May Highlights: PERA and PREVAIL Return to the Congressional Docket
The Patent Eligibility Restoration Act (PERA) and the Promoting and Respecting Economically Vital American Innovation Leadership (PREVAIL) Act remain two of the most vital patent policy reforms under consideration today. Both bills would make it easier for inventors to obtain and defend patent rights on innovative discoveries — PERA by clarifying patent eligibility for cutting-edge technologies, PREVAIL by preventing infringers from weaponizing PTAB proceedings against smaller inventors.
In late April, these critical bills were reintroduced in Congress with bipartisan support:
- PERA is led in the Senate by Sens. Thom Tillis (R-NC) and Chris Coons (D-DE), and in the House by Reps. Kevin Kiley (R-CA) and Scott Peters (D-CA).
- PREVAIL is led in the Senate by Sens. Chris Coons (D-DE), Thom Tillis (R-NC), Dick Durbin (D-IL), and Mazie Hirono (D-HI), and in the House by Reps. Nathaniel Moran (R-TX) and Deborah Ross (D-NC).
C4IP strongly supports the passage of both PERA and PREVAIL and has released a new video series explaining their importance that is entitled, “Powering Progress: Key IP Bills Shaping America’s Future”:
- C4IP’s newly released video series highlights the importance of PERA and PREVAIL.
Watch Now: “Powering Progress: The Patent Eligibility Restoration Act (PERA)“
Watch Now: “Powering Progress: The Promoting and Respecting Economically Vital American Innovation Leadership (PREVAIL) Act“
- C4IP issued statements applauding the reintroduction of both PERA and PREVAIL and underscoring the bills’ importance.
- C4IP Executive Director Frank Cullen sent a letter to Sens. Thom Tillis (R-NC) and Chris Coons (D-DE) thanking them for reintroducing PERA and PREVAIL and reiterating the value of these bipartisan bills for American innovators.
- C4IP’s support for PERA and PREVAIL was mentioned in articles in Law360 and Center Square on the reintroduction of the bills.
Additional Coalition Updates
- On May 30, C4IP Board Member Judge Paul Michel (ret.) published an opinion essay in Law360 calling on Congress to pass the RESTORE Patent Rights Act. The piece argues that reinstating injunctions as the default remedy for patent infringement is essential to protect startups, attract investment, and preserve U.S. technological leadership in the face of growing foreign competition.
- On May 28, C4IP released its 2025 Congressional Innovation Scorecard, which found that while the number of pro-IP senators has increased since 2024, most of Congress remains underattentive to important innovation issues, with over half of lawmakers receiving a grade of “C” or lower.
- C4IP issued an accompanying statement summarizing the Scorecard’s findings and urging lawmakers to prioritize policies that support American innovation.
- IPWatchdog and Erie News Now published articles centered on the Scorecard’s findings. The latter story focused on Sen. John Fetterman’s grade.
- Sen. Chris Coons highlighted his “A+” grade from the Scorecard in a post on X, stating that he “will always fight for bipartisan solutions to protect intellectual property rights so that America’s innovators can keep pushing us into the future.”
- Rep. Nathaniel Moran highlighted his “A+” grade from the Scorecard in a post on X, noting that “Innovation is key to American strength. We must protect the ideas, inventions, and creators that drive our economy forward.”
- Rep. Hank Johnson issued a press release spotlighting his “A” grade from the Scorecard and reaffirming his commitment “to focus on intellectual property policies that foster the innovation and creativity we need to drive human progress.”
Read It Now: “Congressional Innovation Scorecard, Second Edition“
- On May 27, former Commerce Secretary Gary Locke published an opinion essay in Newsweek calling out China’s practice of unilaterally lowering standard-essential patent licensing rates for its domestic companies, which harms innovation and deprives Western firms of fair revenue.
“It’s time to recommit to FRAND principles — and reaffirm that every company, regardless of its nationality, must pay its fair share in licensing fees for the technologies we all rely on.”
- On May 12, former Vermont Governor Howard Dean published an opinion essay in U.S. News & World Report spotlighting how international efforts to restrict patent protections at the World Trade Organization and World Health Organization would harm innovation and cripple America’s ability to combat diseases like bird flu.
“IP protections aren’t barriers to innovation; they are foundations for it. These protections create the stable ground that allows scientists and companies to make the massive, no-returns-guaranteed investments required to develop new treatments and diagnostics.”
- On May 12, C4IP’s recent event with the Kentucky Intellectual Property Alliance, “Blueprints for Innovation,” was featured in an article by Morehead State Public Radio, which summarized the remarks given by C4IP Co-Chair Andrei Iancu and Rep. Thomas Massie (R-KY).
- On May 9, C4IP Executive Director Frank Cullen sent a letter to Office of Science and Technology Policy Director Michael Kratsios, who was recently charged by President Trump with writing a report on how to foster scientific progress and innovation, emphasizing the importance of strong IP rights to America’s economic and technological future.
- On May 3, C4IP Co-Chair David Kappos published an opinion essay in IAM explaining how two international policy proposals — TRIPS waiver expansion at the World Trade Organization and a pandemic preparedness treaty being considered by the World Health Organization — would undermine inventors’ patent rights and allow foreign countries to siphon off U.S. wealth.
- On May 1, C4IP Executive Director Frank Cullen was interviewed by NBC News 10 in Cranston, Rhode Island, about the danger posed by counterfeit online pharmacies.
Government Rundown
Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Privacy, Technology, and the Law Hearing: The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly: AI-Generated Deepfakes in 2025:
On May 21, the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Privacy, Technology, and the Law held a hearing on the impact of AI-generated deepfake technology. Witnesses including Suzana Carlos, YouTube’s Head of Music Policy, Mitch Glazier, CEO of the Recording Industry Association of America, and Martina McBride, a multi-platinum singer-songwriter, testified about how AI deepfakes can infringe creators’ rights in the music industry. (Senate Judiciary Committee, 5/21)
Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Intellectual Property Hearing: Foreign Threats to American Innovation and Economic Leadership: On May 14, the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Intellectual Property held a hearing to discuss how anti-IP practices in foreign countries, such as patent theft, piracy, and counterfeiting, threaten U.S. innovation and global leadership. One notable witness was Mark Cohen, a Senior Fellow at the University of Akron Law School, who testified about the importance of PERA, PREVAIL, and RESTORE in enabling the United States to compete with China. (Senate Judiciary Committee, 5/14)
House Judiciary Subcommittee on Courts, Intellectual Property, Artificial Intelligence, and the Internet Hearing: Protecting Our Edge: Trade Secrets and the Global AI Arms Race: On May 7, the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Courts, Intellectual Property, Artificial Intelligence, and the Internet held a hearing to discuss why protecting trade secrets is crucial to promoting domestic AI innovation. A number of advanced technology experts from academia, think tanks, and industry provided testimony. (House Judiciary Committee, 5/7)
Fact Check
A bipartisan group of legislators led by Sens. Thom Tillis (R-NC) and Chris Coons (D-DE) recently reintroduced two critical bills to Congress: the Patent Eligibility Restoration Act (PERA) and the PREVAIL Act. Both bills would shore up the legal foundation for American innovation — PERA by restoring clarity around what types of inventions are eligible for patenting, and PREVAIL by streamlining the process to challenge patents at the Patent Office after they are issued to eliminate redundancies and harmonize standards with federal court, providing a fair playing field for patent holders.
Unfortunately, throughout May, opponents of patent rights circulated several false and misleading claims aimed at derailing both reforms. One such example is the statement issued by the Computer and Communications Industry Association (CCIA) upon the bills’ reintroduction.
Close scrutiny reveals that these common criticisms of PERA and PREVAIL are groundless and mischaracterize the effects the bills would have for U.S. innovation:
| Claim: PERA would “fundamentally chang[e] the patent system.” |
| In reality: PERA would restore clarity to the law on patent eligibility — a threshold question that has become increasingly uncertain following a series of Supreme Court decisions. These rulings introduced vague judicial exceptions that have made it difficult to determine what types of inventions can be protected by the patent system. PERA offers a clear, modern framework for subject matter eligibility under Section 101 of the Patent Act — one that reflects longstanding principles while replacing vague judicial doctrines with well-defined statutory exclusions, including mathematical formulas, mental processes, and unmodified natural materials. The bill does not affect other core provisions of the Patent Act that determine whether a patent can be granted, including Section 102 (novelty), Section 103 (non-obviousness), and Section 112 (written description). PERA brings the U.S. system into alignment with the longstanding purpose of Section 101: to serve as a gateway, not a barrier, for meaningful innovation. |
| Claim: PERA would “make it easier to obtain weak patents” |
| In reality: First, the narrative that the United States has a problem with low-quality patents was thoroughly debunked by a recent study from the nonpartisan Sunwater Institute. Second, this claim confuses patent eligibility with patentability. Section 101 determines whether an invention is eligible to be considered for a patent — it does not assess whether the invention ultimately qualifies for one. Even if an invention is eligible, it must still be novel, non-obvious, and fully disclosed under other provisions of the Patent Act. PERA does not change those safeguards. The bill clarifies which types of subject matter can be considered in the first place, providing a clear pathway of eligibility for inventions that qualify as technical and are the result of applied human ingenuity. But any patent application that passes this subject matter eligibility threshold must still meet the remaining statutory requirements, all of which are designed to guard against non-meritorious applications from becoming patents. By restoring clarity to eligibility, PERA strengthens — not weakens — the integrity of the U.S. patent system. |
| Claim: PREVAIL would undermine the “highly effective” inter partes review process. |
| In reality: The current IPR process at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) is routinely exploited by large corporations seeking to leverage their resources in a war of attrition to invalidate the patent rights to technologies they’ve used without permission from smaller companies — a tactic known as predatory infringement. Patent owners are often forced to defend their rights on two fronts — at the PTAB and in federal court — and to relitigate issues that have already been decided. Indeed, roughly 85% of PTAB proceedings duplicate litigation in other forums, and the board allows multiple petitions to be filed against the same patent. As a result, deep-pocketed challengers can overwhelm startups and independent inventors with enormous legal costs and delays. The PREVAIL Act introduces common-sense reforms to curb these abuses. It would close loopholes that permit duplicative proceedings and better align PTAB procedures with those used in district court. For innovators facing predatory tactics, the bill would make the patent system fairer and more effective — not less. |
| Claim: PERA and PREVAIL would benefit “patent trolls” not inventors. |
| In reality: PERA and PREVAIL are designed to support genuine inventors — including startups, university researchers, and small businesses — not “patent trolls.” PERA would help innovators in high-tech fields like medical diagnostics, where uncertainty around patent eligibility has chilled investment. One study found that funding for diagnostics fell $9.3 billion below expected levels following one Supreme Court decision in Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Laboratories (which significantly narrowed patent eligibility for medical diagnostic tests). PREVAIL, meanwhile, reins in abuse of the PTAB that disproportionately harms small patent owners, many of whom cannot afford to defend against serial challenges from deep-pocketed corporate infringers. Together, these reforms would give legitimate inventors a fairer shot at protecting their work and bringing new products to market. By contrast, the status quo favors large incumbents, particularly in Big Tech — who are among the PTAB’s most frequent petitioners, and many of whom are members of the CCIA. |
Celebrating American Innovation
Inventor Spotlight
This month, C4IP is honoring Percy L. Spencer (1894-1970), whose invention of the microwave oven revolutionized how people cook and eat around the world.
- Despite never completing elementary school, Spencer taught himself radio engineering while serving in the U.S. Navy during World War I, and subsequently became a successful engineer at Raytheon Corporation.
- While working to advance radar technology, Spencer realized that the magnetron vacuum tubes he was working with could also be used to heat food — and used that knowledge to create the first microwave oven, which he patented in 1950.
- Spencer ultimately received over 100 patents over the course of his career.
- Spencer’s invention has become a staple in kitchens across America, with over 90% of U.S. households owning a microwave oven today.
- Thanks to the ubiquity of the microwave, industries like frozen food have also seen significant growth, with roughly two-thirds of Americans consuming frozen food weekly.
- The microwave oven has had an enormous economic impact: In 2024, the global market for microwave ovens was estimated at over $10 billion, with more than 80 million microwaves being sold each year.
(Photo credit: Smithsonian Institute)
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 recent reintroduction of three significant bills from the previous Congress — 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 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.