PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.

Patent Transparency and Improvements Act of 2013

Committee on the Judiciary. Hearings held.

Official summary

Version 00 · Introduced in Senate · Nov 18, 2013

Patent Transparency and Improvements Act of 2013 - Directs a court to require a patentee who has filed a civil action for patent infringement to disclose to the court and to all adverse parties any persons, associations, corporations (including parent corporations), or other entities known by the patentee to have: (1) a financial interest in the subject matter in controversy or in a party to the proceeding, or (2) any other interest that could be substantially affected by the outcome of the proceeding.

Requires any assignment of all substantial rights in an issued patent that results in a change to the ultimate parent entity to be recorded in the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) within three months of the assignment.

Prohibits a party asserting infringement from recovering increased damages or attorney's fees with respect to infringing activities taking place during any period of noncompliance in which the ultimate parent entity of an assignee has not been disclosed to the USPTO.

Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.

Read full official summaryShow less

Requires courts, if such an assignment has not been disclosed, to award a prevailing accused infringer reasonable attorney's fees and expenses incurred in discovering any previously undisclosed ultimate parent entities.

Directs courts to grant a motion to stay an action against a customer accused of infringing a patent based on a product or process under specified conditions when: (1) the manufacturer is a party to the action or to a separate action involving the same patent relating to the same product or process, and (2) the customer agrees to be bound under principles of collateral estoppel by any common issues finally decided as to such manufacturer.

Requires the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) to: (1) exercise enforcement authority with respect to bad-faith demand letters (widespread written communications with false or misleading information stating that the intended recipients or affiliated persons are infringing or have infringed a patent and bear liability or owe compensation), and (2) treat such letters as unfair or deceptive acts or practices.

Directs the USPTO to notify the public on its website when a patent case is brought in federal court.

Limits the grounds for invalidity of a patent claim that a post-grant review petitioner is prohibited, by estoppel, from asserting in subsequent civil actions (or certain U.S. International Trade Commission [USITC] proceedings) to only those grounds that the petitioner actually raised during post-grant review. (Currently, the petitioner is estopped from asserting claims that the petitioner raised or could have raised during such review.)

Requires claims of patent in post-grant and inter partes review proceedings to be construed in the same manner as a court would construe such claims in a civil action to invalidate the patent, including by interpreting the claim in accordance with its ordinary and customary meaning, as well as the prosecution history pertaining to the patent. (Currently, the USPTO construes claims by considering the broadest reasonable interpretation.) Makes U.S. bankruptcy law applicable in cross-border bankruptcy cases in which the debtor is a licensor of intellectual property rights and a foreign proceeding is pending in the country where the debtor has the center of its main interests, thereby permitting a licensee to retain its right in such intellectual property if the trustee rejects the underlying executory contract.

Expands the definition of "intellectual property" as it applies to the federal bankruptcy code to include trademarks, service marks, or trade names (thereby providing for trademark licenses to be retained instead of voided in bankruptcy).

Prohibits trustees, if a trademark licensee elects to retain such rights, from being relieved of a contractual obligation to monitor and control the quality of a licensed product or service.

Codifies judicial doctrine relating to the consideration of prior art in cases of double patenting for the purpose of determining the nonobviousness of a second patent's claimed invention, thereby specifying that such doctrine continues to apply to the first-inventor-to-file patent system under the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act.

Read the summary on Congress.gov
PlainBill analysis is coming later. This page presents official source data. We have not yet published a PlainBill explanation for this bill.

Who introduced it

Sen. Leahy, Patrick J. [D-VT] · D–VT

Committees

  • Judiciary Committee
3 cosponsorship records, including any withdrawals

Actions

A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.

  1. Committee on the Judiciary. Hearings held.

  2. Sponsor introductory remarks on measure. (CR S8182)

  3. Read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.

  4. Introduced in Senate

Bill text & related measures

Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.

Related bills identified by Congress.gov

Source last updated: Aug 10, 2026. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.

Explore the bill from different angles

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.

Neutral evidence review

Objective

Analyze S.1720 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.

View full prompt & sources
Fairness and public impact

Progressive lens

Examine S.1720 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.

View full prompt & sources
Institutions and government scope

Conservative lens

Examine S.1720 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.

View full prompt & sources
Individual rights and government power

Liberty lens

Examine S.1720 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.

View full prompt & sources