Mr. Speaker, first I want to address H.R. 3309, the Innovation Act, which is generally a good bill. It is trying to deal with issues of nuisance litigation where somebody is sued and the costs of litigation are so extreme that they pay…
Mr. Speaker, first I want to address H.R. 3309, the Innovation Act, which is generally a good bill. It is trying to deal with issues of nuisance litigation where somebody is sued and the costs of litigation are so extreme that they pay money just to stay away from litigation. That is really the underlying purpose of the bill.
Now, what we have got to make sure of as Members of this House and as Members of the legislature is that we don't advantage one party over another. And the gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher) made a good point, Mr. Speaker, last night at the Rules Committee that you don't want to disadvantage small inventors who have come up with a good idea or a great product, something very novel, and some major corporation takes that idea or that product away and doesn't pay for it. That is the purpose of patent litigation.
At the same time, you don't want to have some small company that buys a Wi-Fi service all of a sudden getting sued by some company they never heard of and they are saying wait a minute, we are not a patent infringer. I say all of this because the purpose is to have good litigation where there isn't extortion and there isn't theft as the result of some patent infringement.
What is done in this bill, I think, though, is micromanagement of the courtroom and its processes. Each of these cases stands and falls on it own merits, and the courts are best equipped to determine their own rules and their own procedures as to how these cases should move forward.
I am generally going to support this. I offered an amendment which was not adopted by the Rules Committee last night to delay until December of 2015 the effect of section 6 of the bill so that the courts could create their own rules and not have the legislature do it; 100 years ago we passed the Rules Enabling Act which allows the courts to set their own procedure which is then overseen by the legislature. That is sort of discarded in this bill, and we create some very specific rules, and I think that is a mistake, and I think we could have some real winners and losers. And I think the small guy, the small inventor, the small purchaser could be in trouble. So I would just suggest to the House and to the Rules Committee that we do look at delaying so that the courts can offer their own procedure.
I do want to address two other things. It has been over 150 days since we started this legislature. We should be dealing with immigration reform. We are not doing that. And I want to finish my story about the Montez family who are from Arvada, Colorado, who could never get affordable insurance and now are able to under the Affordable Care Act.
They have three children. They work two jobs. Neither employer of the mom or dad provides health insurance. Finally, after all these years, they have been able to get health insurance at about $150 using the credits that are available under the
Affordable Care Act and the children's health program that this Congress has passed. These people have health care for the first time in their marriage, which is a couple of decades, and they are very thankful. So this is a good Thanksgiving season for the Montez family of Arvada, Colorado.