April Highlights: C4IP’s Government Agenda Leads the Way on IP Reform
The intellectual property system that has powered American prosperity for over 200 years is facing increased threats — from uncertainty surrounding the patent eligibility of emerging technologies like AI to patent and trademark manipulation by foreign adversaries like China. But with those challenges come major opportunities for policymakers to strengthen the IP framework that underpins U.S. innovation.
In April, C4IP released a new government agenda, which details 18 IP reforms the 119th Congress and the Trump administration should advance to fortify America’s IP system and promote U.S. economic growth and technological competitiveness:
Read It Now: “Reaffirm and Refine: A Government Agenda for Intellectual Property — Edition 2“
- C4IP’s statement announcing the publication of the agenda highlights three of its key recommendations — passing legislation like RESTORE, PERA, and PREVAIL to restore strong patent protections; countering IP theft and exploitation from China; and establishing clear legal frameworks for AI-generated content that incentivize human creators without stifling AI-driven breakthroughs.
- The government agenda was featured in an article in IPWatchdog, as well as IPWatchdog’s weekly news roundup.
- The agenda was highlighted in an IAM article outlining potential IP policy changes that could take place under the Trump administration.
- The IAM article was also picked up by the Global Competition Review.
Additional Coalition Updates
- On April 29-30, C4IP Board Members Judge Paul Michel (ret.) and Judge Kathleen O’Malley (ret.), along with Co-Chair Andrei Iancu, took part in the Penn State Dickinson Law Innovation Forum on Capitol Hill. The two-day event brings together leaders from all branches of government, industry, and academia to explore forward-looking policies that support American innovation.
- On April 29, C4IP Chief Policy Officer and Counsel Jamie Simpson will deliver testimony at the USPTO’s public hearing on the proposed WIPO Treaty on Intellectual Property, Genetic Resources, and Associated Traditional Knowledge. The hearing features participants from academia, industry, and policy organizations. Additional details can be found here.
- On April 28, C4IP’s advocacy for legislation that strengthens the U.S. patent system was featured in World Intellectual Property Review. The article highlighted specific support for passing the PERA, PREVAIL, and RESTORE Patent Rights Acts as essential steps to support American innovation, protect small inventors, and maintain U.S. technological leadership amid rising competition from China.
- On April 26, C4IP celebrated World IP Day, which this year spotlighted the role of IP in shaping the global music landscape. In a statement released ahead of the occasion, C4IP Executive Director Frank Cullen emphasized how IP protections empower artists and fuel innovation in the music industry — contributing billions to the economy and supporting millions of jobs in the process.
- On April 25, C4IP announced the addition of two prominent intellectual property leaders, Marylee Jenkins and Susan Natland, to its Advisory Board. Jenkins, a partner at ArentFox Schiff and former chair of the ABA Section of Intellectual Property Law, and Natland, a partner at Knobbe Martens and co-chair of its Trademark and Brand Protection Group, bring decades of experience and unique insights to the Advisory Board.
- The announcement was featured in POLITICO’s Influence newsletter.
- On April 24, C4IP Co-Chair Andrei Iancu delivered a keynote address at the 2025 IP Awareness Summit in Palo Alto, California, speaking on the role of innovation, competitiveness, and AI in shaping the future of American leadership. C4IP Chief Policy Officer and Counsel Jamie Simpson also participated in a panel discussion on the shifting IP business landscape across the U.S., Europe, and Asia
- On April 23, C4IP sent a letter to the European Commission raising serious concerns about proposed revisions to the EU’s General Pharmaceutical Legislation and Patent Package. The letter warned that weakening IP protections — such as shortening regulatory data exclusivity periods and enabling broad compulsory licensing — would deter biopharmaceutical investment, undermine transatlantic innovation leadership, and set a dangerous global precedent at a time of increasing competition from China.
- On April 23, C4IP, UK Innovate, and the Kentucky Intellectual Property Alliance hosted a joint forum at the University of Kentucky that featured presentations and discussions on the benefits of IP rights for businesses in the Bluegrass State.
- On April 22, Jamie C4IP Chief Policy Officer and Counsel Jamie Simpson participated in the “U.S. Intellectual Property Legislative Landscape” panel at the Federal Circuit Bar Association’s 2025 Global Series Spring Session in Washington, DC. The panel explored recent developments in U.S. IP legislation, emerging priorities for the new Congress, and their potential impact on innovation and economic competitiveness.
- On April 18, C4IP Executive Director Frank Cullen sent a letter to Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick, National Economic Council Director Kevin Hassett, and National Security Advisor Michael Waltz applauding the USPTO’s recent reforms to the PTAB and emphasizing the importance of further pro-patent reforms to help U.S. inventors compete with China.
- C4IP also published a statement elaborating on the benefits of the USPTO’s recent actions, which include withdrawing harmful guidance that allowed Big Tech firms to harass inventors and issuing a new, improved process for discretionary denial practice.
- On April 10, C4IP issued a statement celebrating the reintroduction of the bipartisan NO FAKES Act, which would establish a legal right for creators to have control over digitally created replicas of their likenesses, in both the Senate and House of Representatives.
- On April 2, C4IP Executive Director Frank Cullen sent a letter to the Senate Judiciary Committee detailing why four pending bills — the Drug Competition Enhancement Act, the Affordable Prescriptions for Patients Act, the Interagency Patent Coordination and Improvement Act, and the Preserve Access to Affordable Generics and Biosimilars Act — would weaken critical patent rights.
- C4IP’s concerns were mentioned in articles in Law360 and IPWatchdog covering the Senate Judiciary Committee’s April 3 hearing on the bills.
- On April 2, C4IP Co-Chair David Kappos delivered the keynote address at the 5th Annual Boston Intellectual Property Law Association (BIPLA) Symposium in Boston, MA. C4IP Chief Policy Officer and Counsel Jamie Simpson also gave a presentation on pending federal IP legislation and anticipated developments.
- On April 1, C4IP Co-Chair Andrei Iancu, Board Member Judge Paul Michel (ret.), and Chief Policy Officer Jamie Simpson were featured in panel discussions on innovation, national security, and IP policy at the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) conference, LeadershIP 2025.
- Iancu’s remarks advocating for IP protection for AI inventions were detailed in an article in Law360.
Government Rundown
- USPTO Hearing: Public Hearing on the WIPO Treaty on Intellectual Property, Genetic Resources and Associated Traditional Knowledge: On April 29, the USPTO held a hearing to discuss whether the United States should join a World Intellectual Property Organization treaty that would require patent applicants to report the origin of genetic resources and traditional knowledge used in their inventions. The hearing followed the USPTO’s earlier request for comments on the treaty, to which C4IP had submitted comments arguing that the treaty would create legal uncertainties that would stifle innovation. C4IP Chief Policy Officer and Counsel Jamie Simpson delivered in-person testimony. (USPTO, 4/29)
- USPTO China IP Road Show: Strategies for Protecting and Enforcing Intellectual Property Concerning China: On April 29, the USPTO hosted a China IP Road Show at Rice University in Houston, Texas. The half-day program featured experts from the U.S. government, IP attorneys, and local business leaders discussing strategies for protecting and enforcing intellectual property rights in China and the United States. Topics included recent IP developments in China, enforcement challenges, and the Texas business community’s experience navigating China-related IP issues. Additional details can be found on the event page. (USPTO, 4/29)
- USPTO Boardside Chat: Interim Processes for PTAB Workload Management: On April 17, the USPTO hosted a Boardside Chat to explain in detail and answer questions about its new interim processes for institution decisions in AIA proceedings. The updates, issued in a March 26 memorandum, bifurcate discretionary and merits-based considerations, introduce new briefing procedures, and aim to promote greater consistency and efficiency at the PTAB. Presentation slides and a video of the webinar are available to review. (USPTO, 4/17)
- Senate and House of Representatives, Reintroduction of NO FAKES Act: On April 9, Senators Marsha Blackburn (R-TN), Chris Coons (D-DE), Thom Tillis (R-NC), and Amy Klobuchar (D-MN), along with Representatives Maria Salazar (R-FL), Madeleine Dean (D-PA), Nathaniel Moran (R-TX), Becca Balint (D-VT), and Joe Morrelle (D-NY), reintroduced the Nurture Originals, Foster Art, and Keep Entertainment Safe (NO FAKES) Act to the Senate and House of Representatives. This bill would establish a legal right for creators to control digitally created replicas of their likenesses, guarding against a key threat to IP posed by the emergence of AI. (Senate and House of Representatives, 4/9)
- Senate Judiciary Committee Executive Business Meeting: Markup of Four Anti-IP Bills: On April 3, the Senate Judiciary Committee held an executive business meeting in which it deliberated on four legislative proposals that would weaken patent protections and reduce innovation — the Drug Competition Enhancement Act, the Affordable Prescriptions for Patients Act, the Interagency Patent Coordination and Improvement Act, and the Preserve Access to Affordable Generics and Biosimilars Act. The committee ultimately voted to advance all four bills. (Senate Judiciary Committee, 4/3)
- House Judiciary Committee Hearing: Artificial Intelligence: Examining Trends in Innovation and Competition: On April 2, the House Judiciary Committee held a hearing to discuss ways to promote competition and innovation in artificial intelligence. Witnesses representing the Abundance Institute, the Information Technology & Innovation Foundation, the Competitive Enterprise Institute, and the Federal Trade Commission provided testimony. (House Judiciary Committee, 4/2)
Fact Check
Congress is considering several ill-conceived bills that purport to address abuses in the patent system, but would in reality weaken core intellectual property protections, undermine U.S. innovation leadership, and benefit foreign competitors at America’s expense. Last month, we examined the flaws behind two of them: the Drug Competition Enhancement Act and the Affordable Prescriptions for Patients Act. This month, we’re spotlighting two additional bills — the Interagency Patent Coordination and Improvement Act of 2025 and the Preserve Access to Affordable Generics and Biosimilars Act — that are similarly based on misconceptions and pose serious threats to America’s innovation economy.
Here’s a look at three of the core arguments underlying these bills — and why they misrepresent reality:
| Claim: The Interagency Patent Coordination and Improvement Act would “help taxpayers… by increasing competition and cutting red tape.” |
| In reality: Far from cutting red tape, the Interagency Patent Coordination and Improvement Act would create new bureaucratic hurdles that slow innovation and undermine patent quality. The bill would establish an interagency task force to share patent information between the USPTO and the FDA, a move meant to ensure that patent laws are followed and not abused. However, this is entirely unnecessary, as many legal safeguards against providing inaccurate or inconsistent information to the FDA and USPTO already exist. Instead of reducing red tape, the bill would create duplicative bureaucratic steps in the patenting process, leading to confusion, uncertainty, and delays that waste the government’s time and resources. Moreover, intellectual property experts warn that interagency entanglement could weaken the patent system by inserting officials without patent law expertise into the examination process. Reducing the reliability of the patent system in this way would inevitably disincentivize new drug innovation and set a dangerous precedent for limiting patent rights in other sectors. |
| Claim: The Preserve Access to Affordable Generics and Biosimilars Act would “reduce drug prices by promoting competition.” |
| In reality: The Preserve Access to Affordable Generics and Biosimilars Act would not meaningfully reduce drug prices — but it would undermine the basic ability of patent holders to defend their inventions. It would impose sweeping regulations to block alleged “pay-for-delay” settlements, despite the fact that these settlements are already subject to strict FTC scrutiny and handled effectively on a case-by-case basis. By replacing careful, targeted analysis of genuine anticompetitive behavior with broad generalizations and rigid presumptions, this bill would hinder the lawful and efficient resolution of patent disputes. As a result, if this bill is passed, many legitimate and law-abiding innovators could find themselves entangled in unnecessary legal controversy, forcing them to divert valuable resources away from research and development and slowing the progress of medical innovation. |
| Claim: Both bills would help spur competition and strengthen the effectiveness of America’s drug development system. |
| In reality: The sponsors of both bills claim that they would strengthen competition in the U.S. drug industry. But in reality, they would do the opposite — harming U.S. innovation while handing an advantage to China and other foreign competitors. Both bills would inject substantial uncertainty into the drug development process, including by weakening the reliability of patent protections. That would limit companies’ ability to bring products to market, reducing competition and slowing the pace of domestic medical innovation. If the bills succeed in weakening IP, drugmakers in other countries — including China, which supplies approximately 17% of the ingredients in U.S. drugs, and India, which provides nearly half of America’s generic prescriptions — will have an easier time surpassing the U.S. firms. Further, increased bureaucratic hurdles to drug development in the United States could increase the relative attractiveness of other countries for drug companies and investors. Ultimately, rather than strengthening America’s economy by promoting competition, these bills would privilege our global competitors and put U.S. innovators at a disadvantage in a key strategic industry. |
Celebrating American Innovation
Inventor Spotlight
This month, C4IP is honoring Norman Joseph Woodland (1921-2012) and Bernard Silver (1924-1963), whose invention of the barcode forever changed the way goods are tracked, sold, and managed worldwide.
- Woodland and Silver, who were both graduate students at Drexel Institute of Technology, developed the idea for their invention in 1948 when Silver overheard a food chain executive describing the need for technology that could quickly convey information about products.
- The pair developed a solution — a series of vertical lines printed in light-sensitive ink, which had varying thicknesses based on Morse code — which they patented in 1952.
- Due to limitations in laser scanning technology, the invention was not widely adopted right away — so Woodland continued to improve the technology until bar codes broke through in the 1970s.
- Woodland received the National Medal of Technology in 1992 in recognition of his invention, whose impact had by then become clear.
- Barcodes are a foundational part of global commerce today, with over 10 billion barcodes scanned each day around the world.
-
-
- The global market for automatic identification and data capture technologies, such as barcodes, is estimated to be worth nearly $70 billion.
-
- Woodland and Silver’s story exemplifies the importance of perseverance in developing revolutionary new technologies — and their legacy is felt every time a product is sold, shipped, or tracked on its way to a consumer.
[PHOTOS: USA Today, National Inventors Hall of Fame]
What’s Happening in Congress
With the 119th Congress underway, Democratic and Republican lawmakers are weighing legislation to prioritize. For those following IP policy, top of mind is the potential reintroduction of two significant bills from the previous Congress — alongside the reintroduction of the RESTORE Patent Rights Act — all of which address key patent system challenges:
- The Patent Eligibility Restoration Act (PERA), which would revitalize innovation and investment in crucial high-tech sectors by reversing arbitrary, judicially created exceptions to patent eligibility.
- The Promoting and Respecting Economically Vital American Innovation Leadership (PREVAIL) Act, which would level the legal playing field for small inventors and give them a fair chance to defend their patents from theft by larger competitors.
- The Realizing Engineering, Science, and Technology Opportunities by Restoring Exclusive (RESTORE) Patent Rights Act, which was recently reintroduced in both the House and Senate. This bipartisan, bicameral legislation would reestablish injunctive relief as the primary legal remedy for patent infringement, reaffirming innovators’ constitutional rights to the exclusive ownership of their inventions.
We will continue to track movement on these bills and provide updates on legislative developments in upcoming editions. In the interim, you can find resources on these key issues here.