PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the Subcommittee on Intellectual Property and Judicial Administration.
Congressional Research Service
Version 35 · Passed Senate amended · Oct 4, 1994
Patent Reexamination Reform Act of 1994 - Amends Federal patent law to expand reexamination request authority to authorize the filing of such requests by any person on the basis of patent specification requirements except for the best mode requirement. (Current law permits reexamination requests only on the basis of prior art.) Establishes procedures for reexamination proceedings based upon third-party (persons who are not the patent owner) requests. Requires documents filed in such proceedings, other than the request, to be served on all parties. Authorizes third-party requesters to file written comments within a reasonable period if the patent owner files a response to any Patent and Trademark Office action on the merits of reexamination. Grants third-party requesters the right to appeal final reexamination decisions on the same basis such right is available to patent owners. Estops a third-party requester who files a notice of appeal or who participates as a party to an appeal from later asserting the invalidity of any claim determined to be patentable on appeal on any ground which was or could have been raised during reexamination. Bars patent owners and third-party requesters, once an order for reexamination has been issued, from filing a subsequent reexamination request until a reexamination certificate is published. Prohibits a party, once a final decision has been entered in a civil action that the party has not sustained the burden of proving the invalidity of a patent claim, from requesting reexamination on issues that were or could have been raised in the civil action. Requires the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences to review adverse decisions of examiners in reexamination proceedings and authorizes appeals to the Board by patent owners and third-party requesters with respect to reexamination decisions. Permits appeals of Board decisions to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.
People & committees
Sen. DeConcini, Dennis [D-AZ] · D–AZ
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 Intellectual Property and Judicial Administration.
Referred to the House Committee on Judiciary.
Received in the House.
Message on Senate action sent to the House.
Passed Senate with an amendment by Voice Vote. (consideration: CR S14073-14074)
Passed/agreed to in Senate: Passed Senate with an amendment by Voice Vote.(consideration: CR S14073-14074)
Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 682.
Committee on Judiciary. Reported to Senate by Senator Biden with an amendment in the nature of a substitute. Without written report.
Committee on Judiciary. Reported to Senate by Senator Biden with an amendment in the nature of a substitute. Without written report.
Committee on Judiciary. Ordered to be reported with an amendment in the nature of a substitute favorably.
Subcommittee on Patents, Copyrights and Trademarks. Hearings held.
Referred to Subcommittee on Patents, Copyrights and Trademarks.
Read twice and referred to the Committee on Judiciary.
Sponsor introductory remarks on measure. (CR S10145-10146)
Introduced in Senate
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 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.2341 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.2341 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.2341 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.2341 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.