RESTORE Patent Rights Act of 2025
HB1574, the RESTORE Patent Rights Act of 2025, would amend federal patent law to create a rebuttable presumption that a court should issue a permanent injunction after finding patent infringement. The bill applies in cases under title 35 of the U.S. Code and would add a new subsection to section 283 stating that, once final judgment of infringement is entered, the patent owner is presumed entitled to injunctive relief against the infringing conduct.
The bill’s findings explain that Congress views strong patent enforcement as essential to innovation, constitutional patent rights, and U.S. competitiveness. It argues that courts have moved away from the historical practice of presuming injunctions in cases of continuing or willful infringement, and that this shift has weakened patent owners’ ability to stop ongoing infringement. The bill specifically says this has harmed individual inventors, universities, startups, and small and medium-sized businesses by making it harder to stop larger companies from continuing infringing activity.
If enacted, the bill would change the legal standard governing permanent injunctions in patent cases by favoring patent owners after a finding of infringement, while still allowing defendants to rebut the presumption with equitable defenses. In practical terms, it would likely make it easier for patent holders to obtain court orders stopping infringing products or conduct, and could increase litigation leverage for patent owners in settlement and enforcement disputes.
The available context shows no committee debate or recorded votes, so there is no documented floor or committee sentiment beyond the bill text itself. The bill’s tone is strongly pro-patent and pro-injunction, reflecting support for stronger remedies for patent holders. Because the measure would shift leverage toward patent owners, likely points of contention would include concerns from technology companies, manufacturers, and other accused infringers that it could increase litigation pressure, reduce judicial discretion, and make injunctions more automatic in patent disputes.
The bill would amend 35 U.S.C. § 283 by adding a rebuttable presumption in favor of permanent injunctions after a final judgment of patent infringement. This would alter federal patent remedies by making injunctive relief easier for patent owners to obtain, while preserving the ability of defendants to overcome the presumption through equitable arguments. It would primarily affect patent holders, accused infringers, and federal courts handling patent cases, and could have particular significance for inventors, universities, startups, and small businesses seeking to stop ongoing infringement.
The bill’s stated purpose and findings reflect strong support for restoring a more patent-owner-friendly injunction standard. The text frames the measure as a correction to recent court practice and as a way to protect innovation, exclusive rights, and smaller patent holders. No committee transcript or vote data is available, so there is no recorded legislative debate to indicate broader bipartisan or partisan sentiment beyond the bill’s sponsors and the bill’s pro-enforcement framing.
The main policy dispute is whether patent owners should receive a presumptive permanent injunction after proving infringement. Supporters are likely to argue that injunctions are necessary to protect the core exclusionary right of patents and to deter willful or repeated infringement, especially by large firms against smaller patent holders. Opponents are likely to argue that the presumption would limit judicial discretion, increase the risk of hold-up or coercive settlements, and make it harder for courts to tailor remedies in complex technology and product markets. The bill text itself identifies large multinational companies as the likely beneficiaries of the current system and portrays them as a source of predatory infringement, signaling the bill’s central conflict over enforcement power and remedy standards.