The Constitution grants inventors the “exclusive right” to their discoveries — a foundational principle of our patent system. This exclusive right isn’t symbolic; it’s the essence of ownership itself. Whether it’s your home or business (real property), your watch or car (personal property), or your invention (intellectual property), the defining feature of property is the right to exclude others from using it without your permission.
A patent is no different. It confers a limited-time exclusive right. Without the power to stop others from using an invention, a patent loses its core purpose, which is to give inventors the confidence and legal backing needed to commercialize their ideas, secure funding, and compete in the marketplace.
The RESTORE Patent Rights Act would fix a major gap in U.S. patent enforcement. It reinstates a common-sense principle: when a court finds a valid patent has been infringed, the default response should be to issue an injunction that stops the infringer from continuing to use the stolen technology, unless compelling reasons suggest otherwise.
This used to be the norm. For over 200 years, courts generally applied a presumption in favor of issuing injunctions in patent dispute cases. That changed in 2006, when the Supreme Court’s decision in eBay v. MercExchange made it significantly harder for patent owners to secure injunctions — even after proving infringement in court. Since then:
- Injunctions have dropped roughly 66% for product-making companies
- They’ve dropped over 91% for universities, research institutions, and other so-called non-practicing entities
Today, companies that infringe a patent can often keep using the stolen technology, likely paying only a one-time fee or ongoing court-ordered royalty after the fact, amounting to no more than they would have had to pay had they negotiated for rights in the first place. They don’t have to stop, return profits, or even negotiate a license. This makes infringement an attractive and low-risk business decision, with paying monetary damages being cheaper and easier than obtaining a license from the patent owner.
Why This Matters
- Small Inventors Face Endless Litigation With No Real Remedy
Big companies can drag lawsuits out for years. Small businesses can’t. Without an injunction as a likely outcome of litigation, small inventors face enormous legal costs with little real remedy. Injunctions stop infringement while court-ordered royalty payments just reward copycats and incentivize future infringement.
- Weak Enforcement Hurts U.S. Innovation
When patent rights cannot be meaningfully enforced, investors pull back. Startups working to launch breakthrough technologies fold or go abroad, where IP rights are stronger. That means lost jobs, stranded discoveries, and a damaged innovation economy at home.
- The RESTORE Act Helps Combat IP Theft, Both Foreign and Domestic
Whether the infringer is based in the United States or abroad, the RESTORE Act gives patent owners the power to stop unauthorized use of their inventions, including by keeping infringing imports off the U.S. market. That’s a win for American jobs and global leadership.
- The RESTORE Act Promotes Fair Licensing and Early Settlements
Right now, large companies often use patented tech without asking permission, knowing they’ll likely just pay a small royalty if caught. The RESTORE Act changes that by making clear that continued infringement carries real risk and real consequences. This encourages fair negotiations up front. That means more licensing, fewer wasteful lawsuits, and lower legal costs — especially for startups.
What the Bill Does
The RESTORE Patent Rights Act updates Section 283 of the U.S. patent code to say:
“If, in a case under this title, the court enters a final judgment finding infringement of a right secured by patent, the patent owner shall be entitled to a rebuttable presumption that the court should grant a permanent injunction with respect to that infringing conduct.”
Crucially, the bill doesn’t make injunctions automatic. It simply tells courts to start with the expectation that they’ll issue an injunction when a patent is infringed — unless there’s a clear reason not to. This is the way our legal system worked prior to the eBay decision.
Bottom Line
Today, big companies can infringe a patent, lose in court, and still walk away with the right to keep using the stolen invention. All they have to do is pay a fee.
That turns our patent system on its head.
The RESTORE Patent Rights Act fixes this by restoring the long-standing presumption that courts will stop proven infringers from continuing to use someone else’s technology. It’s a simple, targeted change that strengthens patent enforcement, cuts down on drawn-out litigation, and gives small inventors a real chance to protect what they create.
Congress should act now and pass the RESTORE Patent Rights Act.