Does The U.S. Need STRONGER Patents?

16 July 2019 PTAB Trial Insights Blog
Author(s): Courtenay C. Brinckerhoff

Last week Senators Chris Coons (D-Del.) and Tom Cotton (R-Ark.) and Representative Steve Stivers (R-Ohio) and Bill Foster (D-Ill.) reintroduced the STRONGER Patents Act, originally introduced in 2017. While many recently proposed patent bills would make it easier to challenge patents, the STRONGER Patents Act would limit the ability of third parties to challenge granted patents in USPTO Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) proceedings. While most patent owners would welcome these changes, will enough members of Congress agree that the U.S. needs stronger patents to roll-back many provisions of the America Invents Act?

The STRONGER Patents Act 

According to the press release on Sen. Coons webpage, the aim of the STRONGER Patents Act is “to protect and support inventors and innovators and ensure that our patent system protects this essential property right.” Key objectives of the legislation include:

  • providing for injunctive relief against infringers 
  • making post-grant PTAB proceedings “more fair and efficient for all parties”
  • “address[ing] the problem of repetitive, harassing petitions at the PTAB”

As outlined in this section-by-section summary, the bill would modify post-grant PTAB proceedings in the following ways:

  • Impose the “clear and convincing” evidence standard 
  • Impose a standing requirement for petitioners 
  • Hold that any entity that makes a financial contribution to a post-grant PTAB proceeding is a “real-party-in-interest”
  • Require different APJs for institution decisions and versus decisions on the merits
  • Provide for judicial review of some aspects of institution decisions 

Other provisions are aimed at providing patent owners with “quiet title” to their patents. These would: 

  • Limit USPTO review to “only once per claim of a patent”
  • Limit Petitioners to only “one petition to challenge a patent, unless they are later charged with infringement of additional claims”
  • Give priority to Federal Circuit validity determinations

STRONGER Patent Supporters

According to Sen. Coons’s press release, the bill has the following bipartisan, bicameral support: 


  • Chris Coons (D-Del.) 
  • Tom Cotton (R-Ark.)
  • Dick Durbin (D-Ill.)
  • John Kennedy (R-La.)
  • Mazie Hirono (D-Hawaii)
  • Kevin Cramer (R-N.D.).


  • Steve Stivers (R-Ohio)
  • Bill Foster (D-Ill.)
  • Brian Babin (R-Tex.)
  • Michael Burgess (R-Tex.)
  • Warren Davidson (R-Oh.)
  • Scott Peters (D-Cali.)
  • Paul Gosar (R-Ariz.)
  • French Hill (R-Ark.)
  • Thomas Suozzi (D-N.Y.)
  • Bill Huizenga (R- Mich.)
  • Dave Joyce (R-Oh.)
  • Nydia Velazquez (D-N.Y.)
  • Peter King (R-N.Y.)
  • Ralph Norman (R-S.C.)
  • Bonnie Watson Coleman (D-N.J.)
  • Tom McClintock (R-(Cali.).

That’s an impressive number of supporters, but still a long way from a majority vote.

This blog is made available by Foley & Lardner LLP (“Foley” or “the Firm”) for informational purposes only. It is not meant to convey the Firm’s legal position on behalf of any client, nor is it intended to convey specific legal advice. Any opinions expressed in this article do not necessarily reflect the views of Foley & Lardner LLP, its partners, or its clients. Accordingly, do not act upon this information without seeking counsel from a licensed attorney. This blog is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship. Communicating with Foley through this website by email, blog post, or otherwise, does not create an attorney-client relationship for any legal matter. Therefore, any communication or material you transmit to Foley through this blog, whether by email, blog post or any other manner, will not be treated as confidential or proprietary. The information on this blog is published “AS IS” and is not guaranteed to be complete, accurate, and or up-to-date. Foley makes no representations or warranties of any kind, express or implied, as to the operation or content of the site. Foley expressly disclaims all other guarantees, warranties, conditions and representations of any kind, either express or implied, whether arising under any statute, law, commercial use or otherwise, including implied warranties of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Foley or any of its partners, officers, employees, agents or affiliates be liable, directly or indirectly, under any theory of law (contract, tort, negligence or otherwise), to you or anyone else, for any claims, losses or damages, direct, indirect special, incidental, punitive or consequential, resulting from or occasioned by the creation, use of or reliance on this site (including information and other content) or any third party websites or the information, resources or material accessed through any such websites. In some jurisdictions, the contents of this blog may be considered Attorney Advertising. If applicable, please note that prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Photographs are for dramatization purposes only and may include models. Likenesses do not necessarily imply current client, partnership or employee status.

Related Services