Bill Details
View committees (1)
View cosponsors (1)
AI Summary This summary was generated by AI from the bill text. AI can get information wrong.
This bill would change patent law to make it easier for patent owners to stop someone from continuing to use their invention after a court has already found infringement. In simple terms, if a court decides a patent was infringed, the patent owner would usually be presumed to deserve a permanent court order blocking that infringing conduct, unless the other side can show a good reason not to give that order. The bill says this would restore a more traditional approach to patent rights and help protect inventors, startups, universities, and smaller companies from ongoing or deliberate infringement.
- It adds a rule in patent law saying that after a final judgment of infringement, the patent owner gets a rebuttable presumption in favor of a permanent injunction.
- A rebuttable presumption means the court starts from the position that the injunction should be granted, but the losing party can argue against it using normal legal reasons.
- The bill’s supporters say this would strengthen the value of patents and make it harder for larger companies to keep using an invention without permission.
- Congress says the change is meant to better protect innovation and support inventors and smaller patent holders who may have fewer resources to fight infringement.
Official Summaries
Realizing Engineering, Science, and Technology Opportunities by Restoring Exclusive Patent Rights Act of 2025 or the RESTORE Patent Rights Act of 2025
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.
(In 2006, the U.S. Supreme Court held in eBay v. MercExchange that patent holders do not have an automatic right to a permanent injunction in a patent infringement case.)
Current Full Text
[Congressional Bills 119th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 708 Introduced in Senate (IS)]
<DOC>
119th CONGRESS
1st Session
S. 708
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 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.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives 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 Exclusive Patent Rights Act of
2025'' or the ``RESTORE Patent Rights Act of 2025''.
SEC. 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.
SEC. 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.''.
<all>