the case of a patent filed by, and awarded to, an assignee of the original inventor or joint inventor, the original assignee of the patent; (2) able to provide documentation of substantial investment made in the exploitation of the patent through production or sale of an item covered by the patent; or (3) an institution of higher education or a technology transfer organization.
Directs courts making such a judgment to award the recovery of full costs to any prevailing party asserting invalidity or noninfringement, including reasonable attorney's fees, other than the United States, unless exceptional circumstances make an award unjust.
People & committees
Rep. DeFazio, Peter A. [D-OR-4] · D–OR
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 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 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.845 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.845 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.845 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.845 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.