"A functioning patent system depends on one basic principle: bad patents must be challengeable. In 2025, that principle was repeatedly tested-by Congress, by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), and by a small number of large patent owners determined to weaken public challenges. Two damaging bills, PERA and PREVAIL, were reintroduced in Congress. At the same time, USPTO attempted a sweeping rollback of inter partes review (IPR), one of the most important mechanisms for challenging wrongly granted patents."
"The Patent Eligibility Restoration Act, or PERA, would overturn the Supreme Court's and decisions-reviving patents on abstract software ideas, and even allowing patents on isolated human genes. PREVAIL, introduced by the same main sponsors in Congress, would seriously weaken the IPR process by raising the burden of proof, limiting who can file challenges, forcing petitioners to surrender court defenses, and giving patent owners new ways to rewrite their claims mid-review."
In 2025, Congress and the USPTO tested the principle that bad patents must be challengeable. Two bills, the Patent Eligibility Restoration Act (PERA) and PREVAIL, sought to revive broad patents on abstract software and allow patents on isolated human genes, while also weakening inter partes review (IPR) by raising burdens of proof, narrowing challengers, and enabling claim amendments. The USPTO attempted a sweeping rollback of IPR protections. EFF mobilized supporters, submitted challenges, and urged lawmakers to reject the bills. Thousands of public messages pressured lawmakers. Neither PERA nor PREVAIL advanced to the full committee, and major rollbacks were resisted.
Read at Electronic Frontier Foundation
Unable to calculate read time
Collection
[
|
...
]