Bill Overview
Title: Defending American Courts Act
Description: This bill imposes limitations relating to a person (i.e., individual or entity) that seeks to use an injunction from a foreign tribunal to restrict a patent infringement claim in the United States. For example, if the person asserting such a foreign injunction has been found liable for patent infringement in a U.S. court, that court shall, with certain exceptions, make specified presumptions that generally increase the likelihood of the court (1) increasing the damages awarded in the case, and (2) awarding attorney fees to the patent owner.
Sponsors: Sen. Tillis, Thomas [R-NC]
Target Audience
Population: People involved in patent litigation worldwide
Estimated Size: 500000
- The bill affects parties involved in patent litigation in the United States, specifically where there is a foreign injunction involved.
- It aims to protect US patent owners who might be affected by foreign injunctions in their patent claims.
- Patent litigations and the application of injunctions are relatively niche activities, mostly involving businesses rather than individuals.
- Many patent owners or entities involved in patent litigation may not be US citizens, but the bill is targeted at litigation in US courts.
Reasoning
- The policy focuses on a niche population involved in patent litigation in the United States, a legal and business process that affects companies and some individual inventors or adjusters.
- Though the policy target is around 500,000 people predominantly in the business and legal sectors, the influence of the policy will differ widely based on the role of the individual in patent litigation – such as whether they are patent holders or attorneys.
- The budget constraints mean only a certain number of cases can be directly influenced annually by the policy, affecting their outcome in terms of increased damages and attorney fee awards.
Simulated Interviews
Patent Attorney (Silicon Valley, CA)
Age: 35 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy could increase the litigation costs, which might dissuade foreign entities from pursuing restrictive actions against US patents.
- It may also lead to increased business for US-based attorneys as domestic entities feel more secure in prosecuting patent litigation without foreign threat.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 7 |
General Counsel for a Tech Company (Houston, TX)
Age: 50 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 2/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy might empower US companies by making it harder for foreign injunctions to impede patent claims.
- However, more aggressive patent enforcement may lead to diplomatic friction with international partners.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 6 |
Patent Holder / Inventor (New York, NY)
Age: 40 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy seems beneficial; it could lower the risk of losing litigation costs to foreign injunctions, safeguarding inventions.
- However, the changes may not be enough if foreign bodies still find other ways to circumvent US patents.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 5 |
Patent Litigator (Boston, MA)
Age: 38 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This could increase caseloads temporarily as US-based companies test the policy's effectiveness.
- There might be longer-term effects on international collaboration fields as entities navigate legal landscapes.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 7 |
CEO of a mid-sized Tech Company (Los Angeles, CA)
Age: 55 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 2/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy provides some peace of mind seeing that we've faced costly challenges abroad that threaten our US operations.
- However, it might not fully deter foreign threats since those companies might just sue in multiple jurisdictions.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 6 |
Patent Analyst (Chicago, IL)
Age: 30 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- It may lead us to reassess how we pursue international patent protections for our products.
- There is potential for the US market to become even more significant as patent protections strengthen.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 6 |
Retired Former Patent Judge (Seattle, WA)
Age: 60 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 1/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy strengthens domestic patent litigation fairness which is necessary given the globalized nature of business today.
- However, care must be taken to ensure that it doesn't disadvantage foreign companies indiscriminately.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 8 |
Tech Startup Founder (Atlanta, GA)
Age: 28 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- As a startup founder, facing potentially increased costs due to international litigation is daunting but somewhat mitigated by this policy.
- It provides some assurance that our US patents offer a strong defense against foreign injunctions.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 5 |
International Business Consultant (Miami, FL)
Age: 45 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 2/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy might inform new strategies for US firms expanding overseas, offering them more leverage in foreign injunction matters.
- However, it could complicate international business relations, influencing trade talks and partnerships.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 7 |
Corporate Lawyer (Denver, CO)
Age: 42 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This will likely influence how we approach international partnerships and alignments regarding IP law.
- It brings a layer of assurance that foreign injunctions cannot freely disrupt US-based patent protections.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 6 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $10000000 (Low: $5000000, High: $15000000)
Year 2: $10200000 (Low: $5100000, High: $15300000)
Year 3: $10400000 (Low: $5200000, High: $15600000)
Year 5: $10800000 (Low: $5400000, High: $16200000)
Year 10: $11600000 (Low: $5800000, High: $17400000)
Year 100: $16000000 (Low: $8000000, High: $24000000)
Key Considerations
- The bill may induce a higher frequency and complexity of patent litigation.
- The legal process changes might necessitate updates and resources from the federal court system.
- Companies dealing in patents should consider potential litigation cost increases.