SB 2787 reenacts Mississippi’s existing law prohibiting bad-faith assertions of patent infringement and removes the sunset-style repealer that would otherwise end those provisions. The bill keeps in place the statutory definitions of “intended recipient,” “affiliated person,” and “person,” and continues to make it unlawful to send written or electronic patent-demand communications that are misleading, unsupported, or made without a reasonable factual or legal basis. Prohibited conduct includes threats of litigation in a pattern where no suit is filed, false claims that litigation has already been filed, demands based on invalid, unenforceable, or expired patents, and notices that omit key identifying information about the patent, the asserting party, or the alleged infringement.
The bill also preserves exceptions for legitimate patent owners and certain public or research-related entities. Communications are exempt when made by patent owners using the patent in substantial research, development, production, manufacturing, processing, or delivery activities, as well as by state institutions of higher learning, state agencies, affiliated technology transfer organizations, and certain licensees of those entities. It also excludes claims arising under federal provisions related to generic-drug and biologics patent litigation. The act takes effect July 1, 2025.
In terms of state-law impact, SB 2787 keeps Mississippi’s anti-patent-troll enforcement framework active by continuing the Attorney General’s authority to investigate and bring civil actions and by preserving private rights of action for intended recipients of bad-faith patent demands. Courts may award available state-law relief in Attorney General actions, and in private suits prevailing plaintiffs may recover attorney’s fees and costs, actual damages, and punitive damages equal to three times actual damages. The Attorney General may also seek a bond when there is a reasonable likelihood of a violation.
The overall sentiment around the bill appears strongly favorable and largely noncontroversial. It passed the Senate 51-0, the House 113-0 as amended, and the Senate then concurred in the House amendment 51-0, indicating unanimous support in both chambers. No committee transcript material was provided, but the voting history suggests broad agreement that the law should remain in force.
There is little visible contention in the available record. The main policy issue underlying the bill is the balance between protecting businesses and consumers from abusive patent-demand letters and preserving legitimate patent enforcement and licensing activity. The statutory exceptions for universities, state agencies, technology transfer organizations, and bona fide patent owners reflect that balance, but no recorded opposition or debate is included in the materials provided.
SB 2787 reenacts and extends Mississippi Code Sections 75-24-351 through 75-24-357, preventing those provisions from expiring and keeping in place the state’s prohibition on bad-faith patent infringement assertions. It preserves enforcement authority for the Attorney General, private civil remedies for targeted recipients, fee-shifting, actual damages, treble punitive damages, and the ability to require a bond in certain enforcement actions. The bill does not create a new regulatory scheme so much as it maintains and continues an existing one aimed at deceptive or abusive patent assertion practices.
The bill appears to have received unanimous, bipartisan support throughout the legislative process. The Senate passed it 51-0, the House passed it 113-0 as amended, and the Senate concurred in the House amendment 51-0. That voting record indicates a strong consensus that Mississippi should continue its protections against bad-faith patent demand letters and related conduct.
No direct opposition is reflected in the provided materials, and there were no committee transcripts to show debate. The likely policy tension is between curbing abusive patent enforcement tactics and avoiding interference with legitimate patent licensing or infringement claims. The bill addresses that tension through explicit carveouts for bona fide patent owners, universities, state entities, technology transfer organizations, and certain federal patent-related claims, suggesting that any concern centered on preserving lawful patent enforcement rather than on the anti-abuse provisions themselves.