Patent Eligibility Restoration Act of 2025
- Sponsor
- Sen. Tillis, Thomas [R-NC]
- Committees
- Judiciary Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Oct 8, 2025
Bottom line
This bill fundamentally redefines patent eligibility in the U.S., aiming to broaden the scope of patentable inventions by statutory means and overturn decades of judicial precedent, particularly impacting software, business methods, and biotechnology.
What it actually does
This bill fundamentally redefines patent subject matter eligibility in the United States by amending 35 U.S.C. 101. It aims to eliminate all judicially created exceptions to patent eligibility, explicitly defining what types of inventions are eligible for patent protection and what specific categories are excluded, along with conditions that narrow those exclusions. The bill also establishes a new framework for how eligibility is to be determined, separating it from other patentability requirements like novelty and non-obviousness.
Proponents argue
Proponents argue that current patent eligibility law, shaped by Supreme Court decisions like Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int'l and Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Laboratories, Inc., has created significant uncertainty, stifled innovation in critical sectors like biotechnology and software, and made the U.S. patent system less predictable and competitive globally. They contend this bill provides much-needed clarity, encourages investment in R&D, and restores the original intent of Section 101.
Opponents contend
Opponents might argue that broadening patent eligibility could lead to an increase in low-quality patents, particularly in areas like business methods and abstract ideas, potentially stifling competition and innovation by allowing patents on fundamental concepts. They may also express concerns about the potential for patent trolls and increased litigation if the scope of patentable subject matter is expanded too broadly, ultimately hindering rather than promoting innovation.
The bill is relatively short, but its implications are vast and complex, requiring careful consideration beyond a quick read to fully grasp its impact on patent law and various industries.
Section 2
Congressional Findings on Patent Eligibility Jurisprudence
This section outlines Congress's rationale for the bill, stating that current patent eligibility law (35 U.S.C. 101) is confusing, inconsistent, and requires significant modification due to judicial exceptions. It explicitly declares the intent to eliminate all judicial exceptions and clarify what is patent-eligible and what is not, setting the stage for the statutory changes.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue these findings clearly articulate the problems with existing law and the necessity of legislative intervention to restore predictability and foster innovation, ensuring the U.S. remains a leader in intellectual property.
Critics contend
Opponents might argue that these findings overstate the negative impact of current jurisprudence or mischaracterize the role of judicial exceptions in preventing over-patenting of abstract ideas, suggesting the problem is less severe than portrayed.
Tradeoffs
This section navigates the tension between the desire for clear statutory guidance and the historical role of judicial interpretation in defining the boundaries of patentable subject matter.
Section 3(a)(1)(A)
Clarification of 'Process' Definition
This provision amends the definition of 'process' in 35 U.S.C. 100(b) to include 'a use, application, or method of manufacture of a known or naturally-occurring process.' This broadens the scope of what can be considered a patentable process, explicitly including new uses or applications of existing processes or natural phenomena.
Section 3(a)(1)(B)
Definition of 'Useful'
This provision adds a new subsection (k) to 35 U.S.C. 100, defining 'useful' as having 'a specific and practical utility from the perspective of a person of ordinary skill in the art to which the invention or discovery pertains.' This establishes a clear, objective standard for the utility requirement, preventing patents on purely theoretical or non-functional concepts.
Section 3(a)(2), new 35 U.S.C. 101(a)
Broadened General Patent Eligibility
This section replaces the existing 35 U.S.C. 101, stating that 'Whoever invents or discovers any useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject only to the exclusions in subsection (b) and to the further conditions and requirements of this title.' This re-establishes a broad eligibility standard, making all useful inventions in the four statutory categories patentable unless specifically excluded by the bill.
Section 3(a)(2), new 35 U.S.C. 101(b)(1)
Statutory Exclusions from Patent Eligibility
This subsection explicitly lists categories of inventions that cannot be patented 'as such.' These exclusions include mathematical formulas not part of a claimed invention, processes that are substantially economic, financial, business, social, cultural, or artistic (even with a machine reference), mental processes performed solely in the human mind, processes occurring wholly in nature, unmodified human genes, and unmodified natural materials. This codifies specific exclusions, replacing the judicially created exceptions.
Section 3(a)(2), new 35 U.S.C. 101(b)(2)
Conditions Modifying Eligibility Exclusions
This subsection provides crucial conditions that significantly narrow the scope of the exclusions listed in 101(b)(1). For mathematical formulas and economic/business processes, the invention is not excluded if it 'cannot practically be performed without the use of a machine or manufacture.' For human genes and natural materials, they are not considered unmodified if 'purified, enriched, or otherwise altered by human activity' or 'otherwise employed in a useful invention or discovery.'
Section 3(a)(2), new 35 U.S.C. 101(c)(1)
Rules for Determining Patent Eligibility
This provision mandates that eligibility be determined by considering the 'claimed invention as a whole and without discounting or disregarding any claim element.' Crucially, it also states that eligibility should be determined 'without regard to' the manner of invention, whether elements are known/conventional/naturally occurring, the state of the art, or any other consideration from Sections 102 (novelty), 103 (non-obviousness), or 112 (written description/enablement). This directly overturns the 'inventive concept' test from Alice/Mayo and prevents eligibility from being conflated with other patentability requirements.
Section 3(a)(2), new 35 U.S.C. 101(c)(2)
Eligibility Determination in Infringement Actions
This subsection allows courts in patent infringement actions to determine patent eligibility 'at any time,' including on a motion of a party when there are no genuine issues of material fact. It also permits 'limited discovery relevant only to the eligibility' before ruling on such a motion. This aims to provide a procedural mechanism for early resolution of eligibility disputes, potentially streamlining litigation and reducing costs.
Expands the definition of 'process' in 35 U.S.C. 100(b) to include 'a use, application, or method of manufacture of a known or naturally-occurring process.'
Section 3(a)(1)(A)
Why it matters:This is standard legislative practice for definitional updates, which are often placed in initial sections of a bill. However, its policy implications are significant.
Case for: Supporters argue this ensures that innovative applications of existing processes or natural phenomena are clearly patent-eligible, fostering innovation in fields like biotechnology and software where new uses of known elements are common.
Case against: Critics might contend it risks allowing patents on mere discoveries of natural laws or abstract concepts if the 'use' or 'application' is not sufficiently inventive, potentially hindering scientific research and follow-on innovation.
Estimated impact: Potentially broadens the scope of patentable subject matter for a significant number of inventions across various industries, particularly those involving new applications of existing knowledge.
Specifies that mathematical formulas and economic/business processes are *not* excluded from eligibility if they require a machine or manufacture for practical performance. Additionally, human genes and natural materials are *not* considered unmodified if altered by human activity (e.g., purified, enriched) or employed in a useful invention.
Section 3(a)(2), new 35 U.S.C. 101(b)(2)
Why it matters:This is standard legislative drafting to provide exceptions to general rules. However, their placement after the general exclusions makes them easy to underemphasize despite their profound impact.
Case for: Proponents argue these conditions are vital to ensure that practical, machine-implemented inventions and valuable biotechnological innovations remain patent-eligible, directly addressing concerns from industries affected by the Alice and Myriad decisions.
Case against: Opponents might argue that these conditions effectively undermine the intent of the exclusions, potentially allowing patents on inventions that are too close to abstract ideas or natural phenomena, leading to over-patenting.
Estimated impact: These conditions are arguably the most impactful part of the bill, as they define the practical boundaries of patent eligibility for software, business methods, and biotechnology, potentially opening up vast areas for patent protection.
Explicitly states that patent eligibility is to be determined 'without regard to' novelty (35 U.S.C. 102), non-obviousness (35 U.S.C. 103), or written description/enablement (35 U.S.C. 112).
Section 3(a)(2), new 35 U.S.C. 101(c)(1)(B)
Why it matters:This is standard legislative practice for procedural guidance. However, this particular instruction is a direct response to judicial precedent that conflated eligibility with other patentability requirements.
Case for: Supporters argue this is crucial to prevent the conflation of eligibility with other patentability requirements, which has been a major source of confusion and inconsistency under Alice/Mayo. It ensures eligibility is a threshold question, not a full patentability analysis.
Case against: Critics might argue that by separating these considerations, the bill risks allowing patents on inventions that are technically eligible but lack true inventiveness, potentially leading to an increase in low-quality patents that then need to be challenged on 102/103 grounds.
Estimated impact: Fundamentally changes the methodology for assessing patent eligibility, potentially streamlining initial reviews but shifting the burden of proof to other sections of patent law, which could increase litigation costs for challenging patents.