I 

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 9221 

To amend title 35, United States Code, to establish a rebuttable presumption 

that a permanent injunction should be granted in certain circumstances, 

and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JULY 30, 2024 

Mr. MORAN (for himself, Mr. ROY, Ms. ROSS, Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia, and 

Ms. DEAN of Pennsylvania) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

To amend title 35, United States Code, to establish a rebuttable presumption that a permanent injunction should 

be granted in certain circumstances, and for other purposes. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Realizing Engineering, 

5 Science, and Technology Opportunities by Restoring Ex6 clusive Patent Rights Act of 2024’’ or the ‘‘RESTORE 

7 Patent Rights Act of 2024’’. 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 9221 IH

1 SEC. 2. FINDINGS. 

2 Congress finds the following: 

3 (1) Securing effective and reliable patent pro4 tection for new technologies is critical to maintaining 

5 the competitive advantage of the United States in 

6 the global innovation economy. 

7 (2) The Constitution of the United States em8 powers Congress to grant inventors the ‘‘exclusive 

9 Right’’ to their inventions in order to ‘‘promote the 

10 Progress of Science and the useful Arts’’. 

11 (3) The right to prevent others from making, 

12 using, offering to sell, selling, or importing a pat13 ented invention without authority from the inventor 

14 is the core of the patent right, ensuring that an in15 ventor enjoys, for a limited time, the sole benefit of 

16 the inventor’s invention or discovery. 

17 (4) Congress and the courts of the United 

18 States have long secured the constitutionally pro19 tected patent right through the traditional equitable 

20 remedy of an injunction. 

21 (5) Given the irreparable harm that is caused 

22 by multiple acts of infringement or willful infringe23 ment of a patent, courts historically presumed that 

24 an injunction should be granted to prevent such 

25 acts, with a burden on defendants to rebut such a 

26 presumption with standard equitable defenses. 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 9221 IH

1 (6) Recently, courts have ended the approach 

2 described in paragraph (5), which contradicts the 

3 traditional, historical practice governing the equi4 table remedy described in that paragraph. 

5 (7) Eliminating the traditional, historical equi6 table practice of applying a rebuttable presumption 

7 of injunctive relief in the case of continuing acts of 

8 infringement or willful infringement of a patent 

9 has— 

10 (A) substantially reduced the ability of pat11 ent owners to obtain injunctions to stop con12 tinuing or willful infringement of patents; and 

13 (B) created incentives for large, multi14 national companies to commit predatory acts of 

15 infringement, especially with respect to patents 

16 owned by undercapitalized entities, such as in17 dividual inventors, institutions of higher edu18 cation, startups, and small or medium-sized en19 terprises. 

20 SEC. 3. REBUTTABLE PRESUMPTION THAT INJUNCTIVE RE21 LIEF IS WARRANTED. 

22 Section 283 of title 35, United States Code, is 

23 amended— 

24 (1) by striking ‘‘The several’’ and inserting the 

25 following: 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
4 

•HR 9221 IH

1 ‘‘(a) IN GENERAL.—The several’’; and 

2 (2) by adding at the end the following: 

3 ‘‘(b) REBUTTABLE PRESUMPTION.—If, in a case 

4 under this title, the court enters a final judgment finding 

5 infringement of a right secured by patent, the patent 

6 owner shall be entitled to a rebuttable presumption that 

7 the court should grant a permanent injunction with re8 spect to that infringing conduct.’’. 

Æ 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS