US HB628 | 2009-2010 | 111th Congress
Status
Completed Legislative Action
Spectrum: Bipartisan Bill
Status: Passed on January 4 2011 - 100% progression
Action: 2011-01-04 - Became Public Law No: 111-349.
Text: Latest bill text (Enrolled) [PDF]
Spectrum: Bipartisan Bill
Status: Passed on January 4 2011 - 100% progression
Action: 2011-01-04 - Became Public Law No: 111-349.
Text: Latest bill text (Enrolled) [PDF]
Summary
Establishes a pilot program in certain U.S. district courts under which: (1) those district judges who request to hear cases involving patent or plant variety protection issues are designated by the chief judge to hear them; (2) such cases are randomly assigned to the district court judges, regardless of whether they are designated; (3) a judge not designated to whom such a case is assigned may decline to accept the case; and (4) a case so declined is randomly reassigned to one of those judges so designated.
Title
To establish a pilot program in certain United States district courts to encourage enhancement of expertise in patent cases among district judges.
Sponsors
Rep. Howard Coble [R-NC] | Rep. Darrell Issa [R-CA] | Rep. Henry Johnson [D-GA] | Sen. Adam Schiff [D-CA] |
History
Date | Chamber | Action |
---|---|---|
2011-01-04 | Became Public Law No: 111-349. | |
2011-01-04 | Signed by President. | |
2010-12-28 | Presented to President. | |
2010-12-17 | Cleared for White House. | |
2010-12-17 | Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection. | |
2010-12-17 | On motion that the House suspend the rules and agree to the Senate amendment Agreed to by recorded vote (2/3 required): 371 - 1 (Roll no. 651). (text as House agreed to Senate amendment: CR 12/16/2010 H8536-8537) | |
2010-12-17 | Considered as unfinished business. (consideration: CR H8762-8763) | |
2010-12-16 | At the conclusion of debate, the chair put the question on the motion to suspend the rules. Ms. Chu objected to the vote on the grounds that a quorum was not present. Further proceedings on the motion were postponed. The point of no quorum was withdrawn. | |
2010-12-16 | DEBATE - The House proceeded with forty minutes of debate on the Senate amendment to H.R. 628. | |
2010-12-16 | Ms. Chu moved that the House suspend the rules and agree to the Senate amendment. (consideration: CR H8536-8539) | |
2010-12-14 | Message on Senate action sent to the House. | |
2010-12-13 | Passed Senate with an amendment by Unanimous Consent. | |
2010-12-13 | S.AMDT.4801 Amendment SA 4801 agreed to in Senate by Unanimous Consent. | |
2010-12-13 | S.AMDT.4801 Amendment SA 4801 proposed by Senator Durbin for Senator Leahy. (consideration: CR S8946-8947; text: CR S8946-8947)In the nature of a substitute. | |
2010-12-13 | Measure laid before Senate by unanimous consent. (consideration: CR S8946-8947) | |
2010-12-13 | Senate Committee on the Judiciary discharged by Unanimous Consent. | |
2009-03-18 | Received in the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary. | |
2009-03-17 | Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection. | |
2009-03-17 | On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill Agreed to by recorded vote (2/3 required): 409 - 7 (Roll no. 130). (text: CR H3456-3457) | |
2009-03-17 | Considered as unfinished business. (consideration: CR H3471) | |
2009-03-17 | At the conclusion of debate, the chair put the question on the motion to suspend the rules. Mr. Issa objected to the vote on the grounds that a quorum was not present. Further proceedings on the motion were postponed. The point of no quorum was withdrawn. | |
2009-03-17 | DEBATE - The House proceeded with forty minutes of debate on H.R. 628. | |
2009-03-17 | Considered under suspension of the rules. (consideration: CR H3456-3459) | |
2009-03-17 | Mr. Johnson (GA) moved to suspend the rules and pass the bill. | |
2009-01-22 | Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary. |
Same As/Similar To
SB299 (Same As) 2009-01-22 - Read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.