In recent years, patent policy has reemerged as a congressional priority, evident in both the reintroduction of prior bills and the emergence of new legislative proposals.1 This renewed focus seems largely driven by growing concerns over the United States’ global competitiveness, equitable access to economic opportunities, and the need for greater clarity and efficiency in intellectual property (“IP”) protections. In response to evolving judicial doctrines, industry developments, and international pressures, legislators have sponsored a range of bipartisan measures aimed at reforming and modernizing the U.S. patent system.2
This article provides a brief overview of several patent-related bills, introduced in 2025 and currently under consideration by the U.S. Congress in 2026. It examines the core provisions of each proposal, analyzes their potential legal and industrywide implications, and assesses the likely effects on companies should the bills be enacted. By evaluating these prospective legislative changes (many of which are advancing through the committee process), the article aims to inform legal practitioners, industry stakeholders, and business leaders of the evolving patent landscape so that they can adjust their IP strategies accordingly.
1. Leadership in Critical and Emerging Technologies Act
The Leadership in Critical and Emerging Technologies Act (the “Leadership in CET Act”), introduced in both the Senate and the House on May 21, 2025, would create a pilot program run by the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) to expedite patent review for certain critical and emerging technologies, namely: artificial intelligence (“AI”), semiconductor or electronic design automation tools, and quantum information science.3 The goal is to encourage U.S. innovation and leadership by prioritizing covered applications in these key areas.4
The pilot program under the USPTO reflects a renewed Congressional focus on strengthening the United States’ global competitiveness in strategic technologies. The pilot program is set to end five years after the first covered application is accepted or when a total of 15,000 covered applications has been accepted, whichever comes first.5 By fast-tracking examinations in critical and emerging technologies, the program is intended to provide U.S.-based inventions in these areas with a significant speed advantage. Key implications include:
- Accelerated Market Entry: By shortening examination timelines, the pilot program aims to encourage more research and development (“R&D”) spending in markets with covered technologies.
- Sector-Specific Impact: While companies directly involved in AI, semiconductor design, and quantum technologies will benefit most, adjacent industries such as healthcare, digital health, transportation, climate technology, financial technology, and gaming could also see benefits.
- Competitive Race with China: Senators introduced the measure in response to China’s growth in emerging technologies, such as AI. “The U.S. cannot afford to fall behind to the Chinese Communist Party in the research and development of critical and emerging technology,” said Sen. Blackburn. The Leadership in CET Act would expedite patent review as a means to help the U.S. regain its competitive edge.6
Practical Considerations:
For startups, R&D-driven ventures, and companies looking to commercialize their innovation, expedited review and the possibility of reduced or waived fees could lead to a surge in patent filings. Faster timelines to obtain issued patents could increase investor confidence and the applicant’s strategic positioning. Legal teams should align claim drafting, prior art searching, and prosecution with the program’s timeline and eligibility requirements. While speed is beneficial, there is a risk that expedited examination could impact the quality of patent review and resulting issued patents.
Clients should also be prepared for possible increases in post-grant challenges to patent validity. A balanced approach that accounts for both expedited examination timelines and the traditional patent review process, including potential future litigation risks, will be important. If successful, the initiative could reduce IP uncertainty and encourage strategic partnerships in key critical and emerging technologies.
2. Patent Eligibility Restoration Act of 20257
The Patent Eligibility Restoration Act of 2025 (“PERA”) was reintroduced in both the Senate and the House on May 1, 2025. The bill aims to clarify which inventions are eligible for patent protection under 35 U.S.C. § 101 by clearly defining statutory exceptions to patentable subject matter and eliminating any judicially-created exceptions.8 PERA is a legislative response to the narrowing of patentable subject matter in key Supreme Court decisions (e.g., Alice, Mayo, and Myriad).9 U.S. patent law broadly allows patents for new and useful processes, machines, manufactures, or compositions of matter. However, the Supreme Court has carved out judicial exceptions, holding that laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas are not patentable.10 Under the current “Alice/Mayo” test, courts first determine if a claim is directed to a judicial exception and then assess if it has an “inventive concept” sufficient to transform it into patent-eligible subject matter.11 This test has made it difficult for certain innovations to qualify for patents and is viewed by critics as overly restrictive.
PERA aims to restore eligibility for a broader range of innovations by establishing a clearer statutory framework. Specifically, the bill:
- Defines Patent Eligibility: The bill reaffirms that useful processes, machines, manufactures, and compositions of matter, including software and medical diagnostics, are patentable, and it replaces the judicially-created exceptions for abstract ideas, natural phenomena, and laws of nature with narrower, statutorily defined exclusions, reducing the ambiguity that had developed under prior court decisions.
- The statutory exceptions are:
- A mathematical formula that is not part of an invention in one of the following categories: process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter;
- A mental process performed solely in the mind of a human being;
- An unmodified gene, as the gene exists in the human body;
- An unmodified natural material, as that material exists in nature; and
- A process that is substantially economic, financial, business, social, cultural, or artistic.12
- The bill maintains that the patentability requirements under 35 U.S.C. § 102 (novelty), § 103 (non-obviousness), and § 112 (specification) continue to apply during the patent examination process but excludes these sections from consideration when determining patent eligibility under § 101.13
- Limits Judicial Exceptions: Courts would be prohibited from creating new judicial exceptions to patent eligibility beyond those expressly defined in the statute, helping to standardize eligibility criteria and reduce unpredictability in enforcement, particularly in invalidity proceedings.
If enacted, the primary effect of PERA would be to expand the scope of inventions that can be patented, particularly in areas such as software and biotechnology, where eligibility has often been uncertain. One would expect this to lead to an increase in patent applications in these fields.14
Practical Considerations:
PERA would be a major shift in U.S. patent law, restoring greater protections for medical diagnostic methods, computer software, and AI inventions previously excluded by court decisions.15 These changes could transform key industries, unlock new economic opportunities for innovators, and upend IP and commercial strategies. Software and diagnostic companies stand to benefit most, as many software inventions and diagnostic methods that were previously considered ineligible or faced uncertainty regarding patentability would become expressly patentable under the revised statute, leading to an increase in filings as companies move to secure rights in newly approved areas. By limiting judicial discretion and clarifying eligibility standards, PERA aims to provide greater certainty for patent rights. Legal counsel should be prepared to reassess claim drafting and help clients prioritize filings under the new framework.
Globally, PERA could help U.S. firms compete more effectively in jurisdictions with broader patent rules. By aligning more closely with patent laws in Europe and China, the legislation aims to strengthen the U.S.’s position in key sectors like life sciences, pharmaceuticals, biotechnology, software, and AI, where patent eligibility can be uncertain.16
3. Promoting and Respecting Economically Vital American Innovation Leadership Act
The Promoting and Respecting Economically Vital American Innovation Leadership Act (the “PREVAIL Act”) was reintroduced in the Senate and in the House on May 1, 2025.17 This act proposes reforms to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) to create a more efficient process for adjudicating patent validity by limiting simultaneous challenges in PTAB and district courts, requiring standing, and aligning PTAB standards with those of district courts. It seeks to strengthen patent rights, reduce litigation, and increase legal certainty for patent holders when it comes to court decisions.
The PREVAIL Act addresses a prevailing concern that the PTAB has weakened patent rights through redundant and inconsistent challenges. Key provisions include:
- Standing Requirement: Only parties with a real interest, such as licensees or accused infringers, are allowed to file PTAB challenges, preventing misuse of the process by unrelated third parties.
- Limits Repetitive Challenges: The bill would restrict multiple PTAB petitions against the same patent. It would require parties to choose whether to challenge a patent’s validity before the PTAB or in district court, but not both.18
- Aligns PTAB and Federal Court Standards: PTAB would be required to apply the same claim construction and burden of proof (“clear and convincing evidence”) used in federal courts, leading to more consistent outcomes. This may also reduce manipulation and forum shopping.
Practical Considerations:
The PREVAIL Act would change the structure and economics of patent enforcement. By limiting repeated PTAB challenges and aligning PTAB standards with federal courts, the bill could make patent rights stronger, more reliable, and potentially less costly to defend. However, fewer ways to challenge weak patents could also lead to more infringement lawsuits and higher damages, especially in evolving sectors like technology, AI, and life sciences.19 Fast-growing sectors tend to have a high volume of patent filings, some with questionable validity. With fewer opportunities to challenge weak patents at the PTAB, disputes may shift to federal courts, where litigation is generally more costly and time-consuming. Patent owners could gain more leverage in enforcement and licensing, while companies that previously relied on the PTAB to invalidate weak patents may need to adjust their strategies.
4. Realizing Engineering, Science, and Technology Opportunities by Restoring Exclusive Patent Rights Act of 2025
The Realizing Engineering, Science, and Technology Opportunities by Restoring Exclusive Patent Rights Act of 2025 (the “RESTORE Patent Rights Act”) was reintroduced in the Senate and in the House on February 25, 2025.20 This act “establishes a rebuttable presumption for injunctive relief in patent infringement cases,” meaning that a patent holder would be entitled to a permanent injunction upon the final judgment in a patent infringement court decision.21 It would reverse the precedent set by the 2006 Supreme Court decision in eBay v. MercExchange, which held “that patent holders do not have an automatic right to a permanent injunction in a patent infringement case.”22
The RESTORE Patent Rights Act aims to strengthen patent protections by making permanent injunctive relief more accessible, which gives patent owners greater leverage and increases the value of patents. Courts would presume that infringement causes irreparable harm to the patent holder, making injunctions the default remedy. This shift could increase litigation exposure and settlement values for technology and life sciences companies, who may face more frequent injunction threats from patent holders. The increased availability of injunctions as a remedy reinforces the idea that a patent grants an exclusive right, not just a right to monetary compensation. As a result, licensing negotiations may favor patent holders, as the risk of an injunction strengthens their bargaining power. While supporters advocate for stronger enforcement rights, critics are concerned about the potential for abusive litigation practices and argue that the legislation may not be necessary, or that reduced injunctive activity is not problematic if it results in fewer opportunistic or non-practicing entity filings.23
Practical Considerations:
The RESTORE Patent Rights Act’s focus on restoring permanent injunctive relief would likely increase the stakes of patent litigation and change patent enforcement dynamics. Industries such as life sciences, pharmaceuticals, technology, and AI may face higher litigation risks as patent holders leverage the threat of injunctions. This could lead to more aggressive legal strategies and increased costs.
Combined Impact of Proposed Reforms
Although each bill addresses a distinct aspect of patent law, their cumulative effect could materially recalibrate the post-AIA patent enforcement landscape and make patents stronger and more valuable. Enactment of PERA would narrow judicially-created subject matter eligibility exceptions, thereby expanding the pool of potentially valid patents. If paired with the RESTORE Patent Rights Act, the result would be not only more patents surviving threshold eligibility challenges, but also stronger remedies to enforce them.
Similarly, if both PERA and the PREVAIL Act were enacted, it could significantly alter defensive strategy. A broader universe of eligible patents, coupled with heightened standing requirements and procedural limits at the PTAB, would reduce access to inter partes review as a cost-effective validity challenge. Accused infringers who previously relied on PTAB proceedings may increasingly be directed toward federal court litigation, with its higher costs, longer timelines, and broader discovery burdens.
Taken together, these reforms would do more than modify discrete areas of patent law; they would meaningfully rebalance litigation leverage between patent holders and accused infringers. Companies and counsel should therefore evaluate these proposals holistically, recognizing that their interaction may prove more consequential than any single reform in isolation.
Conclusion
These 2025 patent bills—the Leadership in CET Act, PERA, the PREVAIL Act, and the RESTORE Patent Rights Act—demonstrate interest from legislators of both parties in the current Congress in supporting U.S. innovation through patent reform. Together, they would alter important aspects of the U.S. patent system, from eligibility and enforcement to promoting fair competition and enhancing transparency. Key trends emerging from these efforts include:
- Faster, Easier Path to Patents: The introduction of these patent bills reflects a bipartisan push to clarify patent eligibility and patentable subject matter, particularly in high-impact sectors like software and biotechnology, and to speed the patent application process, to address the existing legal uncertainty in the patent system. Additionally, these measures may promote more inclusive participation in the patent system by supporting innovation from a wider array of contributors.
- More Durable and Powerful Patents: Several bills aim to strengthen U.S. patents, particularly in critical, emerging sectors such as AI, semiconductors, and quantum technologies. Proposed changes seek to reduce duplicative challenges between the PTAB and district courts, placing limits on the post-grant review process and thereby increasing confidence in patent rights. Reforms also focus on improving owners’ ability to enforce and commercialize their innovations.
If enacted, these measures would influence patent strategies across a wide range of industries, particularly those at the forefront of innovation. Looking ahead, these legislative changes could have significant impacts on the U.S. patent landscape. If one or more of the bills are enacted, companies should take proactive steps to maintain their competitive position and protect their innovations. Proactive steps may include (1) auditing existing patent portfolios in light of potential changes to § 101 eligibility under PERA; (2) reassessing claim-drafting approaches to align with any revised statutory framework; (3) evaluating litigation exposure—particularly the likelihood of injunctive relief—under the RESTORE Patent Rights Act; and (4) developing coordinated enforcement and defense strategies that account for procedural reforms to PTAB proceedings under the PREVAIL Act.
