The Leahy–Smith America Invents Act (AIA) is a United States federal statute that was passed by Congress and signed into law by President Barack Obama on September 16, 2011.

[9] The America Invents Act included the following changes:[10] Savings from small entity (prior to act, based on small entity fees & includes 15% surcharge), to micro entity (post act): Senator Patrick Leahy (D-VT) introduced similar bill S. 23 in the United States Senate on January 25, 2011, with seven co-sponsors (also members of the Judiciary Committee) that include Senators Coons (D-DE), Grassley (R-IA), Hatch (R-UT), Klobuchar (D-MN), Kyl (R-AZ), Lieberman (I-CT), and Sessions (R-AL).

[18] On September 16, 2011, President Barack Obama signed the bill into law at a ceremony at Thomas Jefferson High School for Science and Technology in Northern Virginia.

[19] Proponents of the bill argued that it may even the playing field by removing the tricks a well-funded infringer can currently use against a startup owning patented technology.

[citation needed] Opponents of the Bill contended that it will lead to results similar to other nations' patent systems on which the bill is modeled — market incumbents will become further entrenched, the rate of startup formation will fall to levels in other countries, and access to angel and venture capital will fall to the levels of other countries, as described in the Impact of the Changes section below.

[20] In addition, opponents of the bill pointed out that the proposed revisions create greater options for accused infringers, and weaken the rights of patentees,[21][22][23] and that patent reform should remain in the hands of the court system.

[26] Proponents also claimed that it would eliminate costly interference proceedings at the USPTO[27] and reduce U.S. applicants' disadvantages in seeking patent rights outside of the United States.

Canada changed from FTI to FTF in 1989 and experienced a measurable "adverse effect on domestic-oriented industries and skewed the ownership structure of patented inventions towards large corporations, away from independent inventors and small businesses.

[44] Opponents contended that this provision will exacerbate ex parte reexamination abuses by creating an unprecedented end-run around Federal District Courts in potentially all patent disputes.

In FY2008, 62% of current inter partes re-exams and 30% of ex parte re-exams were simultaneously in litigation;[46] (c) predatory corporations can and do file multiple post-grant oppositions against startup companies for the purpose of inflicting financial pain and through this practice have successfully extracted patent licensing and purchase agreements on favorable terms;[47] (d) the existing inter partes process in a contested case now takes 34 to 53 months for an un-appealed reexam (assuming no "rework" by the patent office and no secondary appeals to the BPAI, the Federal Circuit, or the Supreme Court), and 5 to 8 years for appealed cases.

"[49] The Bill expands the existing inter partes procedure, adding discovery and a hearing in the Patent Trial and Appeal Board.

[51] Because of the enormous costs and long pendency of inter partes review, the grant of a stay in a copending infringement suit could effectively be "game over" for the patent owner.

There is also estoppel associated with the challenger at the USPTO, the District Courts and the International Trade Commission (ITC) in asserting invalidity on any ground that could have been reasonably raised during Post Grant Review.

The threat of reexamination is then used as leverage in licensing negotiations, intimidating patent-holders into settling out of court for lower amounts than those to which the value of their patents might entitle them.

Before receiving investor funding, the inventor must have already conceived the invention, proven its functionality, and done sufficient market research to propose a detailed business plan.

Investors will then scrutinize the business plan and evaluate competitive risk, which is inherently high for startup companies as new entrants into the market.

[58] Proponents also argued that the Act provides numerous benefits to small businesses such as fast-track patent examination, fee reductions, and expanded prior user rights.

USPTO Director David Kappos represented IBM, Marc Berejka (Senior Policy Advisor, Office of the Secretary, U.S. Department of Commerce) lobbied on behalf of Microsoft, and Secretary of Commerce Gary Locke, to whom the USPTO reported until Locke was made Ambassador to China on August 1, 2011, also has extensive ties to Microsoft.

Instead of hiring more examiners to process this backlog, "...Congress chose to multiply the alternative dispute-resolution procedures at the PTO, giving the office more work to do without a guarantee of more money.

H.R.9 is intended to amend title 35, United States Code, and the Leahy–Smith America Invents Act to make improvements and technical corrections.

The Innovation Act would also change fee requirements, among other modifications, in order to make the plaintiff financially responsible for such attempts, which often are viewed as extortions rather than disputes of the patent claim based on technological considerations.

S. 1137 is also an intended amendment to the America Invents act, and has a similar purpose to H.R.9 by addressing the disclosure of financial interests and technical details by the patent holder.