119-hr1574

[Congressional Bills 119th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1574 Introduced in House

    (IH) ]

<DOC>

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. 
 Johnson 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 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>