HR 628
111th Congress
House
Law
Federal district courts
Horticulture and plants
Intellectual property
Judges
To establish a pilot program in certain United States district courts to encourage enhancement of expertise in patent cases among district judges.
Introduced: January 22, 2009
Introduced by:
Issa, Darrell
Republican
· California
See on congress.gov
Everywhere this bill has been
27 steps
Introduced
In committee
Reported out
Passed House
Passed Senate
To President
Became law
Jan 4, 2011
Signed by President.
Jan 4, 2011
Became Public Law No: 111-349.
Dec 28, 2010
Presented to President.
Dec 17, 2010
Cleared for White House.
Dec 17, 2010
Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
Dec 17, 2010
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)
Dec 17, 2010
Resolving differences -- House actions: 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)
Dec 17, 2010
Considered as unfinished business. (consideration: CR H8762-8763)
Dec 16, 2010
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 The point of no quorum was withdrawn.
Dec 16, 2010
DEBATE - The House proceeded with forty minutes of debate on the Senate amendment to H.R. 628.
Dec 16, 2010
Ms. Chu moved that the House suspend the rules and agree to the Senate amendment. (consideration: CR H8536-8539)
Dec 14, 2010
Message on Senate action sent to the House.
Dec 13, 2010
Passed/agreed to in Senate: Passed Senate with an amendment by Unanimous Consent.
Dec 13, 2010
Passed Senate with an amendment by Unanimous Consent.
Dec 13, 2010
Measure laid before Senate by unanimous consent. (consideration: CR S8946-8947)
Dec 13, 2010
Senate Committee on the Judiciary discharged by Unanimous Consent.
Mar 18, 2009
Received in the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.
Mar 17, 2009
Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
Mar 17, 2009
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)
Mar 17, 2009
Passed/agreed to in House: 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)
Mar 17, 2009
Considered as unfinished business. (consideration: CR H3471)
Mar 17, 2009
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.
Mar 17, 2009
DEBATE - The House proceeded with forty minutes of debate on H.R. 628.
Mar 17, 2009
Mr. Johnson (GA) moved to suspend the rules and pass the bill.
Mar 17, 2009
Considered under suspension of the rules. (consideration: CR H3456-3459)
Jan 22, 2009
Introduced in House
Jan 22, 2009
Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
Votes taken on this bill
2
| Date | Chamber | What was voted on | Result | Yes–No | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Dec 17, 2010 | House · vote #651 | On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Concur in the Senate Amendment | Passed | 371–1 | See who voted → |
| Mar 17, 2009 | House · vote #130 | On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass | Passed | 409–7 | See who voted → |
Plain-English summary
(This measure has not been amended since it was passed by the Senate on December 13, 2010. The summary of that version is repeated here.)
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.
What's happening now
Became Public Law No: 111-349.
Committees of jurisdiction
2