Sponsors (4)
Want the plain-English version? I'll explain what this bill does.
This is not an official government website.
Copyright © 2026 PLEJ LC. All rights reserved.
Makes comprehensive changes to how the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) and the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) handle post‑grant challenges and fee use. It tightens procedures for inter partes review (IPR), post‑grant review (PGR), and ex parte reexamination (raising pleading, discovery, timing, joinder, estoppel, and panel‑composition rules), requires public recording of certain proceedings, creates a dedicated USPTO revolving fund for patent and trademark fees, clarifies micro‑entity status for institutions of higher education, and directs the Small Business Administration to report on how patents and patent litigation affect small businesses while expanding free online access to certain PTO search resources. The bill aims to strengthen patent owner protections and procedural clarity at the PTO, restrict repeat or forum‑shopping challenges, and stabilize USPTO funding through a new dedicated fund that prevents diversion of collected fees. It also includes administrative changes to define who counts as a “real party in interest” and when challenges are barred because of prior court or ITC decisions.
Adds a new subsection defining who is a real party in interest for purposes of the post-grant review chapter.
Adds a rehearing timing provision requiring the Director to decide requests for rehearing within specified timeframes, with a limited extension for good cause.
Redesignates existing subsections, inserts a new 'single forum' subsection limiting certain civil and ITC validity challenges when a post-grant review is instituted, revises rules on multiple proceedings and estoppel, and adds a provision concerning final validity determinations by federal courts and the ITC.
Modifies standards and procedures for discovery, motions to amend, public availability of amendment materials, establishes standards for exceptional-circumstances determinations, sets evidentiary standards (presumption of validity and burdens of proof), and adds claim construction rules for post-grant review.
Removes the second sentence of subsection (a).
Adds timing requirements for rehearing decisions, grants explicit Director review procedures (written opinion requirements), and a rule of construction treating certain Director rehearing decisions as final written decisions of the Board for appeal purposes.
Modifies subsection (a) wording and adds a new timing provision for decisions on remand following a court mandate.
Inserts additional text after the second sentence of section 302 (inserted text not provided in this excerpt).
Modifies section 303 by striking the third sentence of subsection (a) and adding new subsections (d) and (e).
Amends section 304 by inserting additional text into the first sentence (inserted text not provided in this excerpt).
And 12 more affected sections...
The patent property rights in the U.S. Constitution provide the foundation for the U.S. innovation environment.
Reliable and effective patent protection encourages U.S. inventors to invest resources in creating new inventions.
United States inventors have made discoveries leading to patient cures, better standards of living, and improvements in agriculture, telecommunications, and electronics, among other areas.
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 investment.
Primary affected groups include patent owners, patent challengers (litigants and third‑party petitioners), small businesses, institutions of higher education, patent practitioners, and the USPTO itself. Patent owners (individual inventors, startups, and assignees) will generally get stronger procedural protections: fewer opportunistic repeat challenges, clearer estoppel, and limits on panels that previously could rehear institution decisions. Challengers and some public‑interest petitioners face higher disclosure burdens, tighter discovery limits, stricter petition certification, and greater prohibition on serial or forum‑shopping challenges — this may reduce the number or scope of administrative challenges and increase reliance on district court litigation. Small businesses benefit from the mandated SBA study (better information for policy) and from strengthened fee stability at the USPTO; they may also be affected indirectly if changes shift the balance of enforcement and defense costs.
Institutions of higher education gain clarity in micro‑entity qualification, potentially preserving fee reductions for eligible applicants. Patent attorneys, agents, and PTO litigators will need to adapt to new procedural rules and public‑record obligations. The USPTO gains budgetary predictability and operational control over fee revenue through the new revolving fund, but must implement transfer, accounting, and publication requirements and expand free online services where feasible — incurring administrative burdens and potential transitional costs. Overall, the bill likely shifts the balance in favor of patent owners’ procedural stability at the PTO while raising barriers and procedural costs for repeat or tactical challengers. That may reduce some administrative challenges but could increase district court litigation and change strategic considerations for patentees and challengers.
Expand sections to see detailed analysis
Read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.
PREVAIL Act
Introduced May 1, 2025 by Christopher A. Coons · Last progress May 1, 2025
Read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.
Introduced in Senate