"[3] The bill was reintroduced in the 114th United States Congress in February 2015 by its original sponsor, Rep. Bob Goodlatte (R, VA-6), and by June 9, 2015, it had accumulated 26 cosponsors.

[6] For example, the discovery stage of a single patent case against SAS Institute required the company to produce over 10 million documents, costing the defendant over 1.5 million dollars; the plaintiff ended up identifying fewer than 2000 documents as evidence, and lost by summary judgment.

Examples include the following:[8] The bill would create additional requirements as part of the legal process associated with patent infringement under United States law.

[4] This summary is provided by the Congressional Budget Office, as ordered reported by the House Committee on the Judiciary on November 20, 2013.

3309 would make several adjustments to judicial procedures for patent infringement cases, including which parties may join a suit and when a court is required to grant a motion to stay an action.

Further, the bill would require the courts to award the prevailing party reasonable fees and other expenses incurred in connection with such cases.

The bill also would require the AOUSC to develop rules and procedures related to the discovery of evidence in lawsuits for patent infringement.

[9] Rep. Goodlatte said that "The tens of billions of dollars spent on settlements and litigation expenses associated with abusive patent suits represent truly wasted capital.

It requires trolls to make their case up front by providing basic information about their patents and the supposed infringement.

"[15] Opponents of the bill argued that the law would hurt smaller inventors that are trying to defend their patents from larger companies with more money to spend on legal action.

[15] In February 2015 the Association of Public and Land-grant Universities published a press release and an open letter to the senior members of the House and Senate Committees on the Judiciary, documenting their objections:[17][18] The provisions with the most potential for damaging university technology transfer include fee-shifting and joinder.

Most universities, non-profit technology transfer organizations, and their licensees — often small businesses and start-ups— lack extensive resources to enforce their patents.

The heightened litigation risks created by the fee-shifting and joinder provisions in the Innovation Act would devalue patents, creating uncertainty that would undermine the incentives of potential licensees and venture capitalists to invest in commercialization of university innovation.Five Democrats provided dissenting views:[19] John Conyers (MI), Sheila Jackson Lee (TX), Hank Johnson (GA), Bobby Scott (VA), and Mel Watt (NC).

They wanted provisions "concerning real parties in interest, customer stays, and small business assistance" as well as a "revolving fund to end fee diversion", a "study on the practice of deceptive demand letters and a report with tailored recommendations on changes to laws and regulations that would deter the use of those letters.

[20] On December 17, 2013, the full Senate Judiciary Committee held a hearing entitled "Protecting Small Businesses and Promoting Innovation by Limiting Patent Troll Abuse.