H.R. 2189 · 115th Congress
Trade Protection Not Troll Protection Act
Key: what the circles and colors mean
Each circle is a bill. The ring fills as it moves through Congress:
Under the number: the Yea · Nay count of its final (or latest) recorded vote. On a member's page, the small badge is how that member voted: Y Yea / Aye, N Nay / No, P Present, – Not voting.
Gold and violet are only for Yea and Nay; they never mean a party. A member's party is the letter on their photo.
Never voted on. It didn't reach a floor vote before the 115th Congress ended, so it expired. A bill has to be introduced again to be considered in a new Congress.
5 cosponsors · 2 D, 3 R
3 signed on when it was introduced; the rest joined later. Cosponsors who withdrew aren't shown.
This bill amends the Tariff Act of 1930, with respect to unfair practices in the import trade, to consider an industry in the United States to exist if there is in the United States substantial investment in licensing activities that leads to the adoption and development of articles that incorporate the patent, copyright, trademark, mask work, or design.
What it does: CRS summary · Introduced in House · Apr 27, 2017
Trade Protection Not Troll Protection Act
This bill amends the Tariff Act of 1930, with respect to unfair practices in the import trade, to consider an industry in the United States to exist if there is in the United States substantial investment in licensing activities that leads to the adoption and development of articles that incorporate the patent, copyright, trademark, mask work, or design.
If the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC), at the beginning of an investigation of an alleged unfair practice, identifies a domestic industry as the dispositive issue in question, it shall direct the assigned administrative law judge (ALJ) to:
- expedite fact finding on the domestic industry requirement, and
- issue an initial determination on this matter within 100 days after the investigation begins.
Any initial determination by the assigned ALJ shall stay the investigation pending ITC action.
The ITC may determine during an investigation that exclusion of the articles concerned from entry into the United States would not be in the public interest, and terminate the investigation, in whole or in part, without any further determination, after considering the nature of the articles concerned and the effect of exclusion upon:
- the public health and welfare,
- the U.S. economy (including competitive conditions),
- the production of like or directly competitive articles by the complainant and its licensees, and
- U.S. consumers.
Any person adversely affected by an ITC ruling that identifies a domestic industry as the dispositive issue in question may appeal that ruling, within 60 days after all administrative remedies are exhausted, to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.
ITC discretion not to exclude any articles concerned, even though an importer has violated the ban on unfair competition, is repealed. If the ITC also determines that exclusion would be in the public interest, it shall direct exclusion of the articles.
During an investigation, if the ITC determines there is reason to believe that an unfair import practice has occurred, and exclusion of the articles concerned would be in the public interest, the ITC may direct the exclusion the articles concerned, after considering the factors mentioned above. (Currently the ITC may not direct an exclusion until an investigation concludes and it determines, as a result of the investigation, that an unfair import trade practice has occurred.)
Written by the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service. All summary versions on Congress.gov
About this bill and sources
Official title: Trade Protection Not Troll Protection Act
Latest action (May 3, 2017): Referred to the Subcommittee on Trade.
Policy area: Foreign Trade and International Finance · Origin: House · Introduced: Apr 27, 2017
Official page on Congress.gov · Bill text (GovInfo) · Status record (XML)
No recorded floor vote found.