April Highlights: Celebrating World IP Day and Congressional Champions of Innovation
On April 26, the global intellectual property community celebrated World Intellectual Property Day, which offers an annual reminder of the importance of IP protections to creativity, competition, and economic growth. This year’s celebration focused on the role of IP in sports, where patents, trademarks, copyrights, broadcast rights, and rights of publicity help protect everything from team identities and athlete likenesses to performance technologies and digital fan experiences.
C4IP marked the occasion by publicly recognizing the value that IP rights provide to the global sports ecosystem. But this World IP Day also launched a new tradition for C4IP: honoring Congress’s strongest IP advocates as “Champions of Innovation.” The 16 lawmakers chosen as Champions of Innovation all have strong records of leadership on IP policy issues. On April 21, C4IP held its inaugural Champions of Innovation Award Reception on Capitol Hill to recognize these deserving honorees.
- C4IP Executive Director Frank Cullen issued a statement celebrating World IP Day and highlighting the role of IP in protecting the economic value, authenticity, and innovative capacity of the modern sports ecosystem.
- C4IP Chief Operations Officer John Cabeca joined policymakers and industry leaders as a panelist at a World IP Day roundtable at the European Parliament. The discussion explored how strong IP protections catalyze innovation in sports technology and enrich the experience for athletes and fans alike.
- C4IP published a blog post which further explored how various types of IP — including trademarks, copyrights, and patents — are vital to the sports industry.
- C4IP also issued a statement recognizing 16 members of Congress — Senators Marsha Blackburn (R-TN), Ted Budd (R-NC), Bill Cassidy (R-LA), Chris Coons (D-DE), Tom Cotton (R-AR), Mazie Hirono (D-HI), Adam Schiff (D-CA), Rick Scott (R-FL), Thom Tillis (R-NC), and Todd Young (R-IN), alongside Representatives Madeleine Dean (D-PA), Hank Johnson (D-GA), Kevin Kiley (I-CA), Nathaniel Moran (R-TX), Scott Peters (D-CA), and Deborah Ross (D-NC) — as Champions of Innovation for their bipartisan support of American ingenuity, IP, and the nation’s innovation ecosystem.
- C4IP hosted a Champions of Innovation Award Reception on Capitol Hill to present these lawmakers with official awards commemorating their impact.
- The event was featured in POLITICO’s Influence newsletter.
Additional Coalition Updates
- On May 11, C4IP Co-Chair Andrei Iancu and Advisory Board Member Laura Peter will appear as featured speakers at the USPTO’s celebration of its Southwest Regional Outreach Office’s 10th anniversary in Dallas.
- On May 1, C4IP issued a statement applauding the release of the Office of the United States Trade Representative’s (USTR) 2026 Special 301 Report and highlighting the importance of strong and enforceable IP protections to sustaining America’s global innovation leadership.
- On April 24, C4IP’s Board of Directors sent a letter to the European Commission commending the recommendation of a recent study on the European Union’s Intellectual Property Rights Enforcement Directive (IPRED) to not open the IPRED to revision, but outlining concerns of methodological flaws and inaccurate assumptions that risk misleading policymakers and undermining European innovation.
- On April 23, C4IP was proud to sponsor the 2026 Invention of the Year Awards at the University of North Carolina, Charlotte. At this event, which honored inventors for their exceptional new patented inventions, C4IP Advisory Board Member Laura Peter provided opening comments, and C4IP Executive Director Frank Cullen served as a judge.
- On April 23, C4IP Executive Director Frank Cullen issued a statement commending the European Commission’s decision to drop a proposed “soft safe harbour” for licensing negotiation groups — which would have raised competition concerns and risked promoting below-FRAND licensing terms — from its revised guidelines for technology transfer.
- On April 21, C4IP Executive Director Frank Cullen submitted a letter to the Senate Judiciary Committee ahead of its hearing on Chinese IP theft, urging policymakers to confront China’s many predatory IP practices — including and beyond IP theft — while strengthening the U.S. patent system at home.
- On April 20, C4IP Executive Director Frank Cullen submitted a letter to the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Courts, Intellectual Property, Artificial Intelligence, and the Internet ahead of its hearing on codes development, emphasizing the importance of strong copyright protection to the development of codes and technological standards.
- On April 15, C4IP’s statement opposing the ETHIC Act and debunking the myth of “patent thickets” was cited in an IPWatchdog article on the bill. The ETHIC Act is predicated on this misleading narrative that aims to weaken patent enforcement.
- On April 14, C4IP released a report by Professor Jonathan Barnett, the Torrey H. Webb Professor of Law at the University of Southern California Gould School of Law, on the market impact of licensing negotiation groups.
Read It Now: “An Unbalanced Proposal: Licensing Negotiation Groups for Wireless Technology in the Automotive Industry“
- On March 29, C4IP Advisory Board Member Laura Peter published an opinion essay in Fortune arguing that policymakers must strengthen patent protections for cutting-edge research and development in order for the United States to win the AI race.
“If Washington is serious about AI leadership, it must recognize that the global AI race is also an IP race — and strengthen the U.S. patent system accordingly.”
- On March 27, C4IP Advisory Board Member Laura Peter published an opinion essay in IPWatchdog explaining how the PREVAIL Act could address abusive litigation at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board without harming legitimate patent holders.
Government Rundown
- USPTO Event: Celebrate World Intellectual Property Day 2026 on Capitol Hill: On April 29, the USPTO, the American Intellectual Property Law Association (AIPLA), the U.S. Copyright Office, and other organizations held an event on Capitol Hill to celebrate World IP Day. In keeping with this year’s theme, “IP and sports: Ready, set, innovate,” the event highlighted how patents, trademarks, and copyrights support sports innovation, athlete and team branding, broadcasting, fan engagement, and investment in new technologies. (USPTO, 4/29)
- USPTO Event: Special USPTO Hour: Live from the 2026 NFL Draft®: On April 24, the USPTO held a special World IP Day edition of its USPTO Hour webinar series, live from the NFL Draft in Pittsburgh. The panel, which focused on “Authenticity: The Name of the Game,” examined how trademarks, NIL rights, and other IP protections help athletes, leagues, and innovators protect brands, prevent deepfakes, and support innovation in sports. (USPTO, 4/24)
- Senate Committee on the Judiciary Hearing: Stealth Stealing: China’s Ongoing Theft of U.S. Innovation: On April 22, the Senate Judiciary Committee held a full committee hearing to discuss China’s ongoing theft of U.S. innovation. C4IP submitted a letter ahead of the hearing urging lawmakers to confront foreign IP theft through strong enforcement while reinforcing domestic patent protections to ensure American innovators can compete globally. (Senate Judiciary Committee, 4/22)
- House Committee on the Judiciary, Subcommittee on Courts, Intellectual Property, Artificial Intelligence, and the Internet Hearing: Protecting U.S. Leadership in Codes Development and Enhancing Public Access: On April 21, the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Courts, Intellectual Property, Artificial Intelligence, and the Internet held a hearing on preserving U.S. leadership in codes and standards development. C4IP sent a letter to lawmakers ahead of the hearing emphasizing that maintaining strong copyright protections for standards-setting organizations is essential to incentivize the development of high-quality technical standards that support innovation and public safety. (House Judiciary Committee, 4/21)
Fact Check
On April 16, the R Street Institute hosted a congressional briefing entitled “The Hidden Tax: How Bad Patents Drive Up Drug Prices for Everyone,” featuring speakers from other anti-IP activists such as Public Citizen and the Coalition Against Pharmaceutical Patent Abuse. The conversation focused largely on a familiar, false narrative — that companies frequently file patents on frivolous changes to their products in order to extend patent protection and prevent competing products from coming to market, a practice often referred to as “evergreening.”
R Street’s discussion of evergreening focused on the pharmaceutical industry and the alleged impact of drug prices. But similar accusations have historically been leveled against other companies, such as smartphone manufacturers, as well. Regardless of the industry context, the evergreening narrative is false, as it fundamentally mischaracterizes the nature of the patent system. Companies can’t extend patent life by filing additional patents, and they can’t patent just any “minor” product tweak. All patents must meet the statutory requirements of the Patent Act to be issued, and the patent system exists in part to promote the very improvements that these critics decry. Importantly, patents on improvements do not extend the life of earlier patents, allowing for anyone to make and use the products covered by the earlier patents once they expire.
Below, we set the record straight on the two major assumptions that underpin the evergreening narrative:
| Claim: Companies can block market competition by filing new patents on existing products. |
| In reality: Filing new patents allows companies to protect newly developed improvements to their products, but it does not extend the life of earlier, existing patents. Every new patent covers only the specific invention it claims. Existing patents still expire on the same timeline regardless of any related patents that were filed afterward. As a result, competing companies will typically be able to reproduce the original product and its components roughly 20 years after those initial patents are filed, even though consumers may prefer the version that has been updated with new improvements.
In the context of drug development — where “evergreening” claims are often most common — there is clear data demonstrating that companies do not extend their patent life by filing additional patents. In 2024, the USPTO investigated claims about purported patent abuses and published a study showing that the effective market exclusivity for the drugs it studied was much shorter than the statutory patent term — about 11.4 years, on average. It also found that the number of patents associated with a drug does not correlate with longer exclusivity periods. In other words, more patents do not mean more time without competition. Across sectors, companies continue to invent and patent related innovations, but these patents do not — and cannot — force out competition. Once the original patents expire, competitors are free to enter the market by making and selling the underlying invention as originally claimed, regardless of any later-filed patents covering distinct improvements. |
| Claim: Companies often file frivolous or low-quality patents just to extend exclusivity. |
| In reality: Companies cannot acquire patents on just any product tweak. To be patented, an invention must meet strict statutory requirements, including being novel, useful, and non-obvious. In other words, it must be a patentable invention, not a trivial change. Some patent detractors argue that many granted patents are low-quality and do not meet these standards. But empirical evidence debunks that view. A study by the nonpartisan Sunwater Institute found that the rate at which the USPTO erroneously grants patents that do not meet statutory requirements is low — only about 7% — and that the USPTO outperforms many other patent offices in this regard, including those of the European Union, Japan, and South Korea. The study also found that the USPTO is more than twice as likely to deny a valid patent claim than it is to approve an invalid patent claim.
More importantly, the benefits of so-called “follow-on” innovation are often substantial. In medicine, improvements can make medicines safer, more effective, or easier for patients to use — which can save lives by reducing side effects and promoting adherence to treatment prescriptions. In smartphones, incremental innovation has dramatically improved battery life, camera quality, processing power, and connectivity. In automobiles, patented inventions have, over time, enabled advances in fuel efficiency, crash safety, emissions reduction, and driver-assistance technologies. Additionally, many consumers and patent critics may erroneously view patents that are part of complex technologies, such as smart devices and medicines, as unimportant because they are viewing these innovations in isolation — when in reality, they are best understood as components of highly integrated systems. For instance, the first iPhone included roughly 200 patents. But by 2012, when the iPhone 5 was released, Apple owned more than 270 patents related to phone camera technology alone. That number may seem large, but it contributed to significant improvements in image quality — and it reflects the fact that even incremental improvements to today’s complex technologies require substantial research and development and the combination of many distinct technical innovations. In short, patenting changes to existing products does not amount to gaming the system. Patenting is critical to protecting R&D investments in the expensive process of iterating and improving. Without patent protection, competitors could copy product improvements immediately, making it unsustainable for companies to continue developing products that have already reached the market. Far from being abusive or anti-competitive, patents on improvements are essential to incentivize continuous progress that delivers real benefits to consumers. |
Celebrating American Innovation
Inventor Spotlight
This month, C4IP is recognizing Lisa Lindahl, Hinda Miller, and Polly Smith, whose invention of the sports bra helped revolutionize women’s participation in sports.
- The trio developed their invention after Lindahl, an avid runner, asked Miller and Smith — who were working as costume designers — to help solve the discomfort caused by running in ordinary bras.
- The three women devised a prototype by sewing two men’s jockstraps together and patented their invention — which they called the Jogbra® — in 1979.
- Lindahl and Miller co-founded a company, Jogbra Inc., to market their invention, and experienced rapid commercial success as women increasingly entered athletics following the passage of Title IX.
- Their company was acquired in 1990 by personal care brand Playtex, which today is valued at over $1 billion.
- The global market for athletic bras is expected to surpass $1.1 billion by 2030.
- The invention of the sports bra helped fuel a revolution in women’s sports that only continues to accelerate: Women’s sports revenue was estimated at over $2.3 billion in 2025, up from less than $1 billion in 2023.
- In 2024-25, record numbers of women and girls participated in both collegiate and high school
- This World IP Day, Lindahl, Miller, and Smith’s story is a powerful reminder of how strong IP rights help drive social, cultural, and economic progress through sports.
[PHOTO: New York University]
What’s Happening in Congress
Democratic and Republican lawmakers continue to weigh legislation to prioritize strengthening IP protections, including the 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.