‘the so-called “covered customer stay” provision. In essence, “customer stay” allows a manufacturer to step in and take on accusations of patent infringement in court, shielding retailers, consumers and other “covered customers” whose own lawsuits would be “stayed” (or suspended) until the patent owner and manufacturer have sorted out their dispute.’
‘….the reform narrative is grossly overwrought and vastly exaggerated’
The issue this provision in the bill is intended to address seldom happens for good reasons. First, such small infringers seldom have the money to pay even if the inventor wins a judgement in court. That alone makes them unlikely targets. Second, inventors avoid suing such small entities because it will not look good in court. Juries may favor the small business defendant and the affect could prejudice the case. Inventors do not want to look like bullies in court. All we are trying to do is protect our inventions from theft -most often by far larger competitors.
Rather, these isolated instances are vastly overplayed by large infringers in an attempt to sway Congress into essentially legalizing theft by large multinational and Chinese firms, which has been happening in Congress now since the America Invents Act (AIA), or what inventors like to call the America Stops Inventing Act or ASIA for short as that is where such bills send all the jobs that would otherwise be created by the inventors and firms that would be commercializing those inventions. What this provision will in essence do is make it legal to buy and use stolen property and shield the ill got gains of manufacturers, retailers, and other infringers, no matter how large they may be. Don’t believe the lies of invention thieves.
Further, if the products in question truly are covered by patents, why would Congress want to in essence shield thieves -no matter how small they may be?