Four Patent Bills in Congress, and The Potential Changes that Could Result

Four bills pending in the 119th Congress could dramatically affect your current and future patent rights. Two would make patents harder to challenge and easier to enforce. One would widen what qualifies for a patent in the first place. One would move a narrow set of applications to the front of the examination queue. None has passed. But together they describe a version of the patent system meaningfully different from the one inventors have been operating in for the past decade, and the direction of travel is worth understanding now.

Where the law stands today

Three features of current law explain what these bills are reacting to.

First, remedies. When a court finds patent infringement, whether it issues a permanent injunction is governed by the Supreme Court's 2006 decision in eBay v. MercExchange, which requires the patent owner to establish irreparable injury, the inadequacy of monetary damages, a balance of hardships favoring an injunction, and that the public interest would not be disserved. There is no presumption in the patent owner's favor. In practice, this means many infringement disputes resolve into a damages or licensing outcome rather than an order to stop selling.

Second, eligibility. Section 101 of the Patent Act defines what kinds of inventions can be patented at all. Following the Supreme Court's decisions in Mayo (2012) and Alice (2014), courts apply judicially developed exceptions for abstract ideas, laws of nature, and natural phenomena. Software, diagnostic methods, and certain biotechnology and AI-related inventions have faced considerable uncertainty under this framework, and applications and patents in these fields are sometimes rejected or invalidated on eligibility grounds before questions of novelty or non-obviousness are ever reached.

Third, post-grant review. Inter partes review before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board lets a party challenge an issued patent's validity administratively, under a preponderance-of-the-evidence standard, without the standing requirements that apply in federal court. It is faster and cheaper than district court litigation. Patent owners describe it as a venue for repetitive harassment; challengers describe it as the main practical check on patents that should not have issued.

Each of the four bills targets one of these three areas.

The four bills, in plain terms

RESTORE Patent Rights Act of 2025 (S. 708 / H.R. 1574). Introduced February 25, 2025, this is the shortest bill of the four and arguably the most consequential. It would add a rebuttable presumption that a court should grant a permanent injunction once it enters a final judgment of infringement, changing the starting point of the remedy analysis rather than the factors themselves. Supporters argue that a patent without a reliable exclusion remedy is a licensing instrument rather than a property right. Opponents, including many operating companies, argue that the threat of an injunction gives patent holders — including entities that do not make anything — leverage to extract settlements disproportionate to the value of the patented feature, particularly where that feature is one component of a complex product.

Patent Eligibility Restoration Act (S. 1546 / H.R. 3152). Introduced May 1, 2025, PERA would replace the judicially created exceptions under § 101 with a defined statutory list of exclusions: mathematical formulas standing apart from a claimed invention; processes that are substantially economic, financial, business, social, cultural, or artistic; mental processes performed solely in the human mind; unmodified human genes as they exist in the body; and unmodified natural materials. It would also bar courts from creating additional exceptions beyond those in the statute, and it provides that an invention is not excluded if it cannot practically be performed without a machine. The intended effect is a more predictable eligibility inquiry for software, diagnostics, and AI. Critics in the life sciences argue the gene and natural-material carve-outs are drawn too narrowly, and that the "cannot practically be performed" qualifier imports fresh ambiguity in place of the old kind.

PREVAIL Act (S. 1553 / H.R. 3160). Also introduced May 1, 2025, PREVAIL would restructure PTAB practice. It would impose a standing requirement, limiting petitions to parties that have been sued or threatened, that face a real freedom-to-operate concern, or that meet the bill's other specified categories. It would raise the burden of proof for invalidity at the PTAB from a preponderance of the evidence to clear and convincing evidence, matching the district court standard. It would require parties to choose between the PTAB and federal court rather than pursuing both, and it would constrain serial and duplicative petitions. A prior version cleared the Senate Judiciary Committee on an 11–10 vote in November 2024; the current version was reintroduced this Congress. The practical consequence is easy to state: invalidating an issued patent would become harder, slower, and more expensive.

Leadership in Critical and Emerging Technologies Act (S. 1833 / H.R. 3539). Introduced May 21, 2025, this is the narrowest of the four and the only one that is purely procedural. It would direct the USPTO to run a pilot program advancing qualifying applications in artificial intelligence, semiconductor design, and quantum information science in the examination queue. The program would sunset after five years or 15,000 covered applications, whichever comes first, with foreign entities of concern excluded and per-inventor caps on participation.

Why they matter as a set

Read individually, each bill looks like a technical correction. Read together, they point in one direction.

PERA would expand the universe of inventions that can be patented. PREVAIL would make the resulting patents harder to invalidate. RESTORE would make a finding of infringement more dangerous to the losing party. A patent granted under a broader eligibility standard, insulated by a higher invalidity burden, and enforceable with a presumptive injunction is a considerably stronger instrument than a patent is today.

That cuts both ways, which is the part worth sitting with. Every inventor who would benefit from a clearer path to a granted patent is also operating in a market where competitors are getting the same benefit. A stronger patent system is stronger for the patents pointed at you as well as the ones you hold.

What the current status actually is

Introduction is not momentum. PERA received its first full Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on July 14, 2026 — notable, since prior versions never got past the IP subcommittee — but the committee chairman acknowledged that many members were still studying the bill, and no markup was scheduled. Some version of PERA has now been introduced in four consecutive Congresses without becoming law, and at least two of its principal sponsors are not returning next term. PREVAIL's committee vote in the prior Congress was as close as a vote gets, and it has not been taken up on the floor. RESTORE has drawn sustained opposition from technology industry groups and operating companies that see themselves as more likely defendants than plaintiffs. Most practitioners tracking these bills see a difficult path for all three in the remaining legislative days of this Congress.

What to do about it

The reasonable posture is neither to ignore these bills nor to plan as if they have passed.

Take freedom-to-operate seriously before major product decisions. The cost of discovering a blocking patent after launch is currently bounded, in most cases, by what a license costs. Under RESTORE, that ceiling is less certain. FTO analysis is inexpensive relative to the alternative and gets more valuable if remedies tighten.

Don't write off inventions on eligibility grounds alone. If a software, diagnostic, or AI-related invention was set aside because § 101 looked like a wall, that judgment was made against a framework Congress is actively debating. Preserving optionality — through continuations, or by filing at all — costs far less than recreating a priority date that no longer exists.

Map the granted patents in your space now. If PREVAIL raises the bar for challenging a questionable patent later, the useful work is understanding the landscape while design-around, licensing, and challenge all remain live options.

Watch the calendar, not the headlines. These bills have been introduced, reintroduced, and declared imminent across several Congresses. Committee votes and floor scheduling are the signals that matter.

We follow this legislation closely and are glad to talk through what any of it would mean for a specific technology, portfolio, or filing strategy.