Sponsors (3)
Ask me what this bill is really trying to do.
This is not an official government website.
Copyright © 2026 PLEJ LC. All rights reserved.
Amends U.S. patent law and USPTO practice to strengthen patent-owner protections and change how patent challenges are handled. It tightens governance of PTAB panels, narrows who can bring and repeat certain post‑grant challenges, limits some discovery and evidentiary practices in reviews, revises ex parte reexamination timing rules, creates a new USPTO Innovation Promotion Fund and changes how fees are used, and updates micro‑entity and small‑business reporting and public access requirements.
The patent property rights in the U.S. Constitution are the foundation for the United States’ strong innovation environment.
Reliable and effective patent protection encourages U.S. inventors to invest resources in creating new inventions.
U.S. inventors have made discoveries that have led to patient cures, raised the standard of living for people in the United States, and improved agriculture, telecommunications, and electronics industries.
The United States patent system is an essential part of the economic success of the United States.
Reliable and effective patent protection improves the chances of success for individual inventors and small companies and increases their chances of securing investments.
Who is affected and how:
Patent owners, inventors, and applicants: Likely benefit from increased procedural protections, narrower avenues for third‑party challenges, and stronger estoppel preventing repeat attacks on validity; this may increase certainty and the value of issued patents.
Patent challengers (including rival companies and some nonpracticing entities): Face higher thresholds and tighter timing/party rules for IPRs/PGRs and reexaminations, reduced discovery, and limits on serial petitions—making it harder and potentially costlier to invalidate issued patents through administrative proceedings.
PTAB and USPTO operations: Must implement new governance (code of conduct, panel rules), adjust procedures and timing, and manage the new Innovation Promotion Fund and fee retention/spending rules; administrative workload will shift to implement new deadlines, estoppel, and public‑record requirements.
Small businesses and institutions of higher education: Small businesses will be studied via an SBA report; universities and certain tax‑exempt organizations may get clarified micro‑entity status and fee benefits, which could reduce filing costs for qualifying applicants.
Courts and litigants: More issues may remain for district courts if administrative invalidation paths are constrained, potentially shifting dispute resolution from PTAB to courts and affecting litigation strategies and costs.
Public and researchers: Greater public access to USPTO Public Search Facility materials (online, free) improves transparency and lowers barriers to patent searching and study, except where third‑party licenses prevent publishing.
Overall effects: The bill increases procedural protections and certainty for patent owners while constraining aggressive or repetitive post‑grant challenges; this could reduce administrative invalidations but may raise costs and lengthen litigation for parties seeking to challenge patents. USPTO gains funding flexibility but assumes administrative burdens to implement and police the new rules.
Inserts additional text after the second sentence of 35 U.S.C. 302 (new text not included in the excerpt).
Modifies section 303 by striking the third sentence of subsection (a) and adding new subsections (d) and (e). Subsection (d) bars ordering an ex parte reexamination if the request is filed more than 1 year after service of a complaint alleging infringement, and defines as a real party in interest a person who directly or through an affiliate, subsidiary, or proxy makes a financial contribution to preparation for or conduct during an ex parte reexamination on behalf of a requester. Subsection (e) directs the Director to reject requests that present prior art or arguments that are the same or substantially the same as previously presented unless exceptional circumstances are shown, and permits the Director to reject requests that appear to use a prior Office decision to correct or bolster a previously deficient request or petition under chapter 31 or 32.
Amends the first sentence of 35 U.S.C. 304 by inserting additional text (specific inserted text not included in the excerpt).
Adds a new subsection defining 'real party in interest' to include any person that, directly or through an affiliate, subsidiary, or proxy, makes a financial contribution to the preparation for, or conduct during, an inter partes review on behalf of a petitioner.
Adds a new paragraph (6) to subsection (a) requiring that the petitioner certify, and the Director determine, that the petitioner meets certain criteria (including specific nonprofit tax-status criteria or alternative standing/infringement criteria). Also adjusts punctuation in existing paragraphs (4) and (5) to accommodate the addition.
Adds a rehearing provision requiring the Director to finally decide requests for reconsideration/rehearing of institution determinations within a set period, with a limited extension for good cause.
Revises time-bar/joinder language, redesignates subsections, inserts a new 'Single forum' prohibition on filing or maintaining federal court or ITC validity challenges once an IPR is instituted, revises joinder rules, adds requirements for notifying the Director of other proceedings with 30-day deadlines, tightens standards to reject petitions presenting the same prior art/arguments absent exceptional circumstances, revises estoppel rules with conditions for additional petitions, and bars institution/maintenance of IPR where a final judgment in federal court or the ITC has decided the same validity challenge.
Makes multiple changes to trial conduct and standards: adds procedures for briefing and limited discovery to support determinations under new 312(a)(6); narrows discovery to specified categories (depositions of affidavit/declaration witnesses, evidence identifying real parties in interest, and what is necessary in interest of justice); sets standards/procedures for motions to amend and public disclosure of amendment-related information; adds standards for demonstrating exceptional circumstances; modifies evidentiary standards to apply the presumption of validity and set burdens of proof (clear and convincing for previously issued claims; preponderance for substitute claims); and adds claim-construction rules aligning construction with 282(b) and requiring consideration of prior court constructions.
Strikes the second sentence of subsection (a).
Adds rehearing timing and Director review provisions: requires final decision on rehearing requests of final written decisions by the PTAB within 90 days (extendable up to 60 days), authorizes Director rehearing/reconsideration/review with separate written opinions made part of the public record explaining reasons, and provides that Director-issued rehearing decisions are deemed final written decisions of the PTAB for purposes of appeals under section 141.
And 12 more affected sections...
Expand sections to see detailed analysis
Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
Introduced May 1, 2025 by Nathaniel Moran · Last progress May 1, 2025
PREVAIL Act
Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
Introduced in House