July Highlights: Congress Rejects Big Tech’s Push to Block AI Rules
During last month’s deliberations on the One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBBA), Big Tech lobbyists pushed to include an “AI moratorium” provision that would have imposed a 10-year ban on state-level regulation of artificial intelligence. While the proposal was framed as a well-intentioned effort to avoid a patchwork of conflicting rules and preserve U.S. leadership in AI, it would have preempted states from addressing growing concerns around the technology’s impact on intellectual property (IP) — such as the replication of individuals’ voices, images, and likenesses.
C4IP acknowledged the rationale behind the moratorium but cautioned that, on balance, it would do more harm than good. States have long served as “laboratories of democracy” — pioneering policies that strengthen certain IP protections and consumer rights — and foreclosing those opportunities in the AI context would be a significant loss. Singling out AI for special treatment would also set a troubling precedent for how emerging technologies are regulated. C4IP urged Congress to preserve states’ ability to craft thoughtful, rights-respecting frameworks that can help inform eventual federal legislation. Following pushback from C4IP and others, the Senate voted 99-1 to remove the moratorium from the final bill:
- C4IP Executive Director Frank Cullen issued a statement urging Congress to remove the AI moratorium from the bill, explaining that it would prevent states from testing creative policies and set a dangerous precedent for regulating future inventions and technologies.
- C4IP’s statement was featured in IPWatchdog’s article covering the removal of the moratorium, which also highlighted positive reactions from other organizations representing artists and creators.
- C4IP continues to support balanced policies that guide AI adoption while safeguarding intellectual property. Recent examples include Tennessee’s Ensuring Likeness Voice and Image Security (ELVIS) Act, which protects musicians from AI impersonation, and the bipartisan federal Nurture Originals, Foster Art, and Keep Entertainment Safe (NO FAKES) Act, which would codify Americans’ right to control the use of their voice and likeness — providing a legal foundation to combat unauthorized AI “deepfakes.”
- C4IP also backs federal reforms like the Promoting and Respecting Economically Vital American Innovation Leadership (PREVAIL) Act, the Patent Eligibility Restoration Act (PERA), and the Realizing Engineering, Science, and Technology Opportunities by Restoring Exclusive (RESTORE) Patent Rights Act, which would strengthen core IP protections in the face of emerging technologies.
Additional Coalition Updates
- On September 15-17, IPWatchdog will host its Second Annual Women’s IP Forum at IPWatchdog Studios in Ashburn, VA. The event will feature an all-women lineup of expert speakers in the IP field — including Board Member and former Federal Circuit Judge Kathleen O’Malley as well as C4IP Chief Policy Officer and Counsel Jamie Simpson. Learn more and register here.
- On August 26, C4IP and We Work for Health will host a roundtable in Raleigh, North Carolina, highlighting the critical role of intellectual property in fueling innovation, economic growth, and patient care. The event, Catalyzing North Carolina’s Innovation Ecosystem, will feature Congresswoman Deborah Ross (NC-2) and other leading voices from the state’s life sciences sector.
- A recording of the roundtable will be made available at a later date.
- On July 22, C4IP, CreativeFuture, and the Recording Industry Association of America hosted an event on Capitol Hill examining how IP rights aided the development of the film A Complete Unknown. The event featured opening remarks from C4IP Board Co-Chair David Kappos as well as remarks from industry veterans who worked on the movie and four members of the congressional Creative Rights Caucus: Reps. Judy Chu (D-Calif.) and Laurel Lee (R-Fla.) and Sens. Mazie Hirono (D-Hawaii) and Thom Tillis (R-N.C.).
- On July 14, C4IP’s support of PERA was mentioned in an IPWatchdog article advocating for the bill’s passage, which also cited Senate testimony from C4IP Co-Chair Andrei Iancu on how confusion surrounding patent eligibility harms American competitiveness.
- On July 14, C4IP announced that two prominent public servants and IP advocates — the Honorable Gary Locke, who served as Governor of Washington, U.S. Secretary of Commerce, and U.S. Ambassador to China, and the Honorable Lamar Smith, who served as U.S. Representative from Texas’s 21st congressional district and chaired the House Judiciary Committee — have joined its Board. Their unmatched experience will strengthen C4IP’s efforts to promote smart, bipartisan IP policy reforms.
- C4IP’s announcement was mentioned in POLITICO’s Influence newsletter.
Read It Now: “Council for Innovation Promotion Welcomes Governor Gary Locke and Congressman Lamar Smith to Board”
- On July 9, C4IP Board Members and former Federal Circuit Judges Paul Michel and Judge Kathleen O’Malley published an opinion essay in Bloomberg Law tracing the history of the Supreme Court rulings that have undermined high-tech patent eligibility and emphasizing why passing PERA is vital to protect American competitiveness.
- Their piece was referenced in a July 15 JDSupra article discussing how PERA would spur innovation in the life science and biotechnology sectors.
“By reestablishing clear patent eligibility for cutting-edge technologies, PERA would reinvigorate tech investment and deliver a much-needed boost to the US’ global competitiveness.”
- On July 8, C4IP’s 2024 < target="_blank" href="https://c4ip.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/07/C4IP-Public-Comment-RE-PTO-P-2023-0044.pdf">public comment on artificial intelligence and prior art patentability requirements — which cautioned the USPTO against instituting sweeping regulations that could discourage AI use in inventing — was cited in a JD Supra article on how AI use could affect the non-obviousness analysis of patent applications.
Government Rundown
House Oversight Subcommittee on Cybersecurity, Information Technology, and Government Innovation Roundtable: Artificial Intelligence in the Real World:
On July 22, the House Oversight Subcommittee on Cybersecurity, Information Technology, and Government Innovation held a bipartisan roundtable to discuss how Congress can best support advancements in AI that benefit U.S. industry without harming innovation. Three AI companies — Anthropic, Knightscope, and Fiddler AI — provided demonstrations during the meeting. (House Oversight Committee, 7/22)
Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime and Counterterrorism Hearing: Too Big to Prosecute?: Examining the AI Industry’s Mass Ingestion of Copyrighted Works for AI Training:
On July 16, the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime and Counterterrorism held a hearing discussing the legal ramifications of AI developers’ use of copyrighted material to train AI models. Professors from Carnegie Mellon University, New England Law School, and Santa Clara University School of Law, alongside IP lawyer Maxwell Pritt and bestselling author David Baldacci, provided testimony. (Senate Judiciary Committee, 7/16)
USPTO Webinar: China IP: Views From the Ground:
On July 16, the USPTO held a webinar, led by IP attachés stationed in Beijing and Guangzhou, discussing the current intellectual property landscape in China. The discussion sought to address IP owners’ concerns about common IP rights violations, such as forced technology transfer and trade secret theft, and inform owners about how best to deal with these violations. (USPTO, 7/16)
Fact Check
In recent months, federal policymakers have renewed calls for “Most-Favored-Nation” (MFN) drug pricing, which would tie the price of medicines in the United States to the lowest prices paid in similarly wealthy foreign countries. The policy is well-meaning and directed at a real problem: foreign countries free-ride off of American-supported innovation by implementing policies that allow them to purchase innovative technologies, such as medicines, at rates that are inadequate to cover the high costs of research and development. But while this problem is very real, MFN pricing itself is severely misguided.
By tying U.S. prices to artificially low foreign ones, MFN pricing would undermine the very IP protections that make American innovation possible. It would not force foreign countries to pay their fair share for innovation, but it would prevent U.S. inventors from spearheading new breakthroughs that promote American leadership and benefit consumers.
Here’s a closer look at three central myths underlying MFN — and the reality behind them:
| Claim: Prices paid in other countries more accurately represent what’s “fair.” |
| In reality: Foreign governments achieve artificially low prices through policies that deliberately sidestep or undercut intellectual property protections, such as international reference pricing and biased cost-effectiveness metrics. They coerce inventors to lower prices with the implicit threat of tactics such as compulsory licensing, which allows a government to override patent exclusivity and authorize a competitor to produce a product without the inventor’s consent. Some countries, including in Europe, also delay reimbursement decisions for new medicines, which effectively shortens the patent life of those products and weakens the incentive for investors to fund risky research and development. Taken together, these practices weaken incentives for innovation and deny companies fair compensation for their inventions: according to the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation, price controls in OECD countries, not including the United States, reduced manufacturer revenues by up to 77% in 2018. Put simply, far from being fair market rates, prices in foreign countries are often forcibly set by governments at rates too low to sustain innovation. |
| Claim: MFN pricing would incentivize other countries to pay more, ensuring companies can continue innovating. |
| In reality: MFN pricing implicitly endorses the status quo in countries that currently free-ride on U.S.-supported innovation. It would not put any pressure on foreign countries to raise prices or abandon anti-patent policies. Yet at the same time, MFN would have direct, disastrous effects on the United States. By importing foreign countries’ price suppression tactics here, MFN would slash the revenues that innovators rely on to sustain their businesses and undermine the patent protections that allow investors to earn a return on high-risk R&D investments. In doing so, it would dramatically stifle the development of new treatments, harming Americans’ access to effective medicines. But the harm wouldn’t stop at life sciences. Because MFN would be a breach of patent protections unprecedented in U.S. history, it would erode investors’ confidence in IP in other industries, such as advanced manufacturing, clean energy, quantum technologies, and artificial intelligence, too. In short, instead of compelling other countries to fix their broken pricing systems, MFN would adopt those standards as America’s — weakening our IP system and steering our innovative sectors in a downward spiral. |
| Claim: MFN would benefit Americans and enhance U.S. competitiveness. |
| In reality: MFN directly conflicts with the administration’s efforts to revitalize American competitiveness. It would hinder the development of new technologies, innovative consumer products, and hurt companies that support millions of American jobs. According to recent research, between 2019 and 2023, China has surpassed the United States in 57 of 64 strategically important technology sectors, including advanced materials, energy, and artificial intelligence. Undermining patent rights, a core economic incentive for innovation, would be a massive self-inflicted blow to U.S. competitiveness at a critical moment. MFN would also have harmful consequences for American workers and consumers. Not only would companies be deprived of the IP protections they need to invest in developing and producing new consumer products, but shrinking revenues due to MFN price controls would also threaten domestic jobs in innovative sectors. According to 2019 reports, intellectual property-intensive industries currently support over 60 million U.S. jobs and account for more than 40% of domestic economic activity. If MFN pricing is implemented, it will reduce economic opportunity for numerous hard-working Americans. To boost competitiveness, American leaders must strengthen the patent system — not import anti-IP policies that have stifled innovation abroad. |
To see additional explanation of these issues, please see the C4IP comment letter submitted in response to the United States Trade Representative’s recent request for input on this topic. You can access that submission here.
Celebrating American Innovation
Inventor Spotlight
This month, C4IP is honoring Charles W. Hull (born 1939), who has transformed manufacturing, medicine, and design through his invention of stereolithography — better known as 3D printing.
- Hull was born in Clifton, Colorado, and studied engineering physics at the University of Colorado before joining Ultraviolet Products, a company that used UV light to solidify liquid plastic polymers.
- Hull discovered that it was possible to “print” three-dimensional objects by arranging and solidifying plastic layers one at a time, a technique he patented in 1989.
- Hull continued to improve upon his invention throughout his career and has registered over 90 U.S. patents to date.
- He received the National Medal of Technology and Innovation in 2023.
- Hull’s invention kickstarted the global 3D printing industry, which topped $20 billion in 2023 and is projected to reach nearly $90 billion by 2030.
- The company Hull founded to commercialize his invention, 3D Systems, remains a major player in the industry today, with nearly $100 million in revenue in Q1 2025.
- Today, new forms of 3D printing technology continue to unlock scientific frontiers: In recent years, advancements in 3D printing have been used to produce rocket engines, personalized implants and prosthetics, and even living human tissue.
(PHOTO: National Inventors Hall of Fame)
What’s Happening in Congress
With the 119th Congress underway, Democratic and Republican lawmakers are weighing legislation to prioritize strengthening IP protections, including the recent reintroduction of several significant bills from the previous Congress:
- 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 unauthorized infringement by larger competitors.
- The Realizing Engineering, Science, and Technology Opportunities by Restoring Exclusive (RESTORE) Patent Rights Act, which was 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.
- The Nurture Originals, Foster Art, and Keep Entertainment Safe (NO FAKES) Act, which would protect all individuals from having their voice and visual likeness copied by generative AI without consent.
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.