RESTORE Patent Rights Act of 2025

Bill: 119-s-708
Sponsor: full_name: Sen. Coons, Christopher A. [D-DE]
Introduced: 2025-02-25
Policy area: Commerce
Latest action: action_date: 2025-02-25
text: Read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.

Summaries:
action_date: 2025-02-25
action_desc: Introduced in Senate
text: <p><strong>Realizing Engineering, Science, and Technology Opportunities by Restoring Exclusive Patent Rights Act of 2025 or the RESTORE Patent Rights Act of 2025</strong></p><p>This bill establishes a rebuttable presumption for injunctive relief in patent infringement cases. Specifically, if a 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.</p><p>(In 2006, the U.S. Supreme Court held in&nbsp;<em>eBay&nbsp;v. MercExchange</em> that patent holders do not have an automatic right to a permanent injunction in a patent infringement case.)</p>

tv_txt: II 119th CONGRESS 1st Session S. 708 IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES February 25, 2025 Mr. Coons (for himself and Mr. Cotton ) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 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. Short title This Act may be cited as the Realizing Engineering, Science, and Technology Opportunities by Restoring Exclusive Patent Rights Act of 2025 or the RESTORE Patent Rights Act of 2025 . 2. Findings Congress finds the following: (1) Securing effective and reliable patent protection 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 empowers 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 patented invention without authority from the inventor is the core of the patent right, ensuring that an inventor 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 protected 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 infringement 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. (6) Recently, courts have ended the approach described in paragraph (5), which contradicts the traditional, historical practice governing the equitable remedy described in that paragraph. (7) Eliminating the traditional, historical equitable 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 patent owners to obtain injunctions to stop continuing or willful infringement of patents; and (B) created incentives for large, multinational companies to commit predatory acts of infringement, especially with respect to patents owned by undercapitalized entities, such as individual inventors, institutions of higher education, startups, and small or medium-sized enterprises. 3. Rebuttable presumption that injunctive relief is warranted Section 283 of title 35, United States Code, is amended— (1) by striking The several and inserting the following: (a) In general The several ; and (2) by adding at the end the following: (b) Rebuttable presumption 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. .