PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Committee on the Judiciary. Hearings held.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in Senate · Oct 30, 2013
Patent Litigation Integrity Act of 2013 - Requires courts to award a prevailing party reasonable fees and other expenses, including attorney fees, incurred in connection with a civil action in which any party asserts a claim for relief arising under any Act of Congress relating to patents, unless the court finds that the position and conduct of the nonprevailing party were substantially justified or that special circumstances make an award unjust. (Currently, in exceptional cases, the court is permitted but not required to award reasonable attorney fees.)
Authorizes courts, in response to a motion, to order the party alleging infringement to post a bond sufficient to ensure payment of such fees and expenses of the accused infringer.
Directs a court, in determining whether such a bond would be unreasonable or unnecessary, to consider whether:
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
the bond will burden the ability of the party alleging infringement to pursue activities unrelated to the assertion, acquisition, litigation, or licensing of any patent;
the party alleging infringement is an institution of higher education or a non-profit technology transfer organization;
a licensee, who has an exclusive right under a patent held by such an institution of higher education or non-profit organization, conducts further research or development to make the subject matter more licensable;
the party alleging infringement: (1) is a named inventor of or an original assignee to an asserted patent, (2) makes or sells a product related to the subject matter described in an asserted patent, or (3) can demonstrate that it has and will have the ability to pay the accused infringer's fees and other expenses if so ordered; and
any party will agree to pay the accused infringer's shifted fees and other expenses, provided that the party can demonstrate an ability to pay.
People & committees
Sen. Hatch, Orrin G. [R-UT] · R–UT
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Committee on the Judiciary. Hearings held.
Read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary. (text of measure as introduced: CR S7675)
Introduced in Senate
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 S.1612 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 S.1612 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 S.1612 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 S.1612 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.