I 
119TH CONGRESS 
1ST SESSION H. R. 1574 
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 
FEBRUARY 25, 2025 
Mr. MORAN (for himself, Ms. DEAN of Pennsylvania, Mr. ROY, and Mr. JOHN-
SON of Georgia) 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 rebut-
table presumption that a permanent injunction should 
be granted in certain circumstances, and for other pur-
poses. 
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa-
tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 
This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Realizing Engineering, 
Science, and Technology Opportunities by Restoring Ex-
clusive Patent Rights Act of 2025’’ or the ‘‘RESTORE 
Patent Rights Act of 2025’’. 
VerDate Sep 11 2014 
00:42 Mar 13, 2025
Jkt 059200
PO 00000
Frm 00001
Fmt 6652
Sfmt 6201
E:\BILLS\H1574.IH
H1574
ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
SEC. 2. FINDINGS. 
Congress finds the following: 
(1) Securing effective and reliable patent pro-
tection for new technologies is critical to maintaining 
the competitive advantage of the United States in 
the global innovation economy. 
(2) The Constitution of the United States em-
powers Congress to grant inventors the ‘‘exclusive 
Right’’ to their inventions in order to ‘‘promote the 
Progress of Science and the useful Arts’’. 
(3) The right to prevent others from making, 
using, offering to sell, selling, or importing a pat-
ented invention without authority from the inventor 
is the core of the patent right, ensuring that an in-
ventor enjoys, for a limited time, the sole benefit of 
the inventor’s invention or discovery. 
(4) Congress and the courts of the United 
States have long secured the constitutionally pro-
tected patent right through the traditional equitable 
remedy of an injunction. 
(5) Given the irreparable harm that is caused 
by multiple acts of infringement or willful infringe-
ment of a patent, courts historically presumed that 
an injunction should be granted to prevent such 
acts, with a burden on defendants to rebut such a 
presumption with standard equitable defenses. 
VerDate Sep 11 2014 
00:42 Mar 13, 2025
Jkt 059200
PO 00000
Frm 00002
Fmt 6652
Sfmt 6201
E:\BILLS\H1574.IH
H1574
ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
(6) Recently, courts have ended the approach 
described in paragraph (5), which contradicts the 
traditional, historical practice governing the equi-
table remedy described in that paragraph. 
(7) Eliminating the traditional, historical equi-
table practice of applying a rebuttable presumption 
of injunctive relief in the case of continuing acts of 
infringement or willful infringement of a patent 
has— 
(A) substantially reduced the ability of pat-
ent owners to obtain injunctions to stop con-
tinuing or willful infringement of patents; and 
(B) created incentives for large, multi-
national companies to commit predatory acts of 
infringement, especially with respect to patents 
owned by undercapitalized entities, such as in-
dividual inventors, institutions of higher edu-
cation, startups, and small or medium-sized en-
terprises. 
SEC. 3. REBUTTABLE PRESUMPTION THAT INJUNCTIVE RE-
LIEF IS WARRANTED. 
Section 283 of title 35, United States Code, is 
amended— 
(1) by striking ‘‘The several’’ and inserting the 
following: 
VerDate Sep 11 2014 
00:42 Mar 13, 2025
Jkt 059200
PO 00000
Frm 00003
Fmt 6652
Sfmt 6201
E:\BILLS\H1574.IH
H1574
ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS