Skip to main content
H.R. 628 111th Congress House

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: Darrell Issa Republican · California See on congress.gov
Law Federal district courtsHorticulture and plantsIntellectual propertyJudges
Sign in to write a letter

Free account. One morning email at most, only on days something moved. Already have one? Sign in.

 Everywhere this bill has been 25 steps
Introduced
In committee
Reported out
Passed House
Passed Senate
To President
Became law
Jan 4, 2011
Became Public Law No: 111-349.
Jan 4, 2011
Signed by President.
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
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 The point of no quorum was withdrawn.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 Senate with an amendment by Unanimous Consent.
Dec 13, 2010
Passed/agreed to in Senate: 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
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
Considered under suspension of the rules. (consideration: CR H3456-3459)
Mar 17, 2009
Mr. Johnson (GA) moved to suspend the rules and pass the bill.
Jan 22, 2009
Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
Jan 22, 2009
Introduced in House
 Votes taken on this bill 2
DateChamberWhat was voted onResultYes–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 →
 Amendments to this bill 1

Amendments propose changes to this bill. Members vote on amendments separately before the final bill vote. An agreed amendment becomes part of the bill; a failed amendment does not.

1 agreed to

AmendmentSponsorPurposeStatusLatest action
SAMDT 4,801 – In the nature of a substitute. Agreed to Dec 13, 2010
 Ask about this bill AI · grounded in the bill text

Have a question about what this bill does? Ask in plain English; the answer is drawn from the bill's actual text and official record, and it'll tell you when something isn't in the text rather than guess.

AI answers can be imperfect; always confirm against the full bill text.

 Latest action January 4, 2011

Became Public Law No: 111-349.

 Plain-English summary Congressional Research Service

(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.

 Related & companion bills 1
  • S 299 Identical bill A bill to establish a pilot program in certain United States district courts to encourage enhancement of expertise in p…
 Bill text 6 versions

Source documents hosted by congress.gov.

 Committees of jurisdiction 2
 Cosponsors 2
All 2 Democratic 2
D
Johnson, Henry C. "Hank"
Georgia · Feb 10, 2009
 D
Schiff, Adam B.
California · Jan 22, 2009
Cite this page click to expand
APA
U.S. Congress. (2026). H.R. 628: To establish a pilot program in certain United States district courts to encourage enhancement of expertise in patent cases among district judges.. 111th Congress. Open America. https://openamerica.io/bill/111-HR-628/
MLA
"H.R. 628: To establish a pilot program in certain United States district courts to encourage enhancement of expertise in patent cases among district judges.." 111th Congress, 2026, Open America, https://openamerica.io/bill/111-HR-628/.
Bluebook (legal)
H.R. 628, 111th Cong. (2026), https://openamerica.io/bill/111-HR-628/.
Markdown link
[H.R. 628: To establish a pilot program in certain United States district courts to encourage enhancement of expertise in patent cases among district judges.](https://openamerica.io/bill/111-HR-628/)
Report a problem