The CLEAR Act (Customer Legal Ease and Relief Act) would change federal patent litigation rules to make it easier for retailers and end users to get out of infringement suits when the manufacturer of the accused product or process is also in the case. In those circumstances, a court would be required to stay, at least in part, the action against the retailer or end user if the manufacturer is a party to the lawsuit or a related action, the retailer or end user did not itself make or alter the accused product, and the retailer or end user agrees to be bound by the outcome of the manufacturer’s case, including any injunction and certain defenses being waived in future actions involving the same product from the same manufacturer.
The bill also allows the stay to be lifted if the manufacturer cannot satisfy a damages judgment. Courts may hold an early inquiry into whether the manufacturer is likely to pay, and if not, may require the retailer or end user to post a bond or place money or property in escrow. The court may also require limited stipulations or discovery about the retailer’s or end user’s use of the accused product. The bill applies only to actions filed after enactment and adds a new section, 35 U.S.C. § 299A, to the patent code.
Its legal impact would be to narrow the practical exposure of downstream sellers and users in patent cases, shifting litigation focus toward manufacturers and potentially reducing duplicative suits against retailers and ordinary purchasers. It would amend title 35 of the U.S. Code and create a new statutory stay mechanism specifically for patent infringement actions involving an accused instrumentality supplied by a manufacturer.
Based on the available record, the bill’s general sentiment appears favorable or at least bipartisan in concept, since it was introduced by Representatives Lee and Lofgren and framed as protecting “main street retailers and end users.” However, there is no committee transcript or vote history provided, so there is no documented floor or committee debate to show broader support or opposition.
The main point of potential contention is the balance between protecting innocent downstream parties and preserving patent holders’ ability to obtain effective relief. Patent owners may object that mandatory stays could delay enforcement, complicate discovery, and make collection harder if manufacturers are insolvent or difficult to reach. Retailers and end users, by contrast, would likely support the bill because it reduces the risk of being targeted in secondary patent actions when they did not design or manufacture the accused technology.
Impact
The bill would add a new 35 U.S.C. § 299A requiring courts to stay patent infringement claims against retailers or end users under specified conditions, and it would amend the chapter 29 table of sections accordingly. It would affect patent litigation strategy by prioritizing claims against manufacturers, limiting downstream defendants’ exposure, and authorizing bond or escrow requirements when a manufacturer may not satisfy a judgment.
Sentiment
The available materials suggest a generally supportive, pro-retailer and pro-end-user sentiment. The bill is presented as a reform to curb secondary patent litigation and protect “main street” businesses, and its introduction by two members indicates at least initial bipartisan sponsorship. No votes or committee remarks are available, so there is no recorded opposition or formal debate in the provided history.
Contention
The likely controversy is whether the bill goes too far in shielding retailers and end users from patent enforcement. Supporters would argue that downstream parties should not bear the burden of litigation when they merely sell or use a product made by someone else. Opponents, likely patent holders and some technology licensors, may argue that mandatory stays could delay remedies, complicate proof of infringement, and create collection problems if manufacturers are judgment-proof or outside the court’s reach.